20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: Justoneman


Actually its not a matter of theory unless someone can present how the Earth is processing the pollution.

So do you have any links that present what has happened to all the chemicals we have been emitting since the industrial revolution?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Actually its not a matter of theory unless someone can present how the Earth is processing the pollution.

So do you have any links that present what has happened to all the chemicals we have been emitting since the industrial revolution?

Ok, how about you consider that most of the chemicals that man makes are possible in nature, not all granted. The earth has a mechanism for absorbing these back and the real issue for our environment IMHO is trashing the forests for profit and spewing various sewage and effluent streams into our water to the point the wildlife is strangled. We should focus on that and quit playing around with the idiots spouting AGW. We are wasting our good fortune of having the attention of the masses
with the bully pulpit to get scientific ideas through to them. We scientist will become heretics in the mind of the masses if we let members of the so called scientific community spout off lies unchallenged.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: D8Tee

Thorium can be used in reactors that are already on the market. The current issue is making sure the fuel is stable enough to use safely which takes years. Thorenergy is currently doing their second 5 year test of a thorium fueled reactor. In order to verify the positive results of the first test. Thorium should have been used from the beginning but you get far less bomb making material (plutonium) from thorium reactors.

Right.
Reactors that are not intrinsically safe.

The word is inherently but you are starting to read up now, I can put up with the naivety if I can get people to think outside of that box of BS we are being fed out of to make the carbon taxes happen.

ETA

Off topic but i have found your opinions interesting in the other forums. Please, do not take my brashness at this point as not liking how you think.

You are correct, the proper term would be inherently safe.

The AP1000''s being built in Georgia have an interesting design where they will not melt down for 72 hours even if the plant was to lose all power and back up generation.

Still, i'm of the belief that if man builds it, there is a chance it will fail.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: D8Tee

Thorium can be used in reactors that are already on the market. The current issue is making sure the fuel is stable enough to use safely which takes years. Thorenergy is currently doing their second 5 year test of a thorium fueled reactor. In order to verify the positive results of the first test. Thorium should have been used from the beginning but you get far less bomb making material (plutonium) from thorium reactors.

Right.
Reactors that are not intrinsically safe.

The word is inherently but you are starting to read up now, I can put up with the naivety if I can get people to think outside of that box of BS we are being fed out of to make the carbon taxes happen.

ETA

Off topic but i have found your opinions interesting in the other forums. Please, do not take my brashness at this point as not liking how you think.

You are correct, the proper term would be inherently safe.

The AP1000''s being built in Georgia have an interesting design where they will not melt down for 72 hours even if the plant was to lose all power and back up generation.

Still, i'm of the belief that if man builds it, there is a chance it will fail.

Ok i can see that point.. NO doubt you are right there.

Bill Clinton and John Kerry conspired to kill the funding into nuclear energy years ago. Shamefully really, seems a deliberate sabotage of the industry in my opinion.

originally posted by: D8Tee
Bill Clinton and John Kerry conspired to kill the funding into nuclear energy years ago. Shamefully really, seems a deliberate sabotage of the industry in my opinion.

And that type of thing hurts us. But, with the H2 cars all over the place and many other cool ideas (like the brakes that can recapture some of the energy to recharge an electric car for one) have me excited if we can just get past the road blocks that some very greedy people with agenda's have been creating. Big oil included. What we can't do is give up on the things that help us as a civilization because some groups have proposed a failed theory, or more, that the MSM keeps pounding down our throats as if it was a religion. We need to get the infrastructure in place to replace them that pass muster like solar panels cracking water for H2 to use in energy sources (it is how the international space station gets it's energy).

a reply to: Justoneman


Gee can you provide the specifics of the mechanism you are referring too? Just to go over a particular relevant that Earths atmosphere extends around to the surface of the planet to about 60 miles.


See, in so far as your commentary to which I am responding to. Its pretty much a bunch of bull # to claim that the Earth has a "mechanism", to resolve this issue without going into specifics.


No insult intended its just that where is your data to support your position?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Gee can you provide the specifics of the mechanism you are referring too? Just to go over a particular relevant that Earths atmosphere extends around to the surface of the planet to about 60 miles.


See, in so far as your commentary to which I am responding to. Its pretty much a bunch of bull # to claim that the Earth has a "mechanism", to resolve this issue without going into specifics.


No insult intended its just that where is your data to support your position?

My position again is this.

The Sun is affecting our solar system's magnetic field in a historical manner. The earth and other planets have been changing due to that. I have papers here among my responses that clue us in to my theory. I am not sure how to get that through to you if I haven't already. You may be right, but this yellow ball in our solar system is really what we need more data on and our society hasn't had this level of ability to analyze the data as we are just now beginning to do. We are at a new place in history IMHO with being smart enough to understand that the magnetic pole is shifting dramatically, just to be fair. That is the best I can offer to answer you.

originally posted by: Phage
...
The thing is, solar output has not changed much in the past 50 years (actually declining a bit) while global temperatures continue to rise.
lasp.colorado.edu...

Yes, the Sun affects climate. Of course. So, what has changed about the Sun to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

False. You have been shown many times in the past research that states the Sun's activity had continued to increase. Yet you continue making these false claims that "the sun's activity hasn't changed much, and in fact declined a bit for the past 50 years"...

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
...
October 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.
...

www.mpg.de...

The above research is from 2004. Here is a graph of the data from the above link.



Here is more data corroborating this increase in solar activity from Richard Wilson, who has been the principal investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments. He found in a study he conducted covering 24 years of data, from 1978-2002, that solar activity had been increasing in times of quiet sunspot activity by 0.05% per decade, and that if this trend occurred for 100 years it would cause significant climate change.

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Mar. 20, 2003

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Then there are other research papers that point out this increase activity in our sun had continued until about 2005-2006, when the Sun's activity lowered and we had a dip in temperatures.

Then there are other changes occurring on Earth which would also affect our climate. From the weakening of Earth's magnetic field which began around the 1840s, which would affect how much energy would reach the Earth from the Sun and other sources outside the solar system. To the fact that geothermal activity on Earth, alongside seismic activity, have been increasing. The increase geothermal activity on Earth has been melting glaciers, which in turn would affect the global thermohaline circulation, which in turn would also affect Earth's climate.

Impact of the oceanic geothermal heat flux on a glacial ocean state
...
Conclusions
In the present study, we investigated the response of the ocean to the geothermal
heat flux during a glacial period, such as the LGM, when the ocean circulation and stratification were different from today. We found that the heat flux at the sea floor is a significant forcing of the deep ocean and the global thermohaline circulation. The Antarctic Bottom Water participates in the transport of geothermally heated waters from the Indo-Pacific to the North Atlantic basin, indirectly favouring the deep convection in the North Atlantic and contributing to the deepening of North Atlantic Deep Water.
...

www.clim-past-discuss.net...

Then there is the strange behaviour of our Sun.

Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.

The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period.
...
Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...

www.nature.com...

Here is another link for anyone interested.

Sun's Surprise: Even As It Relaxes, It May Heat Earth's Climate

The Sun has been reacting to a change in our solar system environment.

a reply to: Justoneman


In your humble opinion has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 produced by humans, for the last 150 years is able to escape the Earths Atmosphere.


Again, you are the one who has claimed there is a "Mechanism", that deletes this effect.



Where is your data to that effect?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


In your humble opinion has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 produced by humans, for the last 150 years is able to escape the Earths Atmosphere.


Again, you are the one who has claimed there is a "Mechanism", that deletes this effect.



Where is your data to that effect?

Oh I didn't say that. What I said in essence is, CO2 is close to meaningless compared to the Sun and I said the plants and animals thrived because CO2 fed them. I get the feeling from some of you members of the church of AGW that you think we can survive if Sol turns itself off.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

t's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.
Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008.

skepticalscience.com...

Sun's getting cooler but Earth getting warmer so it the warmer earth has nothing to do with the sun.

Common sense would be that the earth would be cooler.

So why would a cooler Sol make the Earth warmer?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 3danimator2014

What I think it speaks to is that there are conflicting reports, not to mention loads and heaps of private interest funding the research.

Its sad. It isn't that people are dimwitted, or we are re-entering the dark ages. People are suspicious of science for very good reasons, and this is a good example. It doesn't take sophistication to tell that there are problems, like a lack of repetition of the results, the lack of null result reports, p-hacking, inadequate sample sizes, and other control issues.

Im not a scientist, and I can see issues on both sides of the argument. And im honestly left wondering why, instead of carbon, we can just agree that plastics, mercury, and pharmaceuticals shouldn't be in our water and fix THAT. I mean, i can see the importance of understanding the carbon cycle on climate to see if we can better control how the climate functions. But if we are going to instead scream at each other while staring into our navel, why don't we instead focus on something we can actually agree on that will improve everyones lives, and kick that carbon can down the road a couple of years while we get our ducks in a row scientifically (because im here to tell you the ducks are running amok).

Amen!

I am a scientist, trained in two fields of science. I've been schooled in the scientific method all my life. One of the first principles I learned was that science is never "settled" because there are always new theories to be tested. That fact was what first alarmed me about the whole global warming issue. There are too many people out there who have been convinced that science can be "settled" on such a multi-layered issue. Such limited data is going to produce limited information so how could anything be settled?

So I'm with you, why not concentrate on cleaning up the things we can and doing our best not to dirty up our environment? I'm ready to move away from this disposable society. Clean up the water supply and we don't have to clog up the landfills and waterways with billions of plastic water bottles. Go back to returnables on soda and beer. I can't save the world but I can refrain from screwing up the portion of it I'm occupying.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 3danimator2014


[qoute]
Amen!

I am a scientist, trained in two fields of science. I've been schooled in the scientific method all my life. One of the first principles I learned was that science is never "settled" because there are always new theories to be tested. That fact was what first alarmed me about the whole global warming issue. There are too many people out there who have been convinced that science can be "settled" on such a multi-layered issue. Such limited data is going to produce limited information so how could anything be settled?
So I'm with you, why not concentrate on cleaning up the things we can and doing our best not to dirty up our environment? I'm ready to move away from this disposable society. Clean up the water supply and we don't have to clog up the landfills and waterways with billions of plastic water bottles. Go back to returnables on soda and beer. I can't save the world but I can refrain from screwing up the portion of it I'm occupying.
******************************************

YES, YES, YES. Concentrate on what you can do that will affect the health of the land near you is spot on. Leaving a smaller footprint that Al does will be easy but we can do better than we are, no doubt

edit on 3-5-2017 by Justoneman because: cant get the quote from Diggin in the right place

edit on 3-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Kashai

Skepticalscience website is, to borrow the phrase, "fake news"... I presented two links and excerpts which denies the claims made by "skepticalscience" among some others. Phage is one of the members who also makes claims similar to those of the "skepticalscience" website, which are easy to refute.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Ok so its easy to refute that over the last 150 years the effects of warming to our environment, despite the fact that Sol is cooler, is the result of Sol??


Guys this is pretty much common sense type of stuff.


The point offered is to produce data that provides specifics not, "oh we just have not figured it out yet but we will soon??


Data please that supports your position or in all sincerity

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Ok so its easy to refute that over the last 150 years the effects of warming to our environment, despite the fact that Sol is cooler, is the result of Sol??


Guys this is pretty much common sense type of stuff.


The point offered is to produce data that provides specifics not, "oh we just have not figured it out yet but we will soon??


Data please that supports your position or in all sincerity

It may sound funny to hear, but you are spouting the position of the IPP crew minus those studies mentioned among this thread where they recently reported they DID NOT endorse the IPP lie... But hey who cares we can tax carbon and get rich says the greedy ones telling this lie.

a reply to: Justoneman



What your doing is not different that me starting a thread claiming that Supper Symmetry is fact.

The obvious question is where is my data to prove that.

There is nothing funny about my query and again where is your data??

a reply to: Kashai

Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people: study

Link

Supper Symmetry is fact.

What is that, where everyone at the table gets the same portions?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman



What your doing is not different that me starting a thread claiming that Supper Symmetry is fact.

The obvious question is where is my data to prove that.

There is nothing funny about my query and again where is your data??

My data is in this thread. Playing dumb is not your forte' i see.