If the Weatherman can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather, how can they predict Global Warming

Increased intergallatic "dust" seems to increase cloud cover, which does cool the Earth. But the more cosmic rays that hits Earth, the more nucleons that are present and release more heat.

You are trying to divide every natural factor. It is not only that the sun's activity has increased recently more than it has for 1,000 years.

The Earth's magnetic field has weakened since 1845, more than it has for the past 780,000 years.

The solar system entered the cloudlet we are in 2,000-10,000 years ago, which has a temperature of at least 7,000 Kelvin.

Because the magnetic field of Earth and the sun are weaker, more of the interstellar particles which are present in the cloudlet we are in have been absorbed by the solar system; and we can see the changes that these, and probably other natural factors are causing not only on Earth, but other planets in our solar system including the Sun.

You are trying to dismiss facts, and are instead puting your blind belief in computer models that can't predict the weather in the next two weeks, yet you want to claim some computer models can tell us what is causing these changes better than what the observation of events that are occurring in the solar system can tell us.

I am reaching my conclusions on the observable facts, not on "computer models which are flawed"...

Originally posted by melatonin
.............
Every planet? The data does not support such a comment. Remember the difference between localised and global effects?

Muaddib, you're own suggestions do not add up. This is where you are now....

Remember that there is no such thing as "global warming all over Earth"?...

The southern hemisphere has not experienced the warming that the northern hemisphere on Earth has been experiencing. In fact the amount of ice in the southern hemisphere has increased...and the same can be said in parts of the nothern hemisphere...

Your suggestions that "mankind is at fault for global wamring" are based on "flawed data from flawed computer models"...

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Increased intergallatic "dust" seems to increase cloud cover, which does cool the Earth. But the more cosmic rays that hits Earth, the more nucleons that are present and release more heat.

You are trying to divide every natural factor. It is not only that the sun's activity has increased recently more than it has for 1,000 years.

The Earth's magnetic field has weakened since 1845, more than it has for the past 780,000 years.

....

Because the magnetic field of Earth and the sun are weaker, more of the interstellar particles which are present in the cloudlet we are in have been absorbed by the solar system; and we can see the changes that these, and probably other natural factors are causing not only on Earth, but other planets in our solar system including the Sun.

The research does show this should have a cooling effect. Same with increasing cosmic rays, same with ozone-depleting mono-atomic hydrogen. The magnetic reduction should increase cooling by all these mechanisms, according to current work.

The solar system entered the cloudlet we are in 2,000-10,000 years ago, which has a temperature of at least 7,000 Kelvin.

How will this effect climate here on earth? Unless you have some research showing this to be important and able to overcome all the other cooling effects possibly induced by ISD/CRs, we just don't know what this will do.

You are trying to dismiss facts, and are instead puting your blind belief in computer models that can't predict the weather in the next two weeks, yet you want to claim some computer models can tell us what is causing these changes better than what the observation of events that are occurring in the solar system can tell us.

I am reaching my conclusions on the observable facts, not on "computer models which are flawed"...

Well, you're not really. You are dismissing the cooling effects that should occur from an increasingly dense ISD and increasing cosmic rays.

Although, cosmic rays are beside the point - we see no significant trend. We also see no cooling on earth.

I'll wait for better data to assess whether we have global warming around the solar system. Just liked I waited for better data for anthropogenic global warming here on earth.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by melatonin]

Yeah well, we also know that:

Cosmic Ray
The high energy atomic radiation that bombards the earth from space. Cosmic ray particles are predominantly high energy protons and 4He nuclei (a-particles). Part of the cosmic ray flux originates at the sun, and is generated by solar flare events. The remainder comes from interstellar space. The mechanisms giving rise to the highest energy cosmic rays are not well understood. The impact of cosmic rays on the atmosphere gives rise to nuclear reactions, generating the cosmogenic nuclides such as 14C, 10Be and 26Al.

www.rafterradiocarbon.co.nz...

There is an increase in voltage, from 100 volts per meter to several thousand volts per meter in the Earth's upper atmosphere when it is bombarded by cosmic rays. The effects of cosmic rays on Earth's atmosphere are not "small"...

Add all of the above i mentioned, to the fact that we came out of an ice age and we have experienced more recently increases in the seismic and magmatic activity all over Earth, which are releasing large amounts of CO2 and methane gas. More than mankind can release...yet mankind is at fault for the current warming trends?..

How is it possible, when there are natural factors which release more greenhouse gaes than mankind can ever release. Mankind anthropogenic CO2 is 0.28%, out of the 1% of trace gases found on Earth, 95% of trace gas is water vapor; yet the 0.28% is the reason why there is warming?

Some activities of man do have some effect on local climate, but the natural processes always take over and far surpass anything that mankind can do.


[edit on 19-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Remember that there is no such thing as "global warming all over Earth"?...

Well, we expect variations across the earth, but overall we expect to see a long term upwards trend in temperature.

The southern hemisphere has not experienced the warming that the northern hemisphere on Earth has been experiencing. In fact the amount of ice in the southern hemisphere has increased...and the same can be said in parts of the nothern hemisphere...

From Mann & Jones (2003). Geophysical Research Letters, 30, 1820





Blue lines show instrumental record. The proxies as shown in the atlas...




We do only have restricted proxes for the SH though, so uncertainties are greater than NH.

www.meteo.psu.edu...

Your suggestions that "mankind is at fault for global wamring" are based on "flawed data from flawed computer models"...

GCMs, physico-chemical properties, isotope studies. Arrhenius predicted what increases in CO2 would do in the late 1800s. Hansen's 20 year old model didn't do too bad, neither do the more modern simulations (Bauer et al even have a nice MWP for you)...



From Mann et al (2003) Eos Forum.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


Try throwing an extra 13 tog quilt on your bed when you sleep tonight, see what happens

is based on the assumption that computer models can predict 100% what happens in Earth's atmosphere....and at the risk of repeating myself we can't even predict the weather for the next two weeks right

There is a big difference between climate and weather. Weather is more choatic than climate. I can pretty much say for sure that it will be warmer than now where I am on a particular day in august, but predicting rain next week is more uncertain. I could predict no rain on that august day, but this would be less certain than temperature.

A good analogy is boiling a pan of water. I find that it boils at 100.3'C (it has a few impurities), the first bubble appears at far corner at an angle of 10 degrees.

I get a new fresh pan of water. I predict it will boil at 100.3, the first bubble will appear at pan-edge 10 degrees. I find it boils at 100.5 but the first bubble appears at 130 degrees just off the pan-centre.

I can repeat this 100 times. My temperature assessment will always be close, but the chaotic nature of first bubble appearance will show very high levels of uncertainty.

Climate is a bit like predicting boiling point, weather is like chaotic bubble predicting. Two different levels of a system, different levels of uncertainty. Neither 100% certain though.

Add all of the above i mentioned, to the fact that we came out of an ice age and we have experienced more recently increases in the seismic and magmatic activity all over Earth, which are releasing large amounts of CO2 and methane gas. More than mankind can release...yet mankind is at fault for the current warming trends?..

We came out of the last age around 10,000 years ago. The main GGs have been pretty stable for most of that time, in the last 1000 years...



We can't just release millions of tonnes of GGs in such a short time and also destroy massive ecosystems, then see no effect. No-one ignores solar effects or anything else, it just can't fully account for what we observe.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by melatonin]

Puting together different proxies which have different results and some of of them show that for example the MWP was warmer than today, if you look at Esper's graph in those proxies you provided, does not show that Mann was right.....

Mann's data and claims have been that temparatures have been very stable for the last 1,000 or more and then they went up... Sorry but nomatter how you try to paint it he has been wrong..

CO2 levels have increased, but mankind activity have provided 0.28% of the Co2, and that's because we don't even know the amount of CO2 that have been released naturally... There are underwater events which we have only recently begun to understand and see, and these magmatic and seismic events release more CO2, methane and other trace gases more than mankind can ever release....

An increase of CO2 of 0.28% by anthropogenic activity is actually good for Earth, since it gives more CO2 to plant life and they in turn give out more oxygen...

Originally posted by melatonin

I'll wait for better data to assess whether we have global warming around the solar system.

There is already such data. Since the 17th century jupiter has been observed, and any major changes, such as the appearance of the new spot that just happened recently, would have been noticed even back then.

But the thing is that Jupiter is not alone in these recent warming trends, warming trends are happening to every major planet in our system. There are also moons of the largest planets in the solar system which are currently undergoing warming of their own. The Earth is not alone in the current warming trends it is experiencing.

Originally posted by melatonin
Just liked I waited for better data for anthropogenic global warming here on earth.

Just like you want to dismiss that there are also cooling trends on parts of the Earth?

Just like you want to dismiss natural geological events which release more GGs than mankind can ever do?...

Just like you and some other people, including some scientists want to believe that mankind provoked the warming we are experiencing by providing 0.28% CO2 to the Earth?....

Let's just dismiss all the facts and data and lets just keep on blaming mankind for something we never really had any control over....

[edit on 19-2-2007 by Muaddib]

they can predict global warming cause it is only a prediction and if they are wrong they can say look it was only a prediction

and if they are wrong there words still has the ability to effect laws and change in legislation in the mean time because of the amount of "Authority" it carries



[edit on 19-2-2007 by cpdaman]

Originally posted by Muaddib

But that's not all, in fact there has been an increase in sunspots which are not being taken into account by the "it's all mankind's fault crowd".

I don't see how "increased sunspot activity" mean anything to support your argument. The sunspots after all are cooler parts of the sun.

This graph contradicts your argument.

Yes, there is evidence that there is more luminosity from the sun, but this evidence does not support it at all. An increase in luminosity would be associated with fewer sunspots - which is what we are actually experiencing. This graph is junk. Sunspots are going down.

This if anything supports your argument. (somewhat)


[edit on 19-2-2007 by carlwfbird]

Originally posted by carlwfbird

I don't see how "increased sunspot activity" mean anything to support your argument. The sunspots after all are cooler parts of the sun.

They are cooler parts of the photosphere of the Sun, but it is a common misconception by some to believe this means a "cooler Sun", in fact it means the oposite.

Meanwhile sunspots themselves are cooler than the rest of the Sun, the surrounding areas are much brighter. The more sunspots there are, the overall effect is a brighter Sun.

Sunspots are also the source of most flares and coronal mass ejections.

Originally posted by carlwfbird
This graph contradicts your argument.

Pray tell me how exactly does it contradict my argument?

Originally posted by carlwfbird
This if anything supports your argument. (somewhat)

First it contradicted my argument and now it supports my argument?

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Muaddib]

weathermen suck, in my job we rely on there forecast, just last week they forecasted 35 mile an hour winds so i gave all the guys off guess what the winds never got over 5 miles an hour. when i do listen to the forecast i try to plan the week one or two days later they change the forecast. and we mainly rely on the national weather forecast center.

my guess is they have 2 guys or gals playing paper rock scissors and who ever wins gets to submit there guess.