Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More.

Clim. Past Discuss., 3, 1037–1061, 2007
www.clim-past-discuss.net/3/1037/2007/
© Author(s) 2007. This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons License.
Climate
of the Past
Discussions
Climate of the Past Discussions is the access reviewed discussion forum of Climate of the Past
Precipitation variations of Longxi,
northeast margin of Tibetan plateau since
AD 960 and its relationship with solar
activity
L. Tan1,3, Y. Cai1, L. Yi2,3, Z. An1, and L. Ai1,3
1State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment,
Chinese Academy of sciences, Xi’an, 710075, China
2Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research for Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Yantai, 264003, China
3Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100039, China
Received: 14 September 2007 – Accepted: 17 September 2007
– Published: 28 September 2007
Correspondence to: L. Tan ([email protected])
1037
Abstract
The precipitation variations of Longxi area, northeast margin of Tibetan plateau since AD 960 are reconstructed from Chinese historical documentary records. It shows that since AD 960, the precipitation of Longxi fluctuantly decreased to the lowest in the end stage of 17th century and 18th century. After this period, the precipitation gradually increased. Three short wet periods of Longxi in the last millennium were: from the end of 10th century to the early of 11th century, from the end of 12th century to the early of 13th century and the first half of 20th century. The precipitation variations of Longxi coincide well with variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature and the atmospheric 14C concentration, the modeled solar output, the reconstructed total solar irradiance, which shows that solar activity may be the main driving force of precipitation variations of Longxi on multi-decadal to centennial scales in the last millennium.
Synchronous variations of Longxi precipitation and Northern Hemisphere temperature may be ascribed to the same control of solar activity. Solar activity controls remotion of the north edge of Asian summer monsoon by affecting Asia summer monsoon intensity, East Asian winter monsoon intensity and the locations of westerlies, thus further dominates precipitation variations of Longxi.
..........................
6 Conclusions
5 Generally speaking, since AD 960, the climate of Longxi was fluctuating dry until to the driest in the period from the end stage of 17th century to 18th century. After this period the precipitation gradually increased in fluctuations. There were only three short wet periods: from the end of 10th century to the early of 11th century, from the end of 12th century to the early of 13th century and the first half of 20th century. 10 The precipitation variations of northeast margin of Tibetan plateau and northeast Tibetan plateau are consistent in the last millennium and are well correlated with average temperature variations in North Hemisphere on multi-decadal to centennial scales.
Good coherences among the precipitation variations of Longxi and variations of atmospheric 14C concentration, the modeled solar output, the reconstructed total solar irradiance show that solar activity may be the main driving force of precipitation variations of Longxi area on multi-decadal to centennial scales in the last millennium. The synchronous variations of Longxi precipitation and Northern Hemisphere temperature may be ascribed to the same control of solar activity. Solar activity controls the south to north motion of north edge of Asian summer monsoon by affecting Asia summer monsoon intensity, East Asian winter monsoon intensity and the locations of westerlies, thus further dominates precipitation variations of Longxi.

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

doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.07.012


Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on δ18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China

Hai Xua, b, , , , Yetang Hongb, Qinghua Linb, Yongxuan Zhub, Bing Hongb and Hongbo Jiangb

aState Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Fenghui South Road, High-tech Zone, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, PO Box 710075, China

bState Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, 550002, China


Received 28 October 2004; revised 17 July 2005; accepted 19 July 2005. Available online 22 August 2005.

Abstract
During the past 6000 years, the temperature variation trend inferred from δ18O of peat cellulose in a peat core from Hongyuan (eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, southwestern China) is similar to the atmospheric 14C concentration trend and the modeled solar output trend. The general trend of Hongyuan δ18O during the past millennium also coincides well with the atmospheric 14C concentration trend, the 10Be concentration trend in an ice core from the South Pole, the reconstructed total solar irradiance trend, as well as the modeled solar output trend. In addition, temperature events also correspond well to solar perturbations during the past 6000 years. Therefore, the driving force of Holocene temperature variations should be properly ascribed to solar activity. The spectrum analysis further illustrates that quasi-100-yr fluctuation of solar activity was probably responsible for temperature variations in northeast Qinghai–Tibet plateau during the past 6000 years.

Keywords: Peat; Oxygen isotopic composition; Temperature; Solar activity; Qinghai–Tibet plateau; China

www.sciencedirect.com

Originally posted by melatonin

Errm, yeah, whatever.
...
I know you've been fisked as well, jdub. If you post inane rubbish, it can happen. It tends to pay to have some understanding of the science, sorry.

1st, inane rubbish is a non sequitur response to legitimate argument, such as "Errm, yeah, whatever."
2nd, you know nothing about me, or about "having been fisked," which is another ad-hominem, non-reponse.

If you had an understanding of any science, you wouldn't have to blindly quote your AGW gurus and could post cogent arguments in your own words (but, you don't have any of your own).

"The science," if you are halfway honest, is far from settled. Models and assumptions are easily manipulated, but citing factual data is open to independent confirmation or refutation.

And, critique of data can be accomplished without reference to the opponents or your perception of them.

Anything else betrays a lack of support or conviction.

jw

The following links are evidence that Solar activity not only affects the climate of Earth but also affects is geophysically.

On the relation between solar activity and seismicity
Gousheva, M.N.; Georgieva, K.Y.; Kirov, B.B.; Antanasov, D.
Recent Advances in Space Technologies, 2003. RAST apos;03. International Conference on. Proceedings of
Volume , Issue , 20-22 Nov. 2003 Page(s): 236 - 240
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/RAST.2003.1303913

Summary: Much attention is recently paid to the role of extraterrestrial factors in terrestrial seismicity, and to the possibility to assess the seismic risk. Seven centuries of records of ancient earthquakes in the Mediterranean region show that the century-scale variations in the number of strong earthquakes closely follow the secular cycle of solar activity. Two well expressed maxima in the global yearly number of earthquakes are seen in the 11-year sunspot cycle - one coinciding with sunspot maximum, and the other on the descending phase of solar activity. A day to day study of the number of earthquakes worldwide reveals that the arrival to the Earth of high speed solar streams is related to significantly greater probability of earthquake occurrence. The possible mechanism includes deposition of solar wind energy into the polar ionosphere where it drives ionospheric convection and auroral electrojets, generating in turn atmospheric gravity waves that interact with neutral winds and deposit their momentum in the neutral atmosphere, increasing the transfer of air masses and disturbing of the pressure balance on tectonic plates. The main sources of high speed solar streams are the solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) which have a maximum in the sunspot maximum, and the coronal holes with a maximum on the descending phase of solar activity. Both coronal holes and CMEs are monitored by satellite-borne and ground-based instruments, which makes it possible to predict periods of enhanced seismic risk. The geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a coronal hole only depends on the position of the hole relative to the Earth, and for the CMEs an additional factor is their speed. It has been recently found that a useful tool in identifying the population of geoeffective CMEs is the detection of long-wavelength (decameter-hectometer) type II solar radio bursts, as the CMEs associated with them are much faster and wider than average.

ieeexplore.ieee.org

Gravitational and geomagnetic tidal source of earthquake triggering
Journal Il Nuovo Cimento C
Publisher Italian Physical Society
ISSN 1124-1896 (Print) 1826-9885 (Online)
Issue Volume 12, Number 6 / November, 1989
DOI 10.1007/BF02511969
Pages 685-693
Subject Collection Physics and Astronomy
SpringerLink Date Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Add to marked items
Add to shopping cart
Add to saved items
Permissions & Reprints
Recommend this article


PDF (815.2 KB)Free Preview

Gravitational and geomagnetic tidal source of earthquake triggering
A. Palumbo1

(1) Dipartimento di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Università di Napoli, Largo S. Marcellino, 10, 80138 Napoli

Received: 14 November 1988 Revised: 20 May 1989

Summary Earth's tides and external geomagnetic fields are shown to be significantly related to large earthquake. A possible triggering mechanism is proposed to explain the large solar and lunar variations observed in the number of the examined shocks.

www.springerlink.com...

doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00475-7

Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8, 00881, 2006
SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU06-A-00881
© European Geosciences Union 2006
Anomaly in Kp, Eflux and atmospheric temperature
before the earthquake of Sumatra on 26th December
2004
S.Mukherjee (1), M. Weiyu (2)
(1)School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067, India,
[email protected], (2)Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, 321000, China,
[email protected]

When the Kp (planetary indices) and E-flux (electron flux) changes suddenly it affects the environment of the earth. These phenomena changes the thermosphere and lithosphere locally as well as globally. The response of the magnetosphere to interplanetary shocks or pressure pulses can result in sudden injections of energetic particles into the inner magnetosphere. It has been recorded that 36 hours before the occurrence of earthquake Kp values and E-flux increases drastically. After this increase sudden fall in Kp and E-fflux has been noticed before the earthquake and tsunami. The phenomenon was recorded before the Sumatra earthquake on 26th December 2004. Abnormal temperature increase in the earthquake and tsunami effected area of Sumatra (N15ž- S5ž, E80ž-E130ž) was also noticed. The NCEP temperature images were used for the period from 13th December 2004 to 26th December 2004. It has been observed that the temperature rise takes place from 14-22 December. Rise in Efflux and Kp value has been recorded from SOHO satellite data during 22nd December from 09-12 UT. After this sudden rise there was a continuous fall in Efflux and Kp till 26th December 00.00 hrs UT. The abnormal phenomenon of increase in temperature (more than 5žC ) in the Sumatra area and sudden drop before the earthquake (as recorded by NCEP) gives an early warning of earthquake in this area. Similar phenomenon was observed before Ms.7.6 Gujarat India, January 26, 2001,Ms.7.0 Iran December 26,2003, Ms.8.0 Hokkaido, September 26,2003, Ms 7.0 Japan October 23,2004, Ms d.2 Dayao, China July 21,2003, Ms 6.1 Dayao, China October 16, 2003, Ms 6.7 Tibet, China July 12,2004, and Iran February 23 2005 etc. All these case studies strongly support the changes of abnormal increasing temperature, Efflux, Kp and sudden fall before the seismic activity which has produced the killer tsunami and earthquake on the boxing day of 2004. It is possible to correlate the influence of Starburst on the development of the sunspots and further the sun-earth environment.

www.cosis.net...

Copyright © 2003 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Anomalous changes in column water vapor after Gujarat earthquake


References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

S. Dey a, S. Sarkar b and R. P. Singh , , a

a Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208 016, India

b CEOSR, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA


Available online 30 December 2003.

Abstract
Remote sensing data have been used to analyze the changes in column water vapor in response to the Gujarat earthquake, occurred on January 26, 2001. Anomalous changes in water vapor have been found over the surrounding land and oceanic regions around epicentral region before and after the earthquake. The sudden increase in column water vapor in the atmosphere before the earthquake may be attributed to the increase in evaporation due to increase in surface latent heat flux (SLHF). SLHF is found to increase two days before the earthquake and decrease after the main event on January 26, 2001 before it acquires the background value. Water vapor over the epicentral region is found to increase just before the earthquake whereas over the ocean, water vapor is found to increase after the earthquake.

www.sciencedirect.com


[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by melatonin

I'm yet to see you provide anything other than ad hominem attacks and insults. You have dismissed all the information as irrelevant, yet provide no relevant information yourself? I'm intrigued in the subject of global warming (well, climate change), so can you point me to anywhere that proves AGW that doesn't use dubious models? I have an open mind, and like to look at things from multiple angles. Any info would be much appreciated.

Also, I'd like to thank Electric Universe for the effort hes put into this thread. I do see most of the information as relevant, even though it's in no way a nail in the coffin of AGW, it definitely raises doubts.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


He will just point you to the same old links where people like Hansen and Mann make "claims" based on their own models. Nothing more, and nothing less.

He knows there is no definite proof to corroborate the claims that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the proponents of AGW.

We actually know for a fact that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, and water vapor constitutes at least 95% of the greenhouse effect in the troposphere, while CO2 and the rest of the GHGs constitute the other 5%.

the Troposphere is Earth's layer closest to it's surface, and where most weather events occur. It is in this layer that GHGs can affect the temperature of the Earth's surface, and as I stated water vapor is the main GHG, and not CO2.

Even with mankind's addition of CO2, it's amount is not enough to cause the warming claimed by the AGW proponents. Their claims are based on flawed computer models, which can support any theory you can come up with.

The main purpose of this thread, as i said in the original post, was to put together as many links, with excerpts which refute the AGW claim, but like always melatonin has to stick his nose where it doesn't belong and starts insulting, making red-herrings and trying to derail the thread.

I made this thread because another member asked me for these links, and since they are too many for a u2u, I posted them here for everyone.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 3.0 (September 9, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
[email protected]
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
[email protected]

Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.

In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

arxiv.org...

The above link has 114 pages, you should read it, or at least part of it if you are really interested in this topic.


[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by jdub297
1st, inane rubbish is a non sequitur response to legitimate argument, such as "Errm, yeah, whatever."

Didn't deserve a response, so it got more than it deserved.

2nd, you know nothing about me, or about "having been fisked," which is another ad-hominem, non-reponse.

No, it's a response. 'Fisked' just means having an argument pulled apart. Never heard of it? For example, you graced my thread on the evidence that the industry coalition ignored it's own scientists, it wasn't exactly a stunning discussion - just the normal deniers tripe.

If you had an understanding of any science, you wouldn't have to blindly quote your AGW gurus and could post cogent arguments in your own words (but, you don't have any of your own).

And this is the sort of response I need to live up to?

You do realise that you're in a thread with some big stunner of a claim with an OP who is just posting abstract after abstract? And when challenged, just perseverates and posts more and more with no response.

I have replied to almost everything muaddib has posted. He has nothing.

It's no better than his posting evidence after evidence that volcanoes exist, and then making the wild extrapolation that they can account for a whole variety of climate phenomena. Now we have him suggesting it's all the sun - he does that by posting an article the author accepts suggests minimal influence. Then we have a potential link between cosmic rays and climate, yet cosmic rays have been doing little in the long-term. And, finally, post after post of disparate proxy in some inane attempt to claim the MWP was warmer than now, even though it doesn't really matter that much, and multiple studies with high resolution and reliable temperature proxies suggest otherwise.

Nothing that lives up to the title of the thread.

Indeed, I'm sure the scientific world will be stunned when they all realise the Troof(TM) was posted on ATS. lol

"The science," if you are halfway honest, is far from settled. Models and assumptions are easily manipulated, but citing factual data is open to independent confirmation or refutation.

What is far from settled? That doubling of CO2 leads to 2'C warming or 4'C warming? Aye. That's not what you mean though. The part of science you think is not settled is long settled.

Only in deniers land is the possibility of human influences seriously debated. Even William Gray gets it, he just magics away an observed phenomena.

And, critique of data can be accomplished without reference to the opponents or your perception of them.

Anything else betrays a lack of support or conviction.

jw

Like you just did?

Listen, j, I have no gripe with you at all. You might not be a fan of my style, but I couldn't care any less, I try to have fun posting to totally inane and logically wacky claims. However, when a thread is started with reference to me and a blatent lie, don't expect to see fluffy kittens and flowers in my responses.

deny pigs in pants.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

Despite the claims of people like melatonin, that the Sun's irradiance stopped increasing decades ago, we know the fact is quite the oposite.

The following link, and excerpt shows that the major magnetic storms in the Sun have been increasing substantially, and in recent decades until about 2006-2007 the mean minimum magnetic disturbances have been higher than the mean major magnetic disturbances prior to the 1900s.

We also know for a fact that the Sun had been releasing some of the biggest sunspots starting since 1998 until about 2006 coinciding with the increase in temperatures on Earth.

MAJOR MAGNETIC STORMS 1868-2007
ACCORDING TO THE AA* CRITERIA

Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin

I have replied to almost everything muaddib has posted. He has nothing.
........

BS melatonin, there is no point arguing with you at all, your responses are always the same, you dismiss every evidence you don't want to admit to, and then claim, like you just did "nothing was posted to refute your claims"....

We don't need you making the same nonsensical rhetoric claiming "nothing was posted to refute your claims" when the contrary is seen in the information provided.


[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
reply to post by melatonin

 

I'm yet to see you provide anything other than ad hominem attacks and insults. You have dismissed all the information as irrelevant, yet provide no relevant information yourself? I'm intrigued in the subject of global warming (well, climate change), so can you point me to anywhere that proves AGW that doesn't use dubious models? I have an open mind, and like to look at things from multiple angles. Any info would be much appreciated.

lol

You think so? All I've posted is insults and ad hom? Get a life. But your concern is noted. I'm sure if you are that intrigued you might have bothered to read my posts.

Try from just the first page:

here

here

here

here

here

If you want teaching, for you, £20 an hour?

Also, I'd like to thank Electric Universe for the effort hes put into this thread. I do see most of the information as relevant, even though it's in no way a nail in the coffin of AGW, it definitely raises doubts.

It raises nothing. In fact, the only relevant issue towards AGW was that Bill Gray accepted AGW, but thinks that doing magic will make particular physical processes disappear.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

It raises nothing. In fact, the only relevant issue towards AGW was that Bill Gray accepted AGW, but thinks that doing magic will make particular physical processes disappear.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

BS, the claims of noone but yourself. Give it up Melatonin. You won't be able to have me banned again by laughing it off and calling in whoever your friendly staff member is.

I do have to wonder why you are still being allowed around here with the manner you respond to people with nothing more than insults. I have already gotten a couple of members sending me u2us about you responding to them with nothing more than insults, like you always do and have done for years. Anyone else would have been banned a long time ago.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin

Who was patting Rizla on the back?

I disagreed with him, lol.

do you actually read your posts? what i quoted added nothing whatsoever but insight into your open contempt. labia? do you believe that calling someone a p***y will make you look smart if only you use latin words?

'creationist' is a slur, the way you used it, the way everybody sees it. there is a saying in politics, demos, reps, same s**t, different pile, the same applies to ideologically motivated shills everywhere, who are for all intents and purposes politicised to their cores.

btw, what's wrong with the following statement: 'i know xx creationists who are trolling against GW (among other things), therefore everybody criticising GW is a creationist troll'. isn't that the exact logic at work here?

i could not care less who you think is a 'creobot' or how many of them embrace an anti GW stance for purely unrelated reasons, i'm sure there are many, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

'Must. Stop. Now. At. Any. Cost.'

But no-one really thinks that we can stop now. It will take time. No-one thinks that today we burn all the carbon we like and tomorrow we stop. It requires a gradual and determined change towards lower impact behaviour. Jeez, the talk is about how low we can keep it at - 450ppm is that gonna be OK? Who knows? But there are real risks, and like I've pointed out already, the uncertainties go both ways - 560ppm could be 2'C warmer or even 4.5'C warmer, probably 3'C though.

the fraction emitted through human activity is a tiny fraction of the total thing, any significant increase would have to rely on 'positive feedback' again, something which can't exist very long and for obvious reasons - and therefore rarely does. how old is this planet again?

i asked before, but weren't there times during which CO2 content of the atmosphere was higher than today? did the world melt down? on a related note : did it recover from ice ages?

For example, the consequences of losing glaciers that large populations depend on for fresh water is a good thing? There will be real consequences to significant warming.

i think the majority of people do fine without any glaciers involved, i would even go so far as to say that only a miniscule minority of people relies on them for a drink, which renders the argument quite moot, imho, because who really cares today of a couple of ten thousands of people have to move because of f-ex. dam projects? btw, i never denied that some effects would be detrimental in some locations.

increased vegetation would of course do a good job at retaining water, in fact last time i checked, rivers start out quite small in the beginning and grow larger where glaciers aren't even a consideration (amazon river anyone?), which means that they are not required by any stretch of the imagination. i am quite flummoxed how much emphasis you put in conserving what are essentially cold, localised deserts. is the status quo the only viable choice? can we even alter the climate either way? what if not? break out the whip and slap the flesh off our backs? cutting fingers off, yakuza style maybe?



how come no real solutions except fuel related ones are put forward?

how come there is viable tech which allows the sequestration of CO2 yet green groups quietly oppose it, because it would and i quote 'allow people to use more fossil fuels'? why not put your cards on the table? agenda maybe?

why are nearly all initiatives against GW either ineffectual (like wind power) or destructive (like biofuels) and why are improvements and corrections always put off to never never land? thermites have gut symbionts which break down cellulose, that much has been known forever. maybe super concentrated cities which need A/C or heating all year round are not really energy efficient.. maybe such a structure does attract alot of traffic, especially when mass transit is shunned. maybe focusing on the cars is kind of myopic?! maybe it's irrelevent how fuel gets used, be it for fertilizer or gas, but do substitution programs reflect that? why not?

you'd expect that a few years time would be enough to accomodate the critters in bioreactors, but no, every year we hear about 3rd gen biofuel and every year, megatons of food or crops competing with food crops for land are blown down the exhaust. as you put it in another thread: Groundhog day? do they believe i can't remember 2005?



like it or not, the tail is wagging the dog, as usual, the solutions are in place, the appropriate problems will be found in time. it is the responsibility of everyone, scientists included, not to let themselves be instrumentalized.


PS: i watched the video, i just don't see what it's supposed to add to the thread.

[edit on 2009.5.1 by Long Lance]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Thanks OP!

Despite all the emotion and hearsay that is a result of such threads, the only relevant information is that in the journal articles. I for one am interested to read them and I will tomorrow. I believe it is important to view such things from multiple aspects and to maintain an open mind. Especially in this world where the variables are constantly changing, those who are set on one idea or perspective are indeed blind to the holistic reality...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Despite the claims of people like melatonin, that the Sun's irradiance stopped increasing decades ago, we know the fact is quite the oposite.

Oh, more 'facts', lol.

Not just like melatonin. Like Lockwood, Frohlich, Lean, Solanki and others. Major researchers in the field. If only you knew what Leif Svalgaard has been pushing recently...

The data was presented earlier, and it speaks for itself. No need for me to claim anything. It hit a peak around 1940s/1950s and barely reached it again, and has probably been falling for 20 years or so, leading to hysterics about little ice ages, lol.

There was a thread about it on here, you took part.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by jdub297



You couldn't have said it better.

There are real environmental concerns that we should attend to, instead of allowing pseudo-science to triumph, giving more power to corporations, and people like Gore, to just redistribute wealth...

The whole carbon credit scheme is only transferring money from some rich man's hands, to another. Specially Gore's hands, and his puppets, who sell their carbon credits to rich companies meanwhile these companies keep emitting the same amount of CO2 as they were emitting before.

Is this what is "going to save the world"?....

And of course, the taxing to death of the regular people meanwhile the rich keep getting richer...




[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin

The data was presented earlier, and it speaks for itself. No need for me to claim anything. It hit a peak around 1940s/1950s and barely reached it again, and has probably been falling for 20 years or so, leading to hysterics about little ice ages, lol.

There was a thread about it on here, you took part.

BS. Wilson's research, as well as others which I linked in here show that the Sun's activity had been increasing after the 1940s and 1950s until at least 2002 as Wilson's research shows TSI had been still increasing in the 24 years he studied.


I guess the fact that the Sun had been emitting the largest sunspots starting from 1998 until about 2006 or so to you means the Sun's activity had decreased by then?.... Let me anwser in the manner you do....


And let's not mention the fact that I even posted the AA index from 1868 -2007 which shows, despite your continuing lies, that the Sun's magnetic activity had continue to increase until at least 2006 means to "melatonin" that the sun's activity, including TSI, had stopped increasing in the 1940s or 1950s...



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

I am really trying to keep up here, I am no scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Now I have a question for GW supporters.
THe planet has been at pretty much a constant temperature for the last 10 years.
In that time, China builds 1 coal fired power plant a week that generates enough power to give electricity to 1 million people.
Business has not slowed its production.
Flights have not decreased and in fact increased over the years.
More cars are on the road than ever before and people are using far more power now than ever before due to PC's being left on, plasma big screen TV's just to name a few power consumers.

So with all this extra CO2 being released as well as the constant clearing of land in places like the Amazon.
How come temperatures have remained static and not increased exponentially over the last decade?

WOW! thank you so much ElectricUniverse for making this thread

I'm not going to enter an argument I know little about, there is so much to digest in this thread, and a thorough read is definitely in order.

This information is good stuff for one wanting to educate oneself on climate change. S&F and looking forward to reading more on this fascinating subject.

Keep up the good work

Originally posted by Long Lance
do you actually read your posts? what i quoted added nothing whatsoever but insight into your open contempt. labia? do you believe that calling someone a p***y will make you look smart if only you use latin words?

Yeah, I laughed along essentially saying he's not worth paying, then said it was just that he was a bit peeved. So I disagreed with him.

I never called him a kitten. It's a saying that means he's a bit grouchy.

'creationist' is a slur, the way you used it, the way everybody sees it. there is a saying in politics, demos, reps, same s**t, different pile, the same applies to ideologically motivated shills everywhere, who are for all intents and purposes politicised to their cores.

If you say so.

It does mean they are suffering from anti-science syndrome.

btw, what's wrong with the following statement: 'i know xx creationists who are trolling against GW (among other things), therefore everybody criticising GW is a creationist troll'. isn't that the exact logic at work here?

That's not what I said though. That's your misrepresentation. I said there was an overlap, and there is in my experience. In both individuals and methods.

Take it as a slur if you want. But the comparison is fair enough.

i could not care less who you think is a 'creobot' or how many of them embrace an anti GW stance for purely unrelated reasons, i'm sure there are many, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

I think it was in response to something you asked me, no?

the fraction emitted through human activity is a tiny fraction of the total thing, any significant increase would have to rely on 'positive feedback' again, something which can't exist very long and for obvious reasons - and therefore rarely does. how old is this planet again?

You needed to be clearer here. I guess you mean CO2?

A tiny fraction of what 'total thing'?

We release enough CO2 to account for twice the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. The rest is taken up in sinks.

What are you trying to argue?

i asked before, but weren't there times during which CO2 content of the atmosphere was higher than today? did the world melt down? on a related note : did it recover from ice ages?

Well, the best comparable example of a massive release of carbon-based GHGs would be the PETM event. It led to several degrees warming, extinctions, and lasted for a hundred thousands years or something similar.

The world was still here. Didn't melt.

We have enough carbon to do that and it looks like we are releasing it faster. However, it was probably CH4 for the PETM, which breaks down into CO2 and hangs around.

And if we head that way, the earth will still be around. This is nothing to do with saving the earth.

i think the majority of people do fine without any glaciers involved

That's alright then. I'm sure the Bolivians will be chuffed.

i am quite flummoxed how much emphasis you put in conserving what are essentially a cold, localised deserts.

Aye, just cold deserts. Who cares...

how come no real solutions except fuel related ones are put forward?

how come there is viable tech which allows the sequestration of CO2 yet green groups quietly oppose it, because it would and i quote 'allow people to use more fossil fuels'? why not put your cards on the table? agenda maybe?

There are. We switch to more sustainable forms of energy. Then we can use 'fuels' for making plastic bags and cheap pharmaceuticals, lol.

lol, tbh, and I'm generally very open with it - the cards are face up and I had nothing better than pocket deuces - this is not something I follow that much.

why are nearly all initiatives against GW either ineffectual (like wind power) or destructive (like biofuels) and why are improvements and corrections always put off to never never land? thermites have gut symbionts which break down cellulose, that much has been known forever. maybe super concentrated cities which need A/C or heating all year round are not really energy efficient.. maybe such a structure does attract alot of traffic, especially when mass transit is shunned. maybe focusing on the cars is kind of myopic?! maybe it's irrelevent how fuel gets used, be it for fertilizer or gas, but do substitution programs reflect that? why not?

Biofuels is a pretty bad option. I agree. I tend to think feeding people is more important than a drive to KFCs. But, still, no-one is saying 'today coal, tomorrow not'. I think people are more pragmatic than that. But why is wind-power ineffectual?

Seems to be doing well enough...

WIND ENERGY GROWS BY RECORD 8,300 MW IN 2008
Smart policies, stimulus bill needed to maintain momentum in 2009

The U.S. wind energy industry shattered all previous records in 2008 by installing 8,358 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity (enough to serve over 2 million homes), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today, even as it warned of an uncertain outlook for 2009 due to the continuing financial crisis.

And I can drive 20 miles in a more than a couple of directions and find them near me. I'm actually pretty disappointed that we haven't started building numerous nuclear reactors here.

you'd expect that a few years time would be enough to accomodate the critters in bioreactors, but no, every year we hear about 3rd gen biofuel and every year, megatons of food or crops competing with food crops for land are blown down the exhaust. as you put it in another thread: Groundhog day? do they believe i can't remember 2005?

Aye, so push for better options.

like it or not, the tail is wagging the dog, as usual, the solutions are in place, the appropriate problems will be found in time. it is the responsibility of everyone, scientists included, not to let themselves be instrumentalized.

They aren't, they try to speak for themselves, but then get gagged and whined at, attacked for doing their job, and even sacked in NZ for speaking out.

But I know many people incidentally dance for industry interests through ideology.

PS: i watched the video, i just don't see what it's supposed to add to the thread.

Was meant to be sort of funny. You know, that thing that can sometimes puts a smile on your face.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]