The Ancients knew better: Sun changes the climate

Are we going away from science and common knowledge when it comes to this whole Global Warming scheme? It appears that the ancient cultures perfectly understood the weather and the changes that come with the sun. Such sun cycles, are the causes of Climate Change.

You don't need scientific data to prove that the sun effectively changes the weather... Sheesh That's been common knowledge before Global Warming was even a thought. Even cavemen realized that when the sun goes down it gets dark, different animals come out, and it gets colder. The Ancient cultures worshiped and tracked the sun for generations and realized what it does. Now, it appears the gov't and cherry picked data is trying to tell us differently.

The scientific and media communities are effectively brainwashing the people with pseudo scientific and political dogma that can be compared to a religion.

You going to source anything, or just suggest that all ancients knew of solar maximums and such?


Your discussing day to day weather btw, which is not meteorology.
But ya...looking forward to you sourcing out how well in tune the ancients were to global warming/cooling cycles and how they knew it was the suns output.

Ancients also btw believed by making the right blood sacrifice, they could make it rain (once the gods got whatever sacrifice appeased them...basically just keep killing stuff day after day until it rained...it wasn't an exact science).
I suppose we should also go back to that understanding also?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
The scientific and media communities are effectively brainwashing the people with pseudo scientific and political dogma that can be compared to a religion.

Wanted to address this also...
So..you therefore want to replace what -you- determine is pseudo-science (basically you can't understand it, therefore its pseudo-science) with ancient superstitions?

mhmm...them durned scientist would also have you think this world is spherical shaped..the ancients knew it was on the back of a turtle! Take that science!
-ponders enormous amounts of turtle soup-

so we're bringing the conversation down to "when the sun goes down it gets dark" ?

boooo

So by your definition then, calendars, seasons, and agriculture itself is all pseudo-science right....

reply to post by SaturnFX


The problem i see with this whole Global Warming debacle is that the advocates for global warming do not have a majority of scientist's agreeing with the theory associated with "Globabl Warming." Thus if you do not have a theory that can not be undenieably understood by all scientist's, then the Global Warming debate still sits as a hypothesis.

So, in a nutshell global warming is nothing more than a hypothesis if you go by any text book academia, and msm, can pack powder until i see not one scientist in any nation denying its validity

a guy was hired by the GOP to crush the AGW theory. they went out and found a skeptic who said al gore was "an exaggerator"

he eliminated bias by using enourmous random samples, and all the available data. no cherry picking here.

I would have paid money to see the looks on the faces of the guys who paid him to debunk AGW when he testified on front of congress under oath that;

the earth is getting warmer

and

it corelates to the industrial revolution , and human activity is responsible for some of it

prof mullers testimony

add that to recent studies showing solar activity is not escalating at similar levels and you can only come to one conclusion;

drilling for oil, burning it and releasing the byproducts into the atmosphere is a bad idea on the scale we are doing it

and how did the ancients measure solar activity ?

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The problem i see with this whole Global Warming debacle is that the advocates for global warming do not have a majority of scientist's agreeing with the theory associated with "Globabl Warming." Thus if you do not have a theory that can not be undenieably understood by all scientist's, then the Global Warming debate still sits as a hypothesis.

So, in a nutshell global warming is nothing more than a hypothesis if you go by any text book academia, and msm, can pack powder until i see not one scientist in any nation denying its validity

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
SCIENTISTS

Share this on:Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn January 19, 2009

A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

c'mon. don't try to get that one by the goalie here

lol

I would like to say, that at this point Climate science is at step 3 of the scientific methods. You have the observation, you have the hypothesis, now you are making graphs and graphs and predictions upon predictions. The next step of the scientific method is experimentation. How do you experiment, to prove, without a doubt that climate change is caused by Humans?

Short of putting an entire test population in a regulated environment you cannot prove it using science as we know it!

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
c'mon. don't try to get that one by the goalie here

lol

I think he/she was being quite clear actually
every single scientist on earth must agree to this. not a single dissenting voice..until then, its jusy hypothesis no matter how much evidence they put forward.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I would like to say, that at this point Climate science is at step 3 of the scientific methods. You have the observation, you have the hypothesis, now you are making graphs and graphs and predictions upon predictions. The next step of the scientific method is experimentation. How do you experiment, to prove, without a doubt that climate change is caused by Humans?

Short of putting an entire test population in a regulated environment you cannot prove it using science as we know it!

edit on 4-2-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

Christs sakes...I swear, people simply decide reality based on whatever passes through their mind at any given moment

Google: Your enemy (clearly)

Please explain where the "making bars graphs" part is in here...

We are in the theory state of climate change/destablization. the global warming part is well underway with many many observed and tested results confirming this.

-facepalms-

No, your not allowed to redefine what the scientific method is.

Yeah global warming is so real that it is summer here in Australia, possibly one of the coldest in the last decade or so and Im sitting in my house with a cool breeze coming through the door when any other year I would be sweating my arse off with the air con blasting, yet we are one of the first countries to introduce this global scam which is most likely going to pay our leaders for the pay rise they all just received.

Global warming is laughable just the same as the political leaders.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
It appears that the ancient cultures perfectly understood the weather and the changes that come with the sun. Such sun cycles, are the causes of Climate Change.

Then why were ancient civilization destroyed by drought, flood and changes in the weather - if they understood all of this - this shouldn't have occurred - please explain.

You can read ancient prayers to the gods and the sun, they believed it is a god or goddess who is angry at them, not a natural phenomenon they can 'understand'.

Your idea is a bad theory

If we as a collective can alter the magnetic feild of the earth.... source is it really that much more of a stretch that we can affect the sun?

Yes the warming coincides our development. And yes that seems to be evidence that we caused it.
But we dont know for certain, that means theres a possibility something else caused it.

The sun directly affects the troposphere, which affects the jet stream, which affects our weather. So yes, if you want to get technical,this is a discussion about the sun and our weather.

I agree with the OP. I dont have the answers, but I feel like we arent looking at the whole picture. The universe does not revolve around us and our CO2 emissions. Its possible climate change was caused by us, its also possible it wasnt.

We only get one side of the story, because its political. You can get a lot of people to do what you want if you frame it in a "green" agenda.

reply to post by osirys


The sun causes climate change but we also make it much worse by our pollution

reply to post by Hanslune

The Sun causes climate (and weather) but it's difficult to reconcile the very small changes observed in solar irradiance with climate change.

Various cycles in climate seem to have more to do with the Earth's orbit and orientation to the Sun than any variation of the Sun's activity.

reply to post by Hanslune



I definitely agree. I just think that they may be other things that contribute also. And I think that our role in climate change may be a bit exaggerated.

I dont know the answers, but I think its foolish to focus so much of our attention on one cause, and ignore the others.

Should we be environmentally responsible? Yes. Will that fix the whole problem? Not in my opinion.

reply to post by SaturnFX


The bar graphs are the tons of prediction and doomsday scenarios that the environmentalists like to throw around without having any physical experimentation to prove any of it!

So, it's not me who's messing up the scientific method, it's them!

Regardless of wether you subscribe to the theory of "man made" global warming or not, the Earth is warming. We are in an interglacial period are we not? Isn't that what it's supposed to do? Variations in the warming or cooling have always been, the causes of which are not always the same. Sea levels have been both higher and lower than today. There was even a time when there were no glaciers. Let's say we did cause this and could reverse it, how far back should we go? I personnaly don't want to see 2 or more miles of ice covering where I live, as it was a few thousand years ago. The Earth has always popped in and out of ice ages, change is inevitable no matter what we do. Parts of the earth go back and forth from desert to oasis every 5000 or so years do the the change in jet stream, ocean currents etc. Did we do that? The point is we are basically powerless to stop changes in the earths weather and climate, so we must adapt. Why are we so fixed on keeping things exactly the way they are now? Weather changes, animal species come and go for a variaty of reasons. Are we a part of that change? Most definitely, but such is evolution. When the dinosaurs came about and evolved did the earth change. Of course. We are but another animal evolving on this planet.

The climate is definitely changing, and if we're not causing it, then we're at the very least allowing it to happen by letting the global warming "debate" leak over into the Ancient Civilizations section of this forum!

Harte