• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

calamity said:
:lamo
Click to expand...

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

The bottom line is that the sun appears to have a large effect on the climate on various time scales. Whether or not the sunspots reflect the increase in solar activity since the Maunder minimum (as reflected in other datasets) is not very important. At most, if they don't reflect, it only strengthen's the idea that something associated with the solar wind does (such as the cosmic rays which they modulate).

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate?[FONT=&quot] If you search on google images “[/FONT]oceans as a calorimeter[FONT=&quot]”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. [/FONT]This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there[FONT=&quot]. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

[FONT=&]The bottom line is that the sun appears to have a large effect on the climate on various time scales. Whether or not the sunspots reflect the increase in solar activity since the Maunder minimum (as reflected in other datasets) is not very important. At most, if they don't reflect, it only strengthen's the idea that something associated with the solar wind does (such as the cosmic rays which they modulate).

[/FONT]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate?[FONT="] If you search on google images “[/FONT][B]oceans as a calorimeter[/B][FONT="]”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. [/FONT]This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there[FONT="]. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
With all due respect, that statement is based on ignorance.
Click to expand...

The last time the world was tropical, CO2 levels were at 2000 ppm. So, no. It's not the sun. It's the CO2.
 
calamity said:
The last time the world was tropical, CO2 levels were at 2000 ppm. So, no. It's not the sun. It's the CO2.
Click to expand...

Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth | Monthly ...


https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/423/2/1234/961320

by H Svensmark - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 41 - ‎Related articles
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 423, Issue 2, 21 June .... compounds in the air has been verified in the laboratory (Svensmark et al.



Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society | Calder's Updates


https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/monthly-notices-of-the-royal-astronomical-society/



Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark's latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on ...

Here are the main results:
The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.




 
calamity said:
:roll:

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

TvsTSI.png
Click to expand...

Science isn't that simple. It';s obviously too complex to you to understand what a 100 year ECS to 60% means.
 
Jack Hays said:
Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth | Monthly ...


https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/423/2/1234/961320

by H Svensmark - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 41 - ‎Related articles
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 423, Issue 2, 21 June .... compounds in the air has been verified in the laboratory (Svensmark et al.



Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society | Calder's Updates


https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/monthly-notices-of-the-royal-astronomical-society/



Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark's latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on ...

Here are the main results:
The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Svensmark: supernovae :lamo

Jack, you are really reaching for the stars on this one. :lol:
 
Lord of Planar said:
Science isn't that simple. It';s obviously too complex to you to understand what a 100 year ECS to 60% means.
Click to expand...

Yeah, of course. Why look at the obvious, like the rapid doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere, for warming and heat retention when you can point to outer space and say, "It's coming from out there." :lamo
 
calamity said:
The last time the world was tropical, CO2 levels were at 2000 ppm. So, no. It's not the sun. It's the CO2.
Click to expand...

Since when the present ongoing ice age has sequestrated lots of water as ice at the poles where it is immune to any temperature increase below +8c for Greenland and +20c for Antarctica.

The reason the temperature was so high, now is so cold, is that the land masses have moved over the South Pole and made the Arctic ocean into a land locked sea. Thus the warmth of the equator has a hard time getting to the poles via the usual ocean currents that would have opperated before the land was thus arranged.
 
Threegoofs said:
And remember. It’s not warming, but the warming that’s not happening is going to be awesome because I get chilly in the winter.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm kind of scared about. We've had one of the hottest summers this year, and the weather has been a brat this year like a sensitive millennial, and it won't be surprising if the winter will be colder than the past few years.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Since when the present ongoing ice age has sequestrated lots of water as ice at the poles where it is immune to any temperature increase below +8c for Greenland and +20c for Antarctica.

The reason the temperature was so high, now is so cold, is that the land masses have moved over the South Pole and made the Arctic ocean into a land locked sea. Thus the warmth of the equator has a hard time getting to the poles via the usual ocean currents that would have opperated before the land was thus arranged.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the poles, nowhere is the correlation between CO2 and temperature more evident.

edc.jpg
 
calamity said:
Speaking of the poles, nowhere is the correlation between CO2 and temperature more evident.

edc.jpg
Click to expand...

Ummmm. Do you notice that the CO2 slightly laggs the temperature?

Do you understand the reason for that?
 
calamity said:
Svensmark: supernovae :lamo

Jack, you are really reaching for the stars on this one. :lol:
Click to expand...

In the contest between the AGW hypothesis and the solar/GCR flux hypothesis, bigger, newer 21st century science will displace 19th century science.
 
Jack Hays said:
In the contest between the AGW hypothesis and the solar/GCR flux hypothesis, bigger, newer 21st century science will displace 19th century science.
Click to expand...

lol...more like fake scientists hired by Right Wing governments will continue to lie, and their followers will continue to deny what they see and hear.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Ummmm. Do you notice that the CO2 slightly laggs the temperature?

Do you understand the reason for that?
Click to expand...

In ice core samples? ls that not what you would expect? I would.

It's not like the CO2 falls out of the air instantly. :roll:
 
calamity said:
lol...more like fake scientists hired by Right Wing governments will continue to lie, and their followers will continue to deny what they see and hear.
Click to expand...

And jack will continue to slurp up whatever absurdity is dished out.
 
calamity said:
The last time the world was tropical, CO2 levels were at 2000 ppm. So, no. It's not the sun. It's the CO2.
Click to expand...

Except it was tropical with high CO2 because the earth was younger and hotter.
 
calamity said:
lol...more like fake scientists hired by Right Wing governments will continue to lie, and their followers will continue to deny what they see and hear.
Click to expand...

Nir Shaviv is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS). You may recall IAS as the place where Einstein worked after emigrating to the US.

Henrik Svensmark is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research.

To the extent their political views are known, both seem to be Euro-style Social Democrats.
 
Threegoofs said:
Don’t worry.

The deniers will let us know that it’s not warming at all, and besides the warming is no big deal. Sea level isn’t rising at all, and besides, the rise is no big deal. Glaciers aren’t melting at all, and besides, the melting is no big deal.

It’s like the old joke about the resort: the food is terrible, and the portions are so small!
Click to expand...
How long do we before Armageddon hits this time?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
How long do we before Armageddon hits this time?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not Armageddon. But, the ill effects are already present, and pretty easy to see.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Except it was tropical with high CO2 because the earth was younger and hotter.
Click to expand...

"The earth was younger." So that's why it was hotter. :lol:

Dude, the earth is 4 billion years old. 100 million, give or take, is not going to make all that much difference. That's like the difference for an adult between being age 39 and 40. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom