Climate Change

[Aardwolf]

Considering it would be absurd to expect temperatures to remain constant over any period of time; do you think it would be better for world temperatures to increase or decrease?

[CTJG 1986]

Considering it would be absurd to expect temperatures to remain constant over any period of time;

This is the core of my "skeptic argument", as it always has been. Climate varies constantly, it has never been and never will be a constant in any equation simply because the factors that produce it are dynamic and constantly varying themselves(regardless of the influence/cause of varying).

To take a small 100 year slice of the geological timeline and a 1 degree alleged increase in temperature to use as a basis for these climate change models when the "mainstream" alleges this planet to be at least millions if not billions of years old and has been subject to massive/extreme climate variances throughout that time... well it's literally being very shortsighted, no?

I have no problem with the theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change as far as being a scientific theory goes, it is the billions of dollars in politically motivated propaganda that gets pushed on the world to convince people that this theory is a "proven fact" that can't be denied that I take issue with.

It is important to note that the consensus view on any subject such as AGW/climate change is not what is proven to be a fact, but that which is accepted as fact by the leaders/elders of the establishment scientific and educational community.

In a way it's understandable as a "fact" itself is subjective since different people will accept different levels of evidence - some may accept circumstantial evidence as proving a "fact" while others may prefer more rigid empirical direct evidence to consider anything to be a proven "fact".

Thus what is "accepted as fact" gets pushed on the public as a "proven fact" when as far as I have seen in this case(AGW/climate change) the anthropogenic connection is far from "proven" by even circumstantial evidentiary standards.

As far as I know the logical basis behind AGW is basically that all major climatic events in history were caused by "outside" factors like meteors/comets/asteroids, or freak incidents(highly unlikely odds) of "methane explosions" or the like.

Since they can't obviously see a direct natural or cosmic cause of this supposed "climate change"(has the climate ever not changed?) such as those types of things then it must be "man-made".

And billions of dollars has gotten enough people to say what they are paid to say to support this fallacious logic and jumping to conclusions and get the general public to believe it too.

As a theory I don't oppose AGW or any of it's variants, as propaganda and a political agenda I completely oppose it.

But again I find the very term "climate change" to be a political tool since as far as even the "mainstream" view is concerned there hasn't been much time in Earth's history that the climate was NOT changing. Fear-mongering from the word "go", so to speak.

Is that a half-way decent argument by your standards?

I know it certainly doesn't satisfy the AGW proponents, my experience has shown that to be "accepted as fact".

Cheers,
Jonny

[601L1n9FR09]

Global warming? Which globe? As far as I can tell the entire solar system is warming. Energy tends to manifest in the form of heat as the lowest common denominator. While the sun may not be deemed by consensus to be the underlying cause the experts have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (and I have been saying that long before it became popular). My take is perhaps too simple but then I am a simpleton at heart. The ice age (only one folks) occurred about 3500 years ago and we have been gradually (on average) recovering from it ever since. It was far shorter and far more recent than we have been conditioned to believe IMHO. I would not advocate teaching this as fact or even try to make doctrine of it but it is just as good a story as the frog turning into a prince with a kiss from the beautiful damsel, Time. Lastly, the evidence cited by Al Gore (Mannbearpig) indicating the link between CO² and ice cores indicating increase in temperature are inverted. The CO² increases AFTER the temperature does by 800-1000 years. In the complex interaction of cause and effect few cases are so cut and dried. Warming drives the increase in CO² not the other way around.
@Jonny, aside from the millions of years thing there is not much else I can add. If (and it is big if in my book) mankind is responsible for climate change it has more to do with deliberate electromagnetic intervention with the ionosphere than the SUVs we in the 1st world are driving to the gym so we can get on treadmills and go for a walk. Sure we should stop doing that but we should stop doing that because it is insane not because it might be driving a tax increase....err...I mean global warming! Gimme a break! Now if you will excuse me I have a few other conspiracies to theorize on.

Love,

JD

[PersianPaladin]

Considering it would be absurd to expect temperatures to remain constant over any period of time; do you think it would be better for world temperatures to increase or decrease?

That is not what was said. They acknowledge that a natural fluctuation would follow solar activity, ENSO and other variables. But we're seeing anomalies outside of these natural fluctuations.

You need to address the comments made in the quotes above - regarding the solar activity and temp relationship.


Also - we have graphs like this:-

[PersianPaladin]

Global warming? Which globe? As far as I can tell the entire solar system is warming.

As far as I'm aware - this claim was soundly debunked.

It is my view that anthropogenic global warming is starting to reach its peak, and that the positive-feedback models are erroneous and exaggerated. Why? Well, I wrote an article about this a while ago and mentioned that NASA scientists used "positive feedback" models to try and account for Venus' high temperature by interacting water vapour in upper atmospheric clouds with the CO2, etc. I referred to another more plausible mechanism for the heating - namely the theories of Velikovsky or adiabatic pressure, etc.

[Aardwolf]

You need to address the comments made in the quotes above - regarding the solar activity and temp relationship.

I don't believe that it is possible to accurately detemine what the fluctuations in temperature or climate are, let alone mitigate for them on the basis of incredibly short data spans on multiple related systems that are inherently chaotic. In saying that I sincerely hope that I am wrong and AGW proponents are correct when they say CO2 influences temperature because when we reach the end of the current interglacial period we are going to need it.

As for your graph, who arbitrarily decided that TSI at 1366 is comparable to 0 degree temp change? What does it look like if I arbitrarily decide that 0 degree change is equivalent to 1365 TSI. Wow, now it looks like temperatures are just catching up due to some sort of lagging...

Here's a graph I like;

One thing we do know is that plants thrive on CO2 (which is why farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses up to 1000+ ppm) and are currently limited in growth by the currently very low presence (in comparison to geological spans of time) of it in the atmosphere. Essentially plants (and all the animals that rely on it for food) are currently being starved of it.

However, as a curious aside, do you think that it would be better for world temperatures to increase or decrease?

[Aardwolf]

Global warming? Which globe? As far as I can tell the entire solar system is warming.

As far as I'm aware - this claim was soundly debunked.

It is my view that anthropogenic global warming is starting to reach its peak, and that the positive-feedback models are erroneous and exaggerated. Why? Well, I wrote an article about this a while ago and mentioned that NASA scientists used "positive feedback" models to try and account for Venus' high temperature by interacting water vapour in upper atmospheric clouds with the CO2, etc. I referred to another more plausible mechanism for the heating - namely the theories of Velikovsky or adiabatic pressure, etc.

If you are correct and we have reached a peak in global warming, do you now expect global cooling and if so, do you believe humanity should allow the cooling to continue?

[PersianPaladin]

You need to address the comments made in the quotes above - regarding the solar activity and temp relationship.

I don't believe that it is possible to accurately detemine what the fluctuations in temperature or climate are, let alone mitigate for them on the basis of incredibly short data spans on multiple related systems that are inherently chaotic. In saying that I sincerely hope that I am wrong and AGW proponents are correct when they say CO2 influences temperature because when we reach the end of the current interglacial period we are going to need it.

As for your graph, who arbitrarily decided that TSI at 1366 is comparable to 0 degree temp change? What does it look like if I arbitrarily decide that 0 degree change is equivalent to 1365 TSI. Wow, now it looks like temperatures are just catching up due to some sort of lagging...

Here's a graph I like;

image2.png

One thing we do know is that plants thrive on CO2 (which is why farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses up to 1000+ ppm) and are currently limited in growth by the currently very low presence (in comparison to geological spans of time) of it in the atmosphere. Essentially plants (and all the animals that rely on it for food) are currently being starved of it.

However, as a curious aside, do you think that it would be better for world temperatures to increase or decrease?

But the temperature records are there - and I don't buy into conspiracy theories that claim they are not what they are. I DO question temperature reconstructions from periods prior to the 1800's however, as this has relied more on paleoclimatological methods that are not always consistent. For example, the tree-ring fiasco being just one of them. However - the CET (Central England Temperature) is among the most reliable records of temperature in the world and give a good representation for how the industrial revolution may have impacted the climate, at least - locally. We also have other global temperature records besides the CET. But I won't get into details of that now.

As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.

[PersianPaladin]

]If you are correct and we have reached a peak in global warming, do you now expect global cooling and if so, do you believe humanity should allow the cooling to continue?

I don't know what will happen in the future, because I do not claim to understand the climate that much.

As far as previous ice-ages are concerned, humanity has survived them - and will survive the next one. We may not survive our own self-destructive tendencies, however.

[D_Archer]

Also - we have graphs like this:-

And they know the output of the sun in 1900?

Regards,
Daniel

[PersianPaladin]

Also - we have graphs like this:-

And they know the output of the sun in 1900?

Regards,
Daniel

Yes, they knew and measured sunspot activity that far back.

[celeste]

PersianPaladin,
The link between temperature and solar cycle is interesting. And we know this about solar cycles :
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 309#p74309

So temperatures are related to the solar cycle, which is in turned caused by the sun's motion through background electric fields. The question I'll ask is: If the short period variations in temperature are caused by the sun moving around the solar system barycenter, could the long term variations in temperature be caused by a longer term motion of the sun (around a binary,or birkeland current spiral,etc)?

[orrery]

Differentiation is a very complex process. Temperatures reflect energy levels and there are many variables that can effect the Earth. The Sun - the Sun's luminosity can not be gathered in the visible alone. This seems to be a trick that many anti-Solar Warming people use. The brightness of the Sun in the visible is a very small part of the equation and never really changes. The Sun, however, is an X-Ray Variable Star and the energy levels of all spectrum must be taken into account. Heliospheric Pressure models regarding the Electron Cloud Density also must enter into our equations.

Hardly, if ever mentioned, is the effect of Energy impacted on to the Earth's Geomagnetic field. Quantum Tunneling effects of cosmic and solar particles tunneling through the GeoMagnetic field can also not be ignored, as the GeoMagnetic field has weakened over the past 100 years we must also not neglect to realize that the incidence of quantum tunneling of these energetic particles through the Geomagnetic Field must also increase as well.

Far from CO2, we have also released many CFCs into the atmosphere which have impacted the Ozone layer.

Then there are the effects of the Milankovitch Cycle and many many other component variables.

Differentiating the sources for the Earth's temperature levels is a task currently beyond the capabilities of our best computer programmers.

Also, your solar activity chart is not the only one:



Sustained higher levels here have shown in the past to have a direct correlation with sustained energy / temperature levels.

[PersianPaladin]

PersianPaladin,
The link between temperature and solar cycle is interesting. And we know this about solar cycles :
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 309#p74309

So temperatures are related to the solar cycle, which is in turned caused by the sun's motion through background electric fields. The question I'll ask is: If the short period variations in temperature are caused by the sun moving around the solar system barycenter, could the long term variations in temperature be caused by a longer term motion of the sun (around a binary,or birkeland current spiral,etc)?

That ignores the points that I made about anomalous increases that are not tied towards solar variation, ENSO, PDO, etc.

[PersianPaladin]

Differentiation is a very complex process. Temperatures reflect energy levels and there are many variables that can effect the Earth. The Sun - the Sun's luminosity can not be gathered in the visible alone. This seems to be a trick that many anti-Solar Warming people use. The brightness of the Sun in the visible is a very small part of the equation and never really changes. The Sun, however, is an X-Ray Variable Star and the energy levels of all spectrum must be taken into account. Heliospheric Pressure models regarding the Electron Cloud Density also must enter into our equations.

Hardly, if ever mentioned, is the effect of Energy impacted on to the Earth's Geomagnetic field. Quantum Tunneling effects of cosmic and solar particles tunneling through the GeoMagnetic field can also not be ignored, as the GeoMagnetic field has weakened over the past 100 years we must also not neglect to realize that the incidence of quantum tunneling of these energetic particles through the Geomagnetic Field must also increase as well.

Far from CO2, we have also released many CFCs into the atmosphere which have impacted the Ozone layer.

Then there are the effects of the Milankovitch Cycle and many many other component variables.

Differentiating the sources for the Earth's temperature levels is a task currently beyond the capabilities of our best computer programmers.

Also, your solar activity chart is not the only one:



Sustained higher levels here have shown in the past to have a direct correlation with sustained energy / temperature levels.

I think it's important to realise that many of the mainstream scientists have looked into CFC's, Milankovitch, etc.

As for your claims about quantum tunnelling, etc - well, what are you trying to argue? Cosmic ray's have been excluded as being significant contributors and may in fact have a net cooling effect which is marginal. These are, of course, charged particles which have a small effect on cloud formation and propagation.

Actual empirical data on other charged particles affecting the climate is still wanting.

Explain the post 1979 large discrepancy between solar output and temperature please.