Climate Change

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:28 pm

Aardwolf wrote:You mean since I pointed out that NASA says it was equal to 0 change which you couldn't understand.


Yes, maybe I'm mentally deficient. Of course, the 14C average for 1950-1980 is nothing to do with +0.x temperature deviation from the average either before and after that period. Or is it? Well, you're saying one thing about the graph and myself - another. Confusing the hell out of me.

Anybody else want to step in here?
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby orrery » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:18 am

I believe the basic question is:

How much TSI is required to raise a thermometer from 0K to 1K and what material?

Are these mercury thermometers? What unit of energy is TSI measured in and how many of these units are required to raise a thermometer 1K.

What are the 'dimensions' and how do you convert these "energy" from one form to another?
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Corona » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:58 am

orrery wrote:Corona, which cloud? There are clouds of "varying density" or rather "clouds within the cloud"

Image

http://www.susanrennison.com/images/Cen ... iation.jpg

^ for some reason the img link keeps breaking in my browser. Not sure if that is happening to everyone or not.


The Sun’s journey through the local interstellar medium: the paleoLISM and paleoheliosphere

The primary conclusion of this paper is that, over the past several million years, both the galactic environment of the Sun and the heliosphere have been significantly different than they are today. Observational data combined with theoretical studies can be used to reconstruct the three-dimensional distribution of nearby ISM, and predict the times the Sun transitioned between different environments. If we assume a continuously distributed local ISM, within the past ~130,000 ± ~70,000 years, and possibly as recent as ~56,000 years ago, the Sun entered low density partially ionized ISM flowing away from the direction of the Scorpius-Centaurus Association. Sometime within the past ~40,000 years the Sun entered the cloud now surrounding the solar system, the LIC. These estimates rely on topologically simple models of the cluster of local interstellar clouds (CLIC) flowing past the Sun; more elaborate models are discussed elsewhere (Frisch, 1994; Gry, 1996; Mueller et al., 2006, FS06). As the Sun moves through this complex of local interstellar clouds, the boundary conditions of the heliosphere should change by substantial amounts due to changes in cloud temperature, velocity, and opacity-driven variations in the ionization of the surrounding ISM. Prior to that, the Sun was in the low density plasma of the Local Bubble cavity. Between the Local Bubble cavity and the CLIC, the Sun briefly (~500 years) passed through an interface region of some type.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.ne ... 3-2006.pdf

Image

As seen from the graphic above, the sun is currently passing through the middle of these three arms flowing away from the Scorpius-Centaurus Association also known as the Local Interstellar Cloud. We have been immersed in this LIC for millenia. So all the hype that we are about to enter a cloud or "the fluff" is unfounded I believe. The quetion to me rather is if we are about to enter a denser region of the cloud anytime soon.

Paul LaViolette has written a pretty extensive article on this issue as well:

Though we may have already been inside what is known as the Local Interstellar Cloud for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, scientists have been discussing regional areas, aka “cloudlets”, of variable density that we may have entered into as recently as the 1990′s. For example, see this NASA story from Feb. 2002 or this NASA story from Jan 2003:

Some of those cloudlets might be hundreds of times denser than the local fluff,” says Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago who studies the local interstellar medium. “If we ran into one, it would compress the Sun’s magnetic field and allow more cosmic rays to penetrate the inner solar system, with unknown effects on climate and life.”

http://starburstfound.org/superwaveblog/?p=207
User avatar
Corona
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:10 am

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby orrery » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:14 am

Thanks Corona, that is absolutely fascinating. I am quite thrilled to have discovered this site. I can not wait to go through it with a fine toothed comb.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:28 pm

Corona said: As for the cause [of dimming] it is believed that aerosols are mainly to blame and when one thinks of smog in cities it is not hard to see why. However, I also believe that contrails are largely to blame: some 50 years ago there was rarely ever seen a contrail in the sky, but nowadays they almost cover the whole sky!

I discussed that over a year ago at this thread, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4748.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby orrery » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:52 am

Image
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby orrery » Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:46 pm

I am going to assume that the reason for the pro-longed silence is that everyone is reading the PDF book I posted:

Solar Journey: The Significance of Our Galactic Environment for the Heliosphere and Earth
http://bookos.org/book/1087872 (PDF)
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:54 pm

Orrery, your graph shows megayears and everyone around here "knows" that no measurements are possible beyond a few thousand years, so far. So you don't expect that graph to be accepted as fact around here, do you? I think it's pure fantasy, beyond a few thousand years, which would be shown as a tiny mark on that graph.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:26 pm

PersianPaladin wrote:You can't talk about ocean-lag as something just occuring in the last 30 years:-
http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/clima ... _basic.gif
When did I say that? Nothing about the so called correleation is correct. As I keep stating, these two separate graphs have been arbitrarily compared because it suits alarmists to highlight a deviation where there is none. Just because you have been convinced the 1950-1980 period is correlated (becasue it fits your beliefs) does not make it so. And, just because you think I am the only person on the planet disputing it, here's another article only published this week criticising this nonsense;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/28/dana-nuccitellis-holiday-trick-for-sobering-up-quick-put-a-little-less-rum-in-your-egg-nog/
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Aardwolf, I checked out Rawls' piece that you linked and it makes sense to me.
Posted on December 28, 2012 by Alec Rawls: ... the fact that solar activity was at what Ilya Usoskin calls “grand maximum” levels from 1920 to 2000 then it is certainly plausible that much of 20th century warming, including late 20th century warming, could have been caused by the sun. 80 years of a high level of enhanced solar forcing just might warm the place up a bit (and it only did warm a bit, about 0.8 °C over the century).

December 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm - Richard M says: I doubt the warming is even .8°C. With UHI and questionable adjustments the real increase might be much less.

I share Richard's doubts about the .8°C calculation. I doubt that the methods of measurement are that accurate. They probably had a margin of error of several degrees.

I also agree with Alec Rawls' information that, once the temperature reaches its highest level, and solar radiation begins to decline, the temperature isn't going to decline immediately, but will take some time, just as the warmest day of the year doesn't occur on the longest day on June 21 (or Dec 21 down south) but in mid-summer.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby jjohnson » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:39 pm

The debates about whether or not global warming is occurring reminds me of the debates about whether or not the EU paradigm is correct. In both cases, two groups of people, nominally scientists or educated laypeople like me, are looking at the same available data and drawing different conclusions as to cause and effect. While I don't dwell a lot on climate change (my lifetime guarantee does not extend far enough into my future to make that significant) but as a pilot I find weather fascinating, and its complex causes. But weather is an artifact of climate, and is fairly insignificant as it is merely an infinitesimal part of a much longer period of constant change from many influences.

Weather forecasts over a week are inaccurate, just as are stellar distances inaccurate over about 400 parsecs using geometrical parallax. Climate forecasts cannot be based on 100, or 400, or 5000 years of data. That is not climate. Climate is long term: cycles of hundreds of thousands of years, repeating over repeated revolutions of our star about the galactic center. Both Henrik Svensmark (The Chilling Stars) and John Kehr (The Inconvenient Skeptic) have books that look at data that purport to cover temperature modulation, inferred through various techniques, taken from ice cores, life forms, atmospheric gas compositions and many more items which come from research by careful consensus scientists. I won't get into the charge of "cherry picking" of the data sets, but try to show that the two authors above also try hard to stick with observations and infer the "facts" as best they know how.

Cosmic rays really aren't the issue of cloud seeding, directly - they are destroyed at some depth into the atmosphere, and release showers of muons. Muons do help create some cloud seeding at lower altitudes, which, along with other accompanying chemical processes both authors delve into, create the right-sized particles upon which water condenses readily and creates the light reflecting clouds that increase our planet's solar reflectivity - its albedo. And still, this is just one component in this intensely complex balance of ebbs and flows of power and radiation and movement. Kehr notes the importance of the difference in radiation uptake between the two hemispheres - the northern land-dominated hemisphere and the southern ocean-dominated hemisphere.

Kehr also likens the cycle of climatic temperature swings to the temperature swings of a year, with a long winter, a short spring and summer, cooling again through an autumnal period into the long winter spell once more. The differences are profound in a lot of ways, but it's a good analogy. They both show that it repeats, but not on the exact schedule each repetition. And winters are much longer than summers. The current conditions are "late interglacial", both writers observe (and as I read way back in grade school, believe it or not, before this debate came up).

The other point to make here is that everybody's data bob up and down over time. You and I want to know how cold it will be next week, but the night and day temperatures between now and then will go up and down several times before next week is here. On the climate scale, what we see as sudden (and therefore alarming) swings of temperature are doing the same thing - getting Earth through the autumnal changes after a short, hot summer, on the way to hundreds of thousands years more of really cold (for Earth) conditions. Kehr looks at these short-term swings and calls them "noise", just like static in a radio message, or changing rates of chemical re-combining in a lab experiment, or the random decay of a radioactive element into an inert block of its transmuted self. Those are always the same over time, but in short intervals signals vary, sometimes well away from the mean or "norm".

We may heat up for the next 200 years - or we might not. We may cool a lot after that, and have some really intense weather or unusually cold winters and more glaciation, but that too is a part of a larger, longer picture. If one draws the best fit curves in the really long term record which scientist have obtained, these days the long term of the graph slopes down. We are inexorably cooling, IF the longest-term scenario of what has gone before can safely be taken as the model we expect it to follow.

But is this model a successful one? We cannot tell from our limited temporal perspective. Some things we simply cannot know without more experience and exposure to the climate. Many things we do not yet know. I do not see the EU paradigm as jumping in and offering some different, cosmic electricity-based explanation of Earth's climate beyond noting that the electric power driving the Sun and stars, in its take on things, could be lessened or go out completely. Then ALL the global warming theories go into the tank, because we won't be around to argue these things.

If you want a hard, penetrating look into the problem of figuring out which theories work, and why or why not, read Exceeding Our Grasp, by P. Kyle Stanford, Oxford University Press, 2006. By hard, I mean he looks deeply into the logic processes of theory formulation and discusses The Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. [He uses terms which I have never seen before in theories of science discussions, but there is an entire litany of work to which most of us have never been exposed unless we are serious theoreticians.] These are alternatives that may explain the existing data on which a current model is based, but which can explain the observations and make predictions as well or better than the current model. It applies to medicine and chemistry and physics and astronomy and all sciences who must utilize an underlying theory in their research, ordering and exploration to understand the basic phenomena of their craft. Identifying what such an alternative theory might consist of is a devilishly difficult task - no one has thought of it as an explanation yet. But he shows that history is full of these unconceived alternatives, which are ignored or dismissed routinely until they "suddenly" as if from nowhere" suddenly transform and become dominant and successful - usually replacing the existing paradigm in the process.

The importance of that discussion is something that those of us here should be thinking about, whether it is in the EU context of astrophysics and historical/mythological antecedents, or climate change.

Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:27 pm

Still Wrong Dating
Jim, regardless of how logical the authors of the books you mention are, if they overlook the fact that conventional dating methods of rock strata, fossils, ice cores etc are unsound, then they're not quite logical enough. Because EU theory shows that such dating methods are entirely unreliable. Therefore, as I kind of said previously here, all the modeling of the distant past is fantasy. If many rock strata formed at once, as the evidence shows, dating of rock strata is incorrect. Other facts lead in the same direction.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby orrery » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:15 am

Lloyd, are you familiar with micro-fossil dating techniques?
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:50 pm

Microfossil Dating
No, Orrery, I don't think I'd heard about that before, but I did now, so I looked it up and found that there may be nothing to it, as per Mistaken Microfossils! (And Other Erroneous Evidence of Early Earthlife) at http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=62.

On the C14 Dating thread I posted quotes from Walter Brown showing why radioactive dating methods are unreliable in this post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2992&start=30#p70016.

I and others posted other related findings on the following threads:
Earth's Surface Formed Recently http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5769;
Rock Strata Formation http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3134#p33837; and
Breakthrough on How Continents Divided http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1462.

Not to mention numerous others. Many TPODs challenge conventional dating of geological formations thought to be millions of years old, but which are more likely only thousands of years old.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby Dotini » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:35 am

A new NRC report seems to complicate our understanding of TSI and other aspects of the Sun-Earth relationship.
Access here:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... unclimate/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Dotini
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests