Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Well they definitely exist as I have seen them printed in the papars.
did you ever see the Dave gorman series where he followed what they said but his twin brother didn't ? Comedy genius
How would there be a difference between the two as having an effect on the climate is causing the climate to change. If Chicago gets more vortex in the face for another few years, that will be the winter climate there pretty much.
We are still all "theory" on the sun, Climate science is new, Meteorology has been around a long time tho and they still don't understand a bunch of things.
Yet somehow people can claim the IPCC are right, given every claim they ever made is wrong (I get jumped on for one perceived inaccuracy) but the same people will give the IPCC a pass on well over a decade of pure horse ****
I know the sun affects climate since it has an important role in controlling the earth's temperature. But when climate changes, how much of that change is down to the sun? If the climate is changing but the sun's activity isn't, then the sun's role in climate stays the same but it's role in climate change is negative. Doesn't that show a difference between the two? Bear in mind I have no clue on this and am just seeking to understand.
People who want to claim the Sun has an effect on climate (AGW deniers) point to the Maunder minimum and say "there was a low temperature then and low solar magnetic activity then!"
The problem for them is that the Sun has an 11 year magnetic activity cycle. So if they are right about the Maunder minimum we should be having mini ice ages every 11 years. Not only does this blatantly not happen, they have been unable to find any evidence at all of the 11 year cycle in the climate data.
The Sun is the source of nearly all the energy on Earth, so of course it affects climate.
But the Sun has existed for 4.6 billion years and will last about the same again. It won't change significantly for the next 1 billion years. So I don't see how trying to blame the last couple hundred years or so of climate change on it makes sense. The only thing that's changed significantly over that timescale is human activity due to industry.
And what changed the climate every other time in the past, you do know it has change throughout history?
There is evidence of the 11 year cycle fluctuating between bringing colder and milder winters to N Europe though.
Expect a link to some lunatic professor who can prove differently as "we are still all theory on the sun" .
Re the Sun earth connection and our climate. I hope NASA is not deemed anti AGW source by some on here
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html#.VVHHZJMg_cs
This is just more confirmation that the sun delivers energy to earth other than standard irradiance
Just more solid evidence that IPCC modelling is utter cack, as if the conistenyly wrong results are not enough.
There's also plenty of work on how solar input causes more lightening on earth, again this is dismissed by IPCC models
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27406358
There is ample evidence our climate is affected by external influences/
[HASHTAG]#IPCC[/HASHTAG] denial
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html#.VVHHZJMg_cs
This is just more confirmation that the sun delivers energy to earth other than standard irradiance
Just more solid evidence that IPCC modelling is utter cack, as if the conistenyly wrong results are not enough.
There's also plenty of work on how solar input causes more lightening on earth, again this is dismissed by IPCC models
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27406358
There is ample evidence our climate is affected by external influences/
[HASHTAG]#IPCC[/HASHTAG] denial
Re the Sun earth connection and our climate. I hope NASA is not deemed anti AGW source by some on here
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html#.VVHHZJMg_cs
This is just more confirmation that the sun delivers energy to earth other than standard irradiance
Just more solid evidence that IPCC modelling is utter cack, as if the conistenyly wrong results are not enough.
There's also plenty of work on how solar input causes more lightening on earth, again this is dismissed by IPCC modelling.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27406358
What has this got to do with climate change?
It merely backs what I have said already, that you did not read, about how the electromagnetic connections between earth and the sun deliver more energy than standard irradiance.
NASA have confirmed energy is transferred along magnetic lines via Alfven waves, I posted the source for that already, a NASA source.
now on a different NASA source, they confirm the magnetic connections between earth and the sun, doesn't take a genius to figure out that Alfven waves can carry more energy to earth via the large EM connections of earth facing sun spots\coronal holes.
Plus the recent work linking solar output to lightning on earth.
Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055004/article
So to accept the above is valid and then say it has nothing to do with earth's climate is silly, to not factor in such influences in modelling can only lead to what? being wrong every time. [HASHTAG]#JustliketheIPCC[/HASHTAG]
Last edited:
Stop acting like you have access to some magical information about magnetic activity. It's not some obscure theory.
The energy from the Sun is about 10^21 J per day. This massive storm is about 10^15 J. So it's silly not to take this extra 0.0001% energy into account?
Your ignorance makes your agenda pathetically clear. You don't actually give a **** about science and will jump and twist anything to attack the IPCC.
Again using language to cast aspersions on myself
Secondly, the IPCC have dismissed the irradiance variability as not relevant. They do not include it in any modelling.
Lastly you attack me again when presented with solid sources to back the theory, whilst defending the AGW theory that has no solid backing in science whatsoever.
Here's another re solar wind which is accelerated in an electrical field which drives lightening on earth.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-high-speed-solar-lightning-earth.html
There is just lots of evidence IPCC modelling is utter ****e because it considers nothing that will mitigate their CO2 AGW claims.
So go on talking about "agenda" and such, it's exactly what the IPCC trolls resort to when presented with anything they cannot assimilate into their defence of the lie.
Again using language to cast aspersions on myself
Secondly, the IPCC have dismissed the irradiance variability as not relevant. They do not include it in any modelling.
Lastly you attack me again when rpesented with solid sources to back the theory, whilst defending the AGW theory that has no solid backing in science.
Here's another re solar wind which is accelerated in an electrical field which drives lightening on earth.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-high-speed-solar-lightning-earth.html
Does this new link mention climate change? The last one didn't and I pointed out to you that you were wrong in suggesting it should be included in modelling.
So have you quietly accepted you were wrong about the IPCC not including geomagnetic storms, or do you want to discuss that further?
To add to the theoretical thinking on this subject, and to also ignore your personal attacks and claims of "Agenda".
Alfvén waves “absorb” energy or are created by transferringenergy during magnetospheric processes.
The waves travel along electromagnetic pathways.
Earth is conneted to the sun by said pathways, more so when large solar EM events are earth facing.
Here' enlighten yourself
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/vassilis/ESS288B/20100310/Keiling et al 2009.pdf
Logical and practical to theorise that energy is transferred to earth along these magnetic connections. (not my theory, the theory of physicists)
Alfven waves and magentics
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/alfven-waves.html#.VVHQxZMg_cs
Magnetic connections between Earth and the Sun
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html#.VVHHZJMg_cs
Effects from space on our cloud systems but what have clouds to do with our climate some might ask
"A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,” the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols."
http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/News/2009/08/Cosmic_meddling
Of course if the IPCC dismiss all of the above, it must mean it is not true. That means their models that were up to 400% wrong, were right after all
No wonder they cant even model last year's climate, even when they know what the climate was doing because their models are missing half the inputs into our climate, probably the most important elements too.
There is plenty of evidence of significant external influence on our climate, particles, electrical fields, magnetic fields, clouds and lightning. But what have all those got to do with climate change right?
Alfvén waves “absorb” energy or are created by transferringenergy during magnetospheric processes.
The waves travel along electromagnetic pathways.
Earth is conneted to the sun by said pathways, more so when large solar EM events are earth facing.
Here' enlighten yourself
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/vassilis/ESS288B/20100310/Keiling et al 2009.pdf
Logical and practical to theorise that energy is transferred to earth along these magnetic connections. (not my theory, the theory of physicists)
Alfven waves and magentics
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/alfven-waves.html#.VVHQxZMg_cs
Magnetic connections between Earth and the Sun
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html#.VVHHZJMg_cs
Effects from space on our cloud systems but what have clouds to do with our climate some might ask
"A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,” the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols."
http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/News/2009/08/Cosmic_meddling
Of course if the IPCC dismiss all of the above, it must mean it is not true. That means their models that were up to 400% wrong, were right after all
No wonder they cant even model last year's climate, even when they know what the climate was doing because their models are missing half the inputs into our climate, probably the most important elements too.
There is plenty of evidence of significant external influence on our climate, particles, electrical fields, magnetic fields, clouds and lightning. But what have all those got to do with climate change right?
Last edited:
Global warming started in the 50s we are told.
We now know that the planet is not warming as claimed since about 1998, it just happens to line up with a solar maunder minimum does this "pause" in AGW. Just like it lined up perfectly in the 1500s.
notice the line up of the large sunspot activity around 1800 and the following drop in the above chart before the rise again by 1850.
Here's what it looks like if you offset temp data by 50 years to overlay the trend lines to correlate.
With just a 50 year offset you can see global temp following what sun spots were doing 50 years approx before.
This would line up the current pause in warming with the low solar activity in the 70s, meaning our current low activity is not to be felt for another 50 years or so, which should be concerning as we are at extremely low solar activity atm. This also explains why around the mid to late 90s were warm, given the sun spots 50 years earlier in 1950s
The 1920s had the hottest day ever on record, 1935 the hottest year ever on record, and look at the sun spot spikes 50 years prior at about 1870. again 50 years later global temp changes match up.
We now know that the planet is not warming as claimed since about 1998, it just happens to line up with a solar maunder minimum does this "pause" in AGW. Just like it lined up perfectly in the 1500s.
You must log in or register to see images
notice the line up of the large sunspot activity around 1800 and the following drop in the above chart before the rise again by 1850.
You must log in or register to see images
Here's what it looks like if you offset temp data by 50 years to overlay the trend lines to correlate.
You must log in or register to see images
With just a 50 year offset you can see global temp following what sun spots were doing 50 years approx before.
This would line up the current pause in warming with the low solar activity in the 70s, meaning our current low activity is not to be felt for another 50 years or so, which should be concerning as we are at extremely low solar activity atm. This also explains why around the mid to late 90s were warm, given the sun spots 50 years earlier in 1950s
The 1920s had the hottest day ever on record, 1935 the hottest year ever on record, and look at the sun spot spikes 50 years prior at about 1870. again 50 years later global temp changes match up.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
