Alright, I've seen enough bullshit climate change threads that I'm actually gonna take a weekend of my life so I can go read all the current papers in the field.

Turns out I even know personally one of the scientists who wrote the "dissent letter" in the OP.  Maybe I'll stop by and talk to him.

One important thing you learn early in science is this:

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure you guys are smart enough to figure out how this applies.

Here's what I KNOW that we know:

1) Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions have increased steadily since the industrial revolution.

2) Natural carbon sinks have become dramatically smaller in the same period.

3) The greenhouse behavior of CO₂ is well documented.

Here's where the problems lie:

1) The global carbon transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

2) The global thermal transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

3) models developed with incomplete understanding will give unreliable results.

This is the same issue we have with modeling hurricanes.  Look up sensitive dependence on initial conditions.  When you do not properly account for all of the feedback mechanisms in a system you get bad results from models.

As I have said before, the situation now is analogous to doctors understanding that a certain substance causes a mutation, but not fully understanding the apoptosis and genetic repair mechanisms that affect that mutation.  Likewise, we do not fully understand the other oncogenes that come into play when developing a malignancy.

If you can follow the analogy, global warming due to CO₂ is REAL and MEASURABLE.  It is the other unknowns in the system that we do not fully understand.  The greatest concern is that carbon/ thermal buffering systems will act in a way that is analogous to a pH buffer in solution- I will leave it to someone else who is familiar with volumetric titration to explain what happens there.. and hopefully to explain why the analogy is worrisome with regard to climate.

Oh, and last thing: You would be surprised how many people in research are absolutely dedicated to ethics.  There are of course people who will generate whatever data you pay them to generate, but all the people I've known that try to fudge data one way or another get ripped apart in peer review.  Those of you claiming otherwise please explain your basis for this claim.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Alright, I've seen enough bullshit climate change threads that I'm actually gonna take a weekend of my life so I can go read all the current papers in the field.

Turns out I even know personally one of the scientists who wrote the "dissent letter" in the OP.  Maybe I'll stop by and talk to him.

One important thing you learn early in science is this:

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure you guys are smart enough to figure out how this applies.

 

Here's what I KNOW that we know:

1) Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions have increased steadily since the industrial revolution.

2) Natural carbon sinks have become dramatically smaller in the same period.

3) The greenhouse behavior of CO₂ is well documented.

 

Here's where the problems lie:

1) The global carbon transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

2) The global thermal transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

3) models developed with incomplete understanding will give unreliable results.

 

This is the same issue we have with modeling hurricanes.  Look up sensitive dependence on initial conditions.  When you do not properly account for all of the feedback mechanisms in a system you get bad results from models.

 

As I have said before, the situation now is analogous to doctors understanding that a certain substance causes a mutation, but not fully understanding the apoptosis and genetic repair mechanisms that affect that mutation.  Likewise, we do not fully understand the other oncogenes that come into play when developing a malignancy.

 

If you can follow the analogy, global warming due to CO₂ is REAL and MEASURABLE.  It is the other unknowns in the system that we do not fully understand.  The greatest concern is that carbon/ thermal buffering systems will act in a way that is analogous to a pH buffer in solution- I will leave it to someone else who is familiar with volumetric titration to explain what happens there.. and hopefully to explain why the analogy is worrisome with regard to climate.

 

Oh, and last thing: You would be surprised how many people in research are absolutely dedicated to ethics.  There are of course people who will generate whatever data you pay them to generate, but all the people I've known that try to fudge data one way or another get ripped apart in peer review.  Those of you claiming otherwise please explain your basis for this claim.

Translation for those who did not understand what you just said:

There is evidence that C02 emissions have been rising, there is evidence that man has contributed to this, there is evidence that the earths temperatures have been rising.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically all things we ALREADY know.  I do not think that people are disputing that, what they are disputing is :

1. that means the earths temperatures will continue to rise from this information alone.

2. that we have the power to stop this from happening.

3. what the best course of action is that should be taken.

We all know that if right now , today, if every person, machine, or man made c02 emitting device just suddenly disappeared from the earth that  this would only slow down the rise in temperature, not stop it.  It would continue to rise regardless of our efforts in that regards. The poles would still melt because the poles are actually moving, and moving faster than usual and in the process of melting and refreezing, which they  have always done and will contnue to do regardless of what man does.

 Instead of people harping on about global warming this and that , why not do things that make sense. For example , encourage people to mass plant air filtering oxygen producing plants to help provide the earth with the natural filtration  to provide us with better cleaner air.

Reduce emissions. I think the best way to reduce emissions would be to encourage businesses to allow more people to work from home. Many jobs these days can be done from home, and allowing people   to not have to commute to do those jobs would make the largest impact on emissions. Doing away with" office buildings" and encouraging the " home office" would be the most effective method. Remove the social stigma and laws that require a business to have a physical commercial address. Through tax breaks and professional acceptance, allow for the "home based" businesses to be the new business model. For those that have to go to a physical address implement the 4 day work week.

Encourage delivery services through tax breaks. It makes more sense for one truck to drive around delivering to 50 people in a day than to have 50 people driving around to one destination in a day. Encouraging the use of delivery services, by allowing tax breaks so that businesses do not have to charge a delivery fee would allow for us to have less people on the roads producing harmful emissions.

Invest in a way to transport Ozone to our stratosphere, as we create plenty of that on the ground level where it is unwanted, and it will not transport itself there on it's own. or figure out a better way to produce it in quantity in space and pump it into the stratosphere. either way, we could actually attempt to "help" our ozone layer repair itself, or find ways to speed the process up to provide the earth with better protection.

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

You know, If they were going to spend money on commercials, they should at least make the best use of their time. Like if they took the guy from "survivor man"  and had him do short segment ads showing things people can do on their own to help the environment like making soap in their own home from natural ingrediants, how to plant and care for air filtering plants, building a rain water recycling barrel and such it would have a much greater impact than the idiotic" STOP CIMATE CHANGE " commercials that make them sound like dumbasses. Those commercials are so stupid because everyone already knows you cannot stop climate change ..

Yea, do some segments with a guy like this showing how to survive on a living changing world and you would have more people listening , and doing than you will have from doing those lame commercials they do now.

www.youtube.com/watch

All good ideas devil, and sorry if my tech speak was annoying to you.  I figure anyone qualified to tell me that global warming doesn't exist is also able to read and understand the primary literature on the subject.  There was nothing esoteric there, and there wasn't anything in that passage that couldn't be deciphered with a few trips to google in any case.  Also the same post would have been three times as long in layman's terms.. you missed quite a few salient points in your synopsis.

To say that global warming due to "man-made" carbon dioxide is not occurring is an irresponsible oversimplification.  At the very least, we have identified the greenhouse mechanism related to carbon dioxide and we have identified a steadily climbing concentration of carbon dioxide.  How that increase in heat trapping is being "buffered" or "absorbed and mitigated" we do not know.

I think I've read that you are a nurse.. so you'll understand the oncology analogy I made- and here is another medical analogy:

Amphetamines cause increase in heart rate at lower doses.  In overdose however, you can see reflex bradycardia or SLOWING of the heart rate by the baroreceptor reflex.  Pressure gets too high, reflex reduces cardiac output by slowing heart rate.  This would be considered a PARADOXICAL or OPPOSITE than expected response.

Complex environmental systems are often analogous to biological systems.  It is quite possible that the short term COOLING cited by so many in this thread is the result of a thermal negative feedback loop initiated by rapid rise in temperature (or hell even carbon dioxide levels- we DON'T KNOW).

We DO know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are seeing levels unprecedented in the past million years:

So back to my medical analogy.  If I have a patient with elevated (or low, or even IRREGULAR) heartbeat I'm not going to give him a drug that I know affects heart rate.  If I have a climatological system that I KNOW is out of thermal balance, EVEN IF I don't fully understand the system I will not introduce an excess of a substance that I KNOW causes temperature elevations.  This is nothing more than prudent thinking.

I do not claim that we fully understand the thermal and carbon mechanics of our planet.  As a matter of fact I'm well aware that we DON'T.  But we DO understand one part of it well enough to know that we are adding a potentially destabilizing element in unprecedented quantities.

And the point I never got to in my post above:

What if the negative feedback loop keeping temps steady/ cooling is a seawater density shift controlled by freshwater runoff from melting ice sheets?  If that is the "protective" mechanism, then running out of melting ice will very possibly be like running off of a CLIFF... or it could be any of a hundred mechanisms that we don't fully understand... and we might not know that we are at the very edge of exhausting that buffer until it is gone.

So after all of this rambling, I hope you will forgive me for being irate when people OVERSIMPLIFY the situation by saying things like GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

I agree that some of the suggestions for reducing carbon emissions may be absurd, and that there may be better options.  But people saying that our carbon footprint does not matter are speaking directly out of their asses.

There is a LOT more evidence indicating that carbon dioxide levels ARE important than evidence to the contrary.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Edit- by the way devil do you mind if I put the following in my sig:

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

 I will credit the author of course : )

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

As much as I hate to agree with the Feline Casanova.. you're right on this point.

Regardless of whether we do it or the universe does it, eventually the Earth is gonna be in crisis.  Until we are out among the stars, we've effectively got all of our eggs in one basket.

Originally posted by Enkindu

All good ideas devil, and sorry if my tech speak was annoying to you.  I figure anyone qualified to tell me that global warming doesn't exist is also able to read and understand the primary literature on the subject.  There was nothing esoteric there, and there wasn't anything in that passage that couldn't be deciphered with a few trips to google in any case.  Also the same post would have been three times as long in layman's terms.. you missed quite a few salient points in your synopsis.

To say that global warming due to "man-made" carbon dioxide is not occurring is an irresponsible oversimplification.  At the very least, we have identified the greenhouse mechanism related to carbon dioxide and we have identified a steadily climbing concentration of carbon dioxide.  How that increase in heat trapping is being "buffered" or "absorbed and mitigated" we do not know.

I think I've read that you are a nurse.. so you'll understand the oncology analogy I made- and here is another medical analogy:

Amphetamines cause increase in heart rate at lower doses.  In overdose however, you can see reflex bradycardia or SLOWING of the heart rate by the baroreceptor reflex.  Pressure gets too high, reflex reduces cardiac output by slowing heart rate.  This would be considered a PARADOXICAL or OPPOSITE than expected response.

Complex environmental systems are often analogous to biological systems.  It is quite possible that the short term COOLING cited by so many in this thread is the result of a thermal negative feedback loop initiated by rapid rise in temperature (or hell even carbon dioxide levels- we DON'T KNOW).

We DO know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are seeing levels unprecedented in the past million years:

 

 

So back to my medical analogy.  If I have a patient with elevated (or low, or even IRREGULAR) heartbeat I'm not going to give him a drug that I know affects heart rate.  If I have a climatological system that I KNOW is out of thermal balance, EVEN IF I don't fully understand the system I will not introduce an excess of a substance that I KNOW causes temperature elevations.  This is nothing more than prudent thinking.

I do not claim that we fully understand the thermal and carbon mechanics of our planet.  As a matter of fact I'm well aware that we DON'T.  But we DO understand one part of it well enough to know that we are adding a potentially destabilizing element in unprecedented quantities.

And the point I never got to in my post above:

What if the negative feedback loop keeping temps steady/ cooling is a seawater density shift controlled by freshwater runoff from melting ice sheets?  If that is the "protective" mechanism, then running out of melting ice will very possibly be like running off of a CLIFF... or it could be any of a hundred mechanisms that we don't fully understand... and we might not know that we are at the very edge of exhausting that buffer until it is gone.

So after all of this rambling, I hope you will forgive me for being irate when people OVERSIMPLIFY the situation by saying things like GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

I agree that some of the suggestions for reducing carbon emissions may be absurd, and that there may be better options.  But people saying that our carbon footprint does not matter are speaking directly out of their asses.

There is a LOT more evidence indicating that carbon dioxide levels ARE important than evidence to the contrary.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Edit- by the way devil do you mind if I put the following in my sig:

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

 I will credit the author of course : )

LOL! sure you can quote me.
 

I can understand your frustration when people say things like " GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE." Because the truth is that both global warming and global cooling are realities that mankind will have to face sooner or later and that we need to be preparing now for adapting and surviving climate changes or we will not survive  what is to come.

I do believe however, if environmentalists wish to be more effective, they will change their approach and quit making outlandish claims like " stop climate change" or " stop the poles from melting" because it tunes people out at that point when we know that neither of those things can be stopped with our current technology.

The sheer amount of misinformation on both sides of this issue have gotten to the point of being ridiculous. If those that truly wish to help our people and our planet survive what is to come, they must change their methods and messege or they will lose alot of support they would have otherwise gained. By making stupid statements, all they do is get doors slammed in their face and no progress done. People instead bicker about " global warming vs global cooling" and results in endless bickering instead of focusing on the best course of action to take.  Trying to " force people" to do things isnt the answer either, instead offer real solutions with solid reasoning and  you will gain much ground faster.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Silly. We do not want to " use all the resources up and move on " like a bunch of grasshoppers. we are more intelligent than grasshoppers and can renew resources instead of just devouring them.
 

Yes, space colonization would be nice in the future, but instead of  using , abusing and discarding planets like a bunch of parasitic insects, we create renewable resources and put back into planets what we take out of them. However, we are not advanced to a point that space colonization is even a viable option.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Silly. We do not want to " use all the resources up and move on " like a bunch of grasshoppers. we are more intelligent than grasshoppers and can renew resources instead of just devouring them.
 

Yes, space colonization would be nice in the future, but unstead of  using , abusing and discarding planetslike a bunch of parasitic insects, we instead create reneable resources and put back into planets what we take out of them. However, we are not advanced to a point that space colonization is even a viable option.

If this be the case, I suggest we build huge Jurassic Parks all over the world, but use them as massive slaughterhouses to turn oil into a renewable resource for the far future and just dump all the dead dinosaurs into a huge pit. Hm?

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Silly. We do not want to " use all the resources up and move on " like a bunch of grasshoppers. we are more intelligent than grasshoppers and can renew resources instead of just devouring them.
 

Yes, space colonization would be nice in the future, but unstead of  using , abusing and discarding planetslike a bunch of parasitic insects, we instead create reneable resources and put back into planets what we take out of them. However, we are not advanced to a point that space colonization is even a viable option.

If this be the case, I suggest we build huge Jurassic Parks all over the world, but use them as massive slaughterhouses to turn oil into a renewable resource for the far future and just dump all the dead dinosaurs into a huge pit. Hm?

Or we could do this:
 

Oil Creation Theory Challenged by Fuel-Making Fungus

Or this:

Energy from Urban Waste

Converting trash gas into energy gold

In combination with other methods I see this as a viable option.

Originally posted by deviliscious

LOL! sure you can quote me.

Sweet!   Thanks- that actually made me laugh.  My fiance will appreciate the "jackass" reference.

Quick question: Did you get the medical analogies or was I misremembering your background? They were primarily for you in any case.

Also, found pretty good evidence against the solar hypothesis (Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke is pretty credible):

-----

The Misconception:   Recent global warming is caused by the sun.
The Reality: The output of energy from the sun has been monitored by satellites for thirty years and has not increased during this period of rapid global warming.

It’s true that the sun provides the energy (both light and heat) that drives the Earth’s climate; without the sun, the Earth would be a chilly place indeed! When the amount of energy coming from the sun changes, the climate responds in proportion to the change. However, scientists have been observing the sun with sophisticated satellites for three decades—during the period of greatest warming—and have observed no trends in solar activity.

Satellite observations clearly show the well-known 11-year solar cycle, during which the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface varies by about 0.1 percent. This cycle causes the global temperature to fluctuate up and down by about 0.2° F, much less than the observed warming of about 1° F in the past 50 years. More importantly, the solar cycle causes an up-and-down cycle, not an upward trend similar to the trend in the global temperature. The sun’s output has not increased over the past three decades (Figure 1).

Recently, two NASA scientists concluded that the solar effect on climate was “negligible” during the last 25 years and that “none of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures.”1 After analyzing several different types of data for solar activity (i.e. sunspot number, open solar flux, cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance), two respected solar physicists found that “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”2 Similarly, after compiling the available evidence from many different studies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program concluded that “direct satellite measurements of solar output show slight decreases during the recent period of warming.”3

How do we know that the sun isn't causing the warming? We've been measuring the output of energy from the sun for thirty years from space and there's no net change.
Prof. Bill Chameides
Dean, Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University

One VERY realistic thing we could do is stop all tropical logging and start planting a shitload of trees like the CCC did back in the 30's.

Originally posted by Enkindu

One VERY realistic thing we could do is stop all tropical logging and start planting a shitload of trees like the CCC did back in the 30's.

An example of the millions of Green jobs Obama planned to create ^^

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by Enkindu

One VERY realistic thing we could do is stop all tropical logging and start planting a shitload of trees like the CCC did back in the 30's.

 

An example of the millions of Green jobs Obama planned to create ^^

Wish he would.  By all accounts the CCC was a win-win for everyone.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

LOL! sure you can quote me.

 

Sweet!   Thanks- that actually made me laugh.  My fiance will appreciate the "jackass" reference.

Quick question: Did you get the medical analogies or was I misremembering your background? They were primarily for you in any case.

Also, found pretty good evidence against the solar hypothesis (Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke is pretty credible):

-----

The Misconception:   Recent global warming is caused by the sun.
The Reality: The output of energy from the sun has been monitored by satellites for thirty years and has not increased during this period of rapid global warming.

 

 

 

 

It’s true that the sun provides the energy (both light and heat) that drives the Earth’s climate; without the sun, the Earth would be a chilly place indeed! When the amount of energy coming from the sun changes, the climate responds in proportion to the change. However, scientists have been observing the sun with sophisticated satellites for three decades—during the period of greatest warming—and have observed no trends in solar activity.

Satellite observations clearly show the well-known 11-year solar cycle, during which the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface varies by about 0.1 percent. This cycle causes the global temperature to fluctuate up and down by about 0.2° F, much less than the observed warming of about 1° F in the past 50 years. More importantly, the solar cycle causes an up-and-down cycle, not an upward trend similar to the trend in the global temperature. The sun’s output has not increased over the past three decades (Figure 1).

Recently, two NASA scientists concluded that the solar effect on climate was “negligible” during the last 25 years and that “none of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures.”1 After analyzing several different types of data for solar activity (i.e. sunspot number, open solar flux, cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance), two respected solar physicists found that “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”2 Similarly, after compiling the available evidence from many different studies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program concluded that “direct satellite measurements of solar output show slight decreases during the recent period of warming.”3

How do we know that the sun isn't causing the warming? We've been measuring the output of energy from the sun for thirty years from space and there's no net change.
Prof. Bill Chameides
Dean, Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

Originally posted by Enkindu

All good ideas devil, and sorry if my tech speak was annoying to you.  I figure anyone qualified to tell me that global warming doesn't exist is also able to read and understand the primary literature on the subject.  There was nothing esoteric there, and there wasn't anything in that passage that couldn't be deciphered with a few trips to google in any case.  Also the same post would have been three times as long in layman's terms.. you missed quite a few salient points in your synopsis.

To say that global warming due to "man-made" carbon dioxide is not occurring is an irresponsible oversimplification.  At the very least, we have identified the greenhouse mechanism related to carbon dioxide and we have identified a steadily climbing concentration of carbon dioxide.  How that increase in heat trapping is being "buffered" or "absorbed and mitigated" we do not know.

I think I've read that you are a nurse.. so you'll understand the oncology analogy I made- and here is another medical analogy:

Amphetamines cause increase in heart rate at lower doses.  In overdose however, you can see reflex bradycardia or SLOWING of the heart rate by the baroreceptor reflex.  Pressure gets too high, reflex reduces cardiac output by slowing heart rate.  This would be considered a PARADOXICAL or OPPOSITE than expected response.

Complex environmental systems are often analogous to biological systems.  It is quite possible that the short term COOLING cited by so many in this thread is the result of a thermal negative feedback loop initiated by rapid rise in temperature (or hell even carbon dioxide levels- we DON'T KNOW).

We DO know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are seeing levels unprecedented in the past million years:

 

 

So back to my medical analogy.  If I have a patient with elevated (or low, or even IRREGULAR) heartbeat I'm not going to give him a drug that I know affects heart rate.  If I have a climatological system that I KNOW is out of thermal balance, EVEN IF I don't fully understand the system I will not introduce an excess of a substance that I KNOW causes temperature elevations.  This is nothing more than prudent thinking.

I do not claim that we fully understand the thermal and carbon mechanics of our planet.  As a matter of fact I'm well aware that we DON'T.  But we DO understand one part of it well enough to know that we are adding a potentially destabilizing element in unprecedented quantities.

And the point I never got to in my post above:

What if the negative feedback loop keeping temps steady/ cooling is a seawater density shift controlled by freshwater runoff from melting ice sheets?  If that is the "protective" mechanism, then running out of melting ice will very possibly be like running off of a CLIFF... or it could be any of a hundred mechanisms that we don't fully understand... and we might not know that we are at the very edge of exhausting that buffer until it is gone.

So after all of this rambling, I hope you will forgive me for being irate when people OVERSIMPLIFY the situation by saying things like GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

I agree that some of the suggestions for reducing carbon emissions may be absurd, and that there may be better options.  But people saying that our carbon footprint does not matter are speaking directly out of their asses.

There is a LOT more evidence indicating that carbon dioxide levels ARE important than evidence to the contrary.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Edit- by the way devil do you mind if I put the following in my sig:

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

 I will credit the author of course : )

The prpblems with medical analogies is that the body is well understood. thge climate history of a planet that is billions of years old is not. Also, medical clinical studies can be done, we can't study different planets.

To all those who say better safe then sorry -- I say EXACTLY -- that is why we should do nothing, and if the planet warms, enjoy the longer growing seasons.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

Yup, that jives with what I have read over the years. I also think that natural global warming is a "net good" for humanity. A warmer planet could support a larger population, all other things being equal.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

 

Yup, that jives with what I have read over the years. I also think that natural global warming is a "net good" for humanity. A warmer planet could support a larger population, all other things being equal.

You crazy kids...

: )