Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[Lucy Stulz]

Yah, yah, they understand it so well, that's why every theory of the sun has been crushed in the last few years right?

AGW hasn't been "crushed".

Like they predicted the 1% convection required by mainstream theory right?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
[1206.3173] Anomalously Weak Solar Convection

Clearly the bee in your bonnet is around SOLAR PHYSICS. I can see no way that this will change the AGW debate.

You can call them experts if you want,

Who is this "them" I'm calling an expert again?

but personally idiots fits better.

This is why God created the internet! So people could call researchers idiots from anonymous boards.

Too stubborn to let go of a dying theory because they don't wan't to admit they were wrong and know absolutely nothing. But you just go right ahead and trust those whose theory of the sun and solar system has collapsed. Best of luck to you on that blindfolded ride!

Ummmm, I think you might have missed my point where I asked how this will in any way change the agw debate?

I mean other than the fact that many scientists (aka "idiots") have failed to take the erudition of internet board posters as pure gold?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

No it hasn't. The ravings of internet crackpots does not invalidate science.

Really? Because I thought that was how science worked! Thousands of researchers armed with the latest and greatest technology study something and draw conclusions.

Internet skeptics call them idiots (and cite the "Electric Universe" hypothesis)

The scientists crawl off to work at McDonalds where they belong!

That's how we put a man on the moon!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

AGW hasn't been "crushed".



Clearly the bee in your bonnet is around SOLAR PHYSICS. I can see no way that this will change the AGW debate.

If the sun doesn't work like you think it foes, and apparently it doesn't since every observation has disproved it. Then how are you going to properly account for the sun's input into the equations when that model is incorrect?

As modern science clearly shows.

Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere / UCLA Newsroom

UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere.

Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere.

"We thought it was known, but we came up with a major surprise,"

"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field,"

"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong,"

When are you going to stop using Sydney Chapman's model of the magnetosphere and start using Kristian Birkeland's???? Chapman was proved wrong over 40 years ago, why is his model still being taught? Why are you using his model to calculate global warming parameters? It is apparently wrong and has been known to be wrong for 40 years, yet you still use it.

Ummmm, I think you might have missed my point where I asked how this will in any way change the agw debate?

I mean other than the fact that many scientists (aka "idiots") have failed to take the erudition of internet board posters as pure gold?

See above.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really? Because I thought that was how science worked! Thousands of researchers armed with the latest and greatest technology study something and draw conclusions.

Internet skeptics call them idiots (and cite the "Electric Universe" hypothesis)

The scientists crawl off to work at McDonalds where they belong!

That's how we put a man on the moon!

yet just as many scientists oppose your ideas as support them, so those on the internet supporting them must be just as much a crackpot as those that don't. At least I don't back a theory proven to be wrong and use that theory in my calculations to support my hypothesis. You can't even figure out what causes substorms, everything they were taight shown to be wrong, but you sure don't mind using those same teachings, the only ones you got to support your hypothesis. Sounds to me like the crackpots are those using a theory known to be wrong.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

yet just as many scientists oppose your ideas as support them,

Not really. By every estimate the majority (>90%) of the world's climate scientists believe in AGW.

But science isn't done by consensus, but what we can glean from this information is that a good hypothesis, upon testing by countless independent researchers, should generate a consensus.

so those on the internet supporting them must be just as much a crackpot as those that don't.

Almost all of the internet skeptics are largely uneducated in science. They are just very loud.

At least I don't back a theory proven to be wrong and use that theory in my calculations to support my hypothesis.

Are we talking about AGW or are you off on the solar thing still?

You can't even figure out what causes substorms, everything they were taight shown to be wrong, but you sure don't mind using those same teachings

What on earth are you on about? I honestly don't know how any of this changes the agw hypothesis.

, the only ones you got to support your hypothesis. Sounds to me like the crackpots are those using a theory known to be wrong.

Ummm, what exactly are you talking about here?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

If the sun doesn't work like you think it foes, and apparently it doesn't since every observation has disproved it. Then how are you going to properly account for the sun's input into the equations when that model is incorrect?

So are you REALLY saying that I need to understand the WIRING diagram of a heater to be able to measure the temperature?

When are you going to stop using Sydney Chapman's model of the magnetosphere

Why don't you take this up in a SOLAR PHYSICS thread?

and start using Kristian Birkeland's???? Chapman was proved wrong over 40 years ago, why is his model still being taught?

I don't use it.

Why are you using his model to calculate global warming parameters?

Please show how it impacts estimates of solar forcings in terms of global climate.

 

[Loudmouth]

yet just as many scientists oppose your ideas as support them,

Prove it.

At least I don't back a theory proven to be wrong . . .

Plasma cosmology has been proven wrong ten times over.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not really. By every estimate the majority (>90%) of the world's climate scientists believe in AGW.

But science isn't done by consensus, but what we can glean from this information is that a good hypothesis, upon testing by countless independent researchers, should generate a consensus.

Bul..... Just who do you think you are trying to fool with that rhetoric? Submit a paper that shows mainstream to be wrong, what will happen? You will be denied telescope time like done to Halton Arp. If you can even get submitted for peer review. And you especially won't get funding.

I notice all these discoveries always come as a surprise, and never match what you say they should. Not one single discovery in the last 20 years about space has matched any theory mainstream had. Every single one required them to revise, revise, revise, when what they need to do is look at the original theories. Theories devised when we believed the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in space. Wake up to the future, get your head out of the past.

You are still using Chapman's theory proven wrong 40 years ago, no wonder your ideas about earth climate don't work. A previously unknown source of energy transfer just discovered involving electric currents, but you'll ignore those too, just like you already did when they were first discovered two years previously.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

So why again are you using wrong theories about the sun and earth in your calculations????

Are we talking about AGW or are you off on the solar thing still?

So you do not use any measurement of solar energy in your global warming calculations, is this what you want me to believe??? I sure hope you do or you would really be crackpots. I guess mankind in his industrial age over 100,000 years ago must have been the cause of the decline and eventual ending of the ice age? Apparently its been getting warmer regardless of us for quite some time. Fossilized plants from rainforests found the globe over, so apparently before the ice age it was warmer once too. So what's the difference again?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Bul..... Just who do you think you are trying to fool with that rhetoric?

No one. I am a scientist. I am merely pointing out the data. In addition I have been around a LOT of earth scientists and briefly worked at a major oceanographic institution, so I've seen many of these scientists and their work.

But again, the science is solid. That is the first goal.

Submit a paper that shows mainstream to be wrong, what will happen? You will be denied telescope time like done to Halton Arp.

Telescope time? You still on the solar thing? I thought this was an agw discussion. At least that is what the thread indicates.

If you can even get submitted for peer review. And you especially won't get funding.

Except that people don't usually get funding on a project that has already generated the answer. Most NSF funding is based on a proposed work, not an proposed result.

Not one single discovery in the last 20 years about space has matched any theory mainstream had.

Well, I am not a space scientist. I think you should DEFINITELY start a rant...I mean thread on space science and how horribly horribly corrupt it is.

You are still using Chapman's theory proven wrong 40 years ago, no wonder your ideas about earth climate don't work.

Hmmmm, except the agw hypothesis IS working (sadly). And unless I'm very much mistaken we have a pretty good idea of the energy budget COMING FROM THE SUN...so unless that energy is somehow different from OTHER energy coming into the system I don't think there's a huge impact that understanding what's going on in the core of the sun will change that much.

A previously unknown source of energy transfer just discovered involving electric currents, but you'll ignore those too, just like you already did when they were first discovered two years previously.

How do you know I "ignored" this? HOnestly when my friend the plasma cosmology-obsessed chemist starts on with the Electric Universe stuff I kind of glaze over. It isn't my area.

So why again are you using wrong theories about the sun and earth in your calculations????

What calculations, SPECIFICALLY?

So you do not use any measurement of solar energy in your global warming calculations

As I said earlier: is it necessary for me to know the wiring diagram of the heater in order to measure the temperature coming off of it?

I guess mankind in his industrial age over 100,000 years ago must have been the cause of the decline and eventual ending of the ice age?

I don't think anyone has said that. Remember there are a large number of different NATURAL climate forcings. Those of us who have studied the earth's history know that the earth has gone through numerous climate changes. That's why we know a great deal about the PRESENT ONE.

CO2 is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. Basic physics of the O=C=O bonds and molecule. We have pumped a HUGE amount of CO2 into the atmosphere (sufficient to change the isotopic composition in a direction EXACTLY predicated from the burning of fossil fuels). We know approximately how big an impact CO2 will have on the climate. IN ADDITION we have since the middle 1970's a large amount of data on incoming solar radiation so we know the ENERGY INCOMING to the system (regardless of how it is produced in the sun itself).

Apparently its been getting warmer regardless of us for quite some time. Fossilized plants from rainforests found the globe over, so apparently before the ice age it was warmer once too. So what's the difference again?

Please read some geology. Historical geology will help quite a bit. Paleoclimatology. Ocean currents are impacted by how the continents are arranged, the sun itself goes through cycles, the earth's axis precesses...etc. etc. etc. etc.

NONE of this changes the fact that mankind has the ability to put sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to cause warming. But the stuff we DO know allows us to parse out approximately how much of our recent warming is due to US vs NATURE.

Right now a lot of it rests on us. That's just what the data says.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

NHmmmm, except the agw hypothesis IS working (sadly). And unless I'm very much mistaken we have a pretty good idea of the energy budget COMING FROM THE SUN...so unless that energy is somehow different from OTHER energy coming into the system I don't think there's a huge impact that understanding what's going on in the core of the sun will change that much.



How do you know I "ignored" this? HOnestly when my friend the plasma cosmology-obsessed chemist starts on with the Electric Universe stuff I kind of glaze over. It isn't my area.

And yet a new energy source discovered pumping energy into the Earth's atmosphere, and you and I both know that is not included in any calculations. Perhaps you should make it part of your area, since everything is apparently connected throughout space. You can ignore one area of science all you like, but trying to explain Earth weather without taking the Sun into account is pretty useless. Ignoring an energy source would be no different than ignoring the oceans and how they affect climate. The Sun is the most important part of the calculations since it is the main source of heat for the earth. So apparently with a new source of energy, more experiments need conducted to see how it affects Earth's weather. We already know it causes huge substorms in Earth's upper atmosphere, dumping the power of a 5.5 magnitude earthquake into the atmosphere in a matter of seconds. Can you really honestly tell me this energy source does not matter in global warming calculations? These events are going off all the time, everyday, 24 hours a day, 7 days a weeks, 52 weeks a year. The energy contribution to Earth's atmosphere is enormous. You might want to check into that.

And yes, man has contributed a lot of pollution to the equation, but we don't understand all the parameters enough at the present to make any definitive conclusions. We can ASSUME things, but we can't KNOW for sure until we understand it all. Man was not producing pollution when the ice age ended, so apparently the Earth cools and heats up without help from man in cycles. This is not to say man is not speeding this cycle up, but there are too many variables that are still yet unknown to claim fact.

It is indisputable these currents exist between the sun and Earth, and that they have not been included in any calculations. And I know you haven't included them because mainstream is still waffling over their cause and how much energy they pump into the atmosphere. They are still doing whatever they can to avoid electrical explanations for the event.

So if you want to say that you *believe* man is responsible for the climate change, fine, just don't pretend its fact, too many variables have been left out to claim it as fact.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

And yet a new energy source discovered pumping energy into the Earth's atmosphere, and you and I both know that is not included in any calculations.

What "new energy" source are you speaking of?

Perhaps you should make it part of your area, since everything is apparently connected throughout space.

Is this more "electric universe" stuff?

You can ignore one area of science all you like,

Let me try this again: I am a chemist. I have had training in QM but when I make a coating formulation I can do it quite well even without solving the Shroediger Equation.

but trying to explain Earth weather without taking the Sun into account is pretty useless.

I thought I was abundantly clear on this point: NO ONE Is failing to take the sun into account. NO ONE.

I am still waiting for you to show how some alternative understanding of solar physics will alter what we know about the amount of energy coming in from the sun and how it will impact agw as an hypothesis.

Ignoring an energy source would be no different than ignoring the oceans and how they affect climate. The Sun is the most important part of the calculations since it is the main source of heat for the earth.

SO it appears I'll have to ask it again. Maybe if I put it in bold red font:

Do I have to understand the wiring diagram of a heater to be able to measure the temperature coming off of it?

I can keep asking this question you know.

So apparently with a new source of energy

What is this new source of energy again? Is it measurable?

Can you really honestly tell me this energy source does not matter in global warming calculations?

Does it have a name? Because I've not heard of any "MYSTERY ENERGY SOURCES" that science doesn't account for.

Or is it a ssssseeeeecret energy source?

These events are going off all the time, everyday, 24 hours a day, 7 days a weeks, 52 weeks a year. The energy contribution to Earth's atmosphere is enormous. You might want to check into that.

I would if you would tell me what this secret energy source is that apparently no scientists of repute are accounting for.

And yes, man has contributed a lot of pollution to the equation, but we don't understand all the parameters enough at the present to make any definitive conclusions.

Of course not! Except that using KNOWN forcings (natural and anthropogenic) we can RECONSTRUCT the actual temperature trends for the last 150 years ab initio apparently.

I don't think they are including super secret mystery energies either.

We can ASSUME things, but we can't KNOW for sure until we understand it all.

You mean as in 100% perfect knowledge? Then we understand NOTHING. May as well just give up. It's all a giant mystery.

Man was not producing pollution when the ice age ended, so apparently the Earth cools and heats up without help from man in cycles.

And as luck would have it we understand quite a bit about NATURAL FORCINGS on the climate! And guess what? They can't account for all the warming in the past 150 years.

But when you couple ANTHROPOGENIC and NATURAL forcings you pretty much can!

It is indisputable these currents exist between the sun and Earth, and that they have not been included in any calculations.

So if these currents have not been included in any calculations then why is the fit so good for these:

If those currents are NECESSARY to understand the warming the past 150 years it seems the system can be explained without them awfully easily. Which, in regular science circles, would call into doubt their importance and necessity to the explanation.

And I know you haven't included them because mainstream is still waffling over their cause and how much energy they pump into the atmosphere.

So lemme get this straight: YOU just clearly stated how much energy it is pumping into the atmosphere up above there...but "mainstream science" is uncertain on it?

Hmmmm.....that is so strange!

They are still doing whatever they can to avoid electrical explanations for the event.

Because...ummmmm....it's a grand conspiracy to halt this secret knowledge? Yeah, I've hard about that kind of stuff before.

So if you want to say that you *believe* man is responsible for the climate change, fine, just don't pretend its fact, too many variables have been left out to claim it as fact.

In science we often model systems with the variables we know about. In some cases it is impossible to get a good fit to the data without some important variable.

This usually shows up as excessive "error". So when I look at something like THIS:

I have to ask myself: is there something missing here? Maybe so! But is it enough to overturn the basic hypothesis?

Well, that's doubtful. And it certainly doesn't indicate the NEED for some secret energy that almost no one in the field seems to be considering.

Or is the data being manipulated by the Anti-Electric Universe Illuminati Bilderbergs?

 

[Greatcloud]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the longest temperature record, spanning 350 years

See there is a wonderful relationship between the sun and global warming

 

[Greatcloud]

The relationship of the sun with global temperatures is a very old and established one. For today that has not changed so we can say the sun is responsible for the climate change we see.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

The relationship of the sun with global temperatures is a very old and established one. For today that has not changed so we can say the sun is responsible for the climate change we see.

Ummm, I know you won't directly respond to this since your job is to just blurt out whatever agw skepticism crosses your mind, but let me point out a few things:

1. in your sentence you say "the sun is responsible for the climate change we see"....I would hope you could track on the important word there: CHANGE.

IF the sun is the cause of the CHANGE we see (as in the global average temperature increase the last 150 years which can be relatively solidly assigned in no small part to anthropogenic factors since the middle 20th century) then surely the sun must have shown some MEASURABLE CHANGE itself which would result in a nearly monotonic increase in temps.

Of course almost all of the scientists studying this topic have found this not to be the case such that it can explain the increase in temperatures since the middle 20th century by itself.

which brings me to my second point:

2. Your hypothesis will need to show SOME change in the solar heat flux that will explain the monotonic rise in temperatures. Which means that just looking at cycles up and down of the TSI or some such will not necessarily do it unless there is some way for these cyclical events like solar cycles to cause a steady ONE DIRECTION temperature shift on earth.

I look forward to yet more science ignored.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Venus' howling winds inexplicably get stronger - NBC News.com

And I suppose we are the cause of the smog on Venus increasing from 186 mph to 249 mph? Seems to me global warming is a little more widespread than just to the Earth. Just a thought....

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Venus' howling winds inexplicably get stronger - NBC News.com

And I suppose we are the cause of the smog on Venus increasing from 186 mph to 249 mph? Seems to me global warming is a little more widespread than just to the Earth. Just a thought....

When one decides that the FACTS are to be tossed aside in preference to a poorly constructed LOGIC FAILURE as a basis for making decisions then OF COURSE one can come to these conclusions.

Not sure if you are aware but:

1. Earth IS NOT Venus
2. Earth has a rather different atmosphere and a dramatically different geology and is in a different area of the solar system
3. Earth DOES NOT have a large human population which is pumping a known greenhouse gas into its atmosphere (but it DOES show us what a runaway greenhouse effect can yield)

But by all means do continue to draw illogical, non-scientific conclusions from a poorly constructed strawman.

It's only to be expected from those who can't really debate the actual data HERE ON EARTH.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When one decides that the FACTS are to be tossed aside in preference to a poorly constructed LOGIC FAILURE as a basis for making decisions then OF COURSE one can come to these conclusions.

Not sure if you are aware but:

1. Earth IS NOT Venus
2. Earth has a rather different atmosphere and a dramatically different geology and is in a different area of the solar system
3. Earth DOES NOT have a large human population which is pumping a known greenhouse gas into its atmosphere (but it DOES show us what a runaway greenhouse effect can yield)

But by all means do continue to draw illogical, non-scientific conclusions from a poorly constructed strawman.

It's only to be expected from those who can't really debate the actual data HERE ON EARTH.

But Earth *does* have an unknown source from the sun pumping energy into the atmosphere. Ooops, wasn't supposed to mention that, doesn't fit with your theory right?

Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere / UCLA Newsroom

Venus is increasing in wind speed at a rate consistent with global warming measurements on Earth, but ooops, wasn't supposed to mention that as it doesn't fit *your* theory, right?

My bad, what ever was I thinking for looking at *ALL* the facts?

Are greenhouse gasses and pollution good? Of course not, I got to breathe it, I fully support efforts to make our atmosphere safer. I just do not support claims based on limited data, that ignores half of what we have discovered.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

But Earth *does* have an unknown source from the sun pumping energy into the atmosphere. Ooops, wasn't supposed to mention that, doesn't fit with your theory right?

How many W/m^2 is this adding to the heat budget of the earth?

Venus is increasing in wind speed at a rate consistent with global warming measurements on Earth, but ooops, wasn't supposed to mention that as it doesn't fit *your* theory, right?

Source? And by "rate consistent with global warming measurements on earth", what exactly do you mean? I'm curious how many degrees is equated to mph. Is the trend the same?

Again, I'd be interested in seeing some science.

My bad, what ever was I thinking for looking at *ALL* the facts?

What facts would these be again?

Are greenhouse gasses and pollution good? Of course not, I got to breathe it, I fully support efforts to make our atmosphere safer. I just do not support claims based on limited data, that ignores half of what we have discovered.

Well then tell us how many W/m^2 this new discovery related to the magnetosphere pumps into the system.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How many W/m^2 is this adding to the heat budget of the earth?

Well according to NASA (source good enough?) one substorm can pump the energy equivalent of a 5.5 earthquake in two hours.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

Two years later they are again surprised, because nobody paid attention the first time. This time they discover these substorms are going off when they thought they couldn't be. So benefit of the doubt, we will assume all current theory about the sun is not wrong. Therefore they are only surprised because something is happening not seen before and everything they learned is not wrong. Ok, that's a stretch, more likely everything they were taught is wrong, but hey, trying to be fair.

And by "rate consistent with global warming measurements on earth", what exactly do you mean? I'm curious how many degrees is equated to mph. Is the trend the same?

It is the power input increase required to drive higher winds that matters. They have increased by 36% in 6 years. Being further from the Sun we would receive a smaller increase - inverse square law of light), yet our climate has risen proportionally to distance the same percentage. NASA themselves have detected those "magnetic ropes" as they call them from the Sun to the Earth.

The data is there, no one bothers to look at it though because it leaves no choice but electrical activity.

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - The Jupiter-Io connection - An Alfven engine in space

Our own aurora steadily pumps 100,000 watts into our atmosphere. This on light days.

There is "two billion kilowatts of power into the Jovian ionosphere" by Io.

Aurora (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And now they find what they likened to twisted mariner rope linking Earth and Sun, Jupiter and Io, Saturn and Enceladus, everywhere they check actually.

Already a term for them though.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More going on than ever thought possible.

 

[Greatcloud]

AGW caused by cycles of the sun 200 year cycle and 11 year sunspot cycle.