Pedders
Member
- Location
- West Sussex
its been 35 before
The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.
- Thread starter banjo
- Start date
its been 35 before
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
It always has to happen doesn't it, trying to attack someones views with idiotic conspiracy theory jibes. I am not alone in believing that the sun is the earths climate driver, not man made co2.
Did you know that the current climate models don't even count the sun as a climate driver, yes the sun is not in their climate modelling!
The sun is hotter in the day and colder in the night for us because we are in the shade, it's bloody school kid science.
The current amount of huge storms in the upper hemisphere are from the massive sun spot explosion's lately and one in particular earth facing explosion, this sends huge shockwaves and solar winds plus massive amounts of radiation towards the earth and this causes he spikes in the charts on the earths temp.
It's recorded from hundreds of years ago and fits exactly to the earths climate change over this time, just look.
You believe co2 drives climate and co2 has been constant for the last 20 years so it could not of driven these storms, fact is the earth facing sun spot took three days to efect the earths climate and I predicted it would over a week back on this thread before it hit earth and the American storms occurred.
I notice the settled science of sun spot activity driving earths weather is forgotten and not mentioned on the news ( cos it shows man made co2 global warming is false )
Here is a vid explaining how it all works from a cern scientist doing a lecture at cern itself, using NASA and noaa data, if you listen to this and still believe the sun doesn't efect the earths climate, I think you need to take a trip to the doctors for a check up.
Last edited:
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
I got as far as the statement that the sun is not included in climate modeling. Are you sure about this?
Well what do you expect when people reference idiotic conspiracy theories...
No one would disagree with you that it has an effect BUT we're currently in a point of low sun activity so tempteratures should of been decreasing not increasing year on year.... What part of this do you not understand?
If you want to use the whole massive spikes of the last week as some sort of evidence to increased tempteratures, then you are ignoring facts and no one else.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
You realy don't understand do you, the sun has been in a less active state for the last decade so spikes ( sun spots ) make a bigger impact on our weather. If you listen to the chap from cern he explains it all in detail. The sunspots create the heat and thus warms up the ocean thus more clouds more rain more wind when they interact, it's very nyeresting settled science.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
Yes I found this out this very morning, it has a column for the Suns efect but there is nothing hardly in it, it's non existent.
The sun isn't in the climate models, it's pretty disturbing that most don't know this info, including me until today.
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
Well I am afraid you are completely wrong. In discussions I have had with climate researchers the effect of the sun is absolutely considered
You are entertaining at least, the very basic fact that current consensus is that CO2 traps more of the suns emissions is the basics of climate models, so why would you think they are not taking the suns effect into account.
your own statements in the past claim we are in solar decline and at any time now we will resume our fall into a ice age........
https://earthscience.stackexchange....hat-co2-with-the-atmosphere-concentration-can
Some light reading, if you care too, on the science behind the thinking that CO2 is acting on the Earths atmosphere. There are a number of technical answers some way down the page with referenced, papers. How the extremely complex thing that the earths atmosphere is can be pushed by CO2 and can effect other elements like water vapour so increases the increasing temprature effects CO2 starts.
I personally think the sun does effect us with its natural cycles, but that it only does this in conjunction with earths atmosphere, not alone, which you seem to be saying. They work together and all components in the complex system which is Earth, sure the sun can have direct short term effects from sun spot activity, but the shear size of the energy needed to warming the earth by 0.1c is never going be emitted from one days sun spot. It takes time. If sun spots were the thing doing it they would have to be varying the suns energy output earth receives by vast amounts each one.
The simple fact that the suns output actualy varies very little if you measure it by watt/m2 and that the variation you allude too, is not the only effect at play to explain what the earth has experienced so far. Sun spots do play a roll in weather and weather does play a roll in temprature rises but that in it's self doesn't rule out other factors like CO2 that's just wishful thinking.
The direct relationship with temprature and the amount of water vapour in the air is more likely to be the culprit with CO2 driving increases in air temprature and retaining more IR from the sun triggering an increase in water vapour which cools and heats the Earth it cools the land when it forms cloud and blocks day light but it also heats up the upper atmosphere even when it does, it also traps heat at night. So even thought it may seem small to you the CO2 can be having knock on effects that case more noticeable changes.
Let's face it, it's complex if it wasn't their would not be a debate, what most agree with is its not just the sun, and it's nearly a shoe in, that's its mans extra interaction with our atmosphere that's triggering changes.
But what the early climate predictions didn't know was the Earths ability to self regulate, and absorb CO2 which is causing the worlds oceans to become more acidic, among other things or the CO2 we are producing may have had an even greater effect on the worlds weather and temperatures. This is also helped that we are in a so called sun low which is supposed too be causing a natural cooling......
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
Get your woolly hat on if your living in Texas, it seems like there may be snow coming early middle of next month and what the USA has usually comes over here afterwards.
Might be a very hard winter this year cos the sea and earth temp are going down due to a solar slow down, the eleven year cycle cmbning with the larger 60 year cycle of cooling.
It will be interesting to see what happens, if the global warming crowd are correct the temp will keep rising sharply, if they are wrong it won't.
Might be a very hard winter this year cos the sea and earth temp are going down due to a solar slow down, the eleven year cycle cmbning with the larger 60 year cycle of cooling.
It will be interesting to see what happens, if the global warming crowd are correct the temp will keep rising sharply, if they are wrong it won't.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
If you look at the data the Suns efect in modelling is nothing, it's less than co2 and the chap from cern agrees. How can the efect of the sun not efect the earths climate when we have had actual proof of it happening over the last 3 weeks?
The sun efected the earths weather and climate in just three days from sunspot activity.
one cold year, is no more or less a trend than one hot year, at no point have I seen a graph without a wobbly line in it. I also call your attention to China's reduction in CO2 emissions and massive increase in renewables, predictions are made on current trends continuing, and cannot adapt to changes that were not predicted to happen.
I also note, some think it's all the sun and sun spots so how does the high sun spot activity, causing extreme weather, that's been shouted about as the cause of globle warming, sit if in fact they may have caused a reduction in globle temperatures, surly this is going against some people's previous assumptions?
I will also point out that the warming effects we have seen at the North Pole, are showing shifts, in globle weather patterns caused by higher temperatures, which is also a sign that the pasts long standing weather patterns are not as stable as they were, which may cool some areas but allow other areas to enjoy higher than normal temperatures, the computer models have to also cope with this.
at some point you are going to have to ask your selves are we as humans influencing things, I say yes and can except that, that comes at a cost, a cost to let it continue, (possibly destroying the entire eco system that supports the 7 billion humans living on earth) and a cost to try to stop it.
Put against the risk that the world our children grow up is much less habitable than it has been for the last 200 years, over the cost of weaning us off fossil fuels, to replace them with much cheaper renewables seems small to me. Renewable energy long term is far cheaper that fossil fuels.
Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% true, or correct, but as a farmer I spend money to head off problems, pre emergence sprays, and fungicides, where we predict problems and head them off with little ability to tell if we are doing any good or if they are needed or not, the computer predictions say we do need to do it, and experience has told me that not doing it has negative effects so I do. If only predicting the long term climate was as simple.....and what effect not making changes now do have to long term climate, if you could see up front, what effect the spray had you would make an informed choice, that's what climate models are for no one says they are 100% correct. Just like your flag leaf fungicide, did it do any good, you can only tell after the fact, was it needed again at best only after the fact. It's all just probabilities, what's most likely to happen based on what happened in the past.......
so moving to renewables is your pre em or fungicide, it looks like it will have good effects long term but the results may not be seen for years to come. And I for one don't see a down side to moving away from fossil fuels. So even if the only benefit is that, and not changing the climate for the better it still gets my vote.
So what actual diffrence to what we are doing as humans would the effect of CO2 make if climate science current mainstream thinking is wrong what would you change about govermant policy, what's the problem in letting the current thinking stand.......that CO2 is bad, because I see little reason to change policy even if you could somehow find 100% undeniable evidence, it had no effect on climate, it's still bad for our health because of what it's emitted with, or do you also doubt that powering our cars with fossil fuels isnt producing pollution as well. That burning any form of fossil fuels produces some level of pollution.
It does make me think, what diffrence does it make, if you belive in CO2's effect or not, we are still on the right path. So why does it even matter to the deniers at all. What's the actual goal, of denying it at all. It seems a risky road to be on, with what's at risk.......especialy if that means we keep using fossil fuels when we don't need to. The health risk alone would sell a fossil fuel ban in cities to me, and if we have the tech to not need to use fossil fuels, why would you even consider it, and this is outside all effects on climate.
at some point you are going to have to ask your selves are we as humans influencing things, I say yes and can except that, that comes at a cost, a cost to let it continue, (possibly destroying the entire eco system that supports the 7 billion humans living on earth) and a cost to try to stop it.
Put against the risk that the world our children grow up is much less habitable than it has been for the last 200 years, over the cost of weaning us off fossil fuels, to replace them with much cheaper renewables seems small to me. Renewable energy long term is far cheaper that fossil fuels.
Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% true, or correct, but as a farmer I spend money to head off problems, pre emergence sprays, and fungicides, where we predict problems and head them off with little ability to tell if we are doing any good or if they are needed or not, the computer predictions say we do need to do it, and experience has told me that not doing it has negative effects so I do. If only predicting the long term climate was as simple.....and what effect not making changes now do have to long term climate, if you could see up front, what effect the spray had you would make an informed choice, that's what climate models are for no one says they are 100% correct. Just like your flag leaf fungicide, did it do any good, you can only tell after the fact, was it needed again at best only after the fact. It's all just probabilities, what's most likely to happen based on what happened in the past.......
so moving to renewables is your pre em or fungicide, it looks like it will have good effects long term but the results may not be seen for years to come. And I for one don't see a down side to moving away from fossil fuels. So even if the only benefit is that, and not changing the climate for the better it still gets my vote.
So what actual diffrence to what we are doing as humans would the effect of CO2 make if climate science current mainstream thinking is wrong what would you change about govermant policy, what's the problem in letting the current thinking stand.......that CO2 is bad, because I see little reason to change policy even if you could somehow find 100% undeniable evidence, it had no effect on climate, it's still bad for our health because of what it's emitted with, or do you also doubt that powering our cars with fossil fuels isnt producing pollution as well. That burning any form of fossil fuels produces some level of pollution.
It does make me think, what diffrence does it make, if you belive in CO2's effect or not, we are still on the right path. So why does it even matter to the deniers at all. What's the actual goal, of denying it at all. It seems a risky road to be on, with what's at risk.......especialy if that means we keep using fossil fuels when we don't need to. The health risk alone would sell a fossil fuel ban in cities to me, and if we have the tech to not need to use fossil fuels, why would you even consider it, and this is outside all effects on climate.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
More activity on the sun on the 17th ( not earth facing this time though ) so the hurricane happening currently was 3 days after that reaction.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
This is the NASA sun spot activity record and it clearly shows the cycles and sun activity drop during the last decade from 100s of years ago upto present
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Not that I am saying your wrong but from what I have watched hurricanes form over warm water and it's that, that makes them grow so how is the sun spot warming the water that fast. Or is it the unusually warm water that creating these massive hurricanes. Which dare I say it is more likely climate change....I am just saying. It is one of the symptoms they talk about increased weather and storms getting stronger....as the earth warms up.
If you just take the basic fact that warm water feeds hurricanes, so if the sea gets warmer then hurricanes are likely to get stronger......
- Location
- East Essexshire
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
Other interpretations exist of course
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming