The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Why do you bring this up?

Ah, I answer my own question if I just read your later posts.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

It says that the Sun's energized plasmas (ie, solar wind) has not yet been ruled out, and this is what I was hypothesizing.

So, are you suggesting that more particles of solar wind are getting through the magnetosphere and that increase is the cause of warming?

I think that's a very unlikely theory for many reasons:

* A stronger solar wind would affect radio transmissions, which we have not seen.
* A weaker magnetic field around the Earth would let in more particles but we have not seen the former.
* More particles getting into the atmosphere would create more intense aurora, which we have not seen.
* I know of no connection of the solar wind to generating heat, except through aurora.

I haven't even seen this idea suggested on skeptic web pages. The closest I've read is that cosmic rays creates clouds (which they don't) and higher solar winds block some of these rays (which would have little effect).

Do you really think this hypothesis is more likely than CO2, assuming I show you concentrations have increased?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by bkelly

* A weaker magnetic field around the Earth would let in more particles but we have not seen the former.

Ack, I'm wrong on this one. Estimates are that the Earth's magnetic field is 10% weaker than it was in 1845.

However, I still think my three remaining reasons are enough to show it is unlikely that solar wind is the cause of the recent warming.

bkelly

[LordKelvin]

If I remember correctly, there was a National Geographic article about the solar wind not too long ago, sometime in the past year. It stated that while the auroras are not getting more 'intense', per se, they are getting both more frequent and are visible at much lower latitudes than before, indicating that leakage of solar energized particles is becoming more prevalent.

As for my hypotheses: If you can show data which indicates that the Sun's irradiance is no greater than before, and that axial tilt is decreasing, I will abandon the first hypothesis.

As for the second, I am willing to explore it further. I also would like to add, that we haven't covered fully the implications of the ozone holes as being a cause. I think that that is also a viable hypothesis.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

If I remember correctly, there was a National Geographic article about the solar wind not too long ago, sometime in the past year. It stated that while the auroras are not getting more 'intense', per se, they are getting both more frequent and are visible at much lower latitudes than before, indicating that leakage of solar energized particles is becoming more prevalent.

I can't find this. The closest match is at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...8-auroras.html which doesn't talk about frequency or creep.

I suggest we consider solar wind as a cause of global warming an unlikely theory for now which we can revisit if someone finds evidence that auroras and/or magnetic storms have increased over the last few decades.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

As for my hypotheses: If you can show data which indicates that the Sun's irradiance is no greater than before, and that axial tilt is decreasing, I will abandon the first hypothesis.

Great.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

As for the second, I am willing to explore it further.

What do you think of my predictions of how the temperature would have behaved if your "still warming out of the ice age" theory is correct or would you prefer to dig deeper into the underlying causes and see how each element, like axial tilt, should be affecting the climate?

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

I also would like to add, that we haven't covered fully the implications of the ozone holes as being a cause. I think that that is also a viable hypothesis.

Most certainly. I had said we would consider it your third hypothesis and so I planned to visit it after we had explored the second. If you prefer, I have no problem focusing on it now and putting off the discussion on climate changes due to ice age cycles.

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

* A stronger solar wind would affect radio transmissions, which we have not seen.

We haven't?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

We haven't?

Let me phrase it better.

* A stronger solar wind would create more disruptions of radio transmissions, which we have not seen.

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Let me phrase it better.

* A stronger solar wind would create more disruptions of radio transmissions, which we have not seen.

bkelly

But we have seen more solar interruptions of radio transmissions in the last decade than ever before.

[LordKelvin]

Let's stick with the ozone question for now, since it seems less difficult to deal with than the whole Ice Age warming/cooling cycle thing.

Oh, and again, until you produce numbers for the first hypothesis, I will not rule it out. And use good sources for it... I will not accept something from wikipedia.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

But we have seen more solar interruptions of radio transmissions in the last decade than ever before.

That is news to me. Where did you learn this?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Let's stick with the ozone question for now, since it seems less difficult to deal with than the whole Ice Age warming/cooling cycle thing.

All right, we'll focus on the shrinking ozone causing global warming. This is actually a harder topic for me since I don't know as much about it. Research will be needed. While I'm reading up, can you think of any tests that would be either evidence for or against this hypothesis?

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Oh, and again, until you produce numbers for the first hypothesis, I will not rule it out.

Of course.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

And use good sources for it... I will not accept something from wikipedia.

A shame since I think wikipedia is one of the greatest references man has ever created. Regardless, I agree not to use it as proof.

bkelly

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by bkelly

A shame since I think wikipedia is one of the greatest references man has ever created. Regardless, I agree not to use it as proof.

bkelly

The entry for Willa Ford 2 days ago included the phrase "Because she will be in it, the movie will be a dud."

That actually kinda makes me agree with you, though I think I'm using "great" in a different way.

[DrBeat]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I disagree!

Seriously, I recently came across an article that did a good job of explaining how climate change is a natural process that would take place even if humans did not exist. So, climate change (or global warming and cooling) are in fact natural processes that do exist independently of human influence.

That's my entire stance on the issue right there! The earth has had climate shifts before. The Medieval Warm period for example. The temperatures then were warmer then today, and it was obviously caused by the large amount of cars and such they drove then. lol. I think going green is good, I just don't like how global warming has become a major scare tactic.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

That is news to me. Where did you learn this?

bkelly

Oh, you know, when I was working on Top Secret satellite systems...

Or, if you read the paper and read about the millions of cell phones that don't work every now and then due to solar activity...

Or the huge article in Popular Science a few years back...

Sorry, I thought it was fairly common knowledge to the technically minded person.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Oh, you know, when I was working on Top Secret satellite systems...

Or, if you read the paper and read about the millions of cell phones that don't work every now and then due to solar activity...

Or the huge article in Popular Science a few years back...

Sorry, I thought it was fairly common knowledge to the technically minded person.

It is common knowledge that there are solar interruptions of radio transmissions. However, you claimed, "we have seen more solar interruptions of radio transmissions in the last decade than ever before."

Any support for this alleged increase other than, "Well, we're seeing interruptions now"?

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots
June 9, 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609124551.htm

Solar Variability: Striking A Balance With Climate Change
May 12, 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0512120523.htm

Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
Sep. 14, 2006
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0914095559.htm

Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes
Oct. 1, 2004
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1001092000.htm

Solar Contribution To 'Global Warming' Predicted To Decrease
Oct. 2, 2003
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1002055621.htm

As you can hopefully now understand, the sun is not causing recent warming; in fact, the low amounts of recent solar activity have been sparing us from even greater warming. Furthermore, if one really believed that the sun was the major culprit of global warming, how does that make elevated atmospheric C02 levels any safer? To me that sounds like an even worse problem than greenhouse gas emissions.