'No Sun link' to climate change

**Michael** · 04-02-08, 09:02 PM

'No Sun link' to climate change

Just an update on this theory

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

**~~draqon~~** · 04-02-08, 09:04 PM

yeah obviously less than 100 years of Sun observational data is enough to make a claim that Sun has NOTHING to do with Earth warming cycles of 10000 years in span. <-sarcasm

**Michael** · 04-02-08, 11:34 PM

Heh .. maybe

**TW Scott** · 04-03-08, 12:13 AM

yeah, I love how this study ignores the fact that all the temperature readings we are getting form the other planets are also high by a similiar percentage to what we are facing on Earth.

**spacemansteve** · 04-03-08, 07:48 AM

Hmmm... cloud formation is formed by a number of weather effects such as convection, orographic lifting, frontal lifting, inversion layers etc etc etc... I wonder what causes the creation of those weather effects/patterns... Oh wait... It couldn't be the sun could it?

Of course the sun doesn't create clouds, The sun drives our friggin atmosphere. The weather patterns that we have create clouds. I've seen it with my own 2 eyes. A nice little cloud bank turn into a massive thunderstorm pretty damn quickly. Convection

Its a stupid report

**cosmictraveler** · 04-03-08, 08:27 AM

Hmmm... cloud formation is formed by a number of weather effects such as convection, orographic lifting, frontal lifting, inversion layers etc etc etc... I wonder what causes the creation of those weather effects/patterns... Oh wait... It couldn't be the sun could it

Actually its the oceans.

**iceaura** · 04-03-08, 03:38 PM

Solar fluctuation has always been a chancy explanation because of the pattern of the warming observed (the greatest warming has been at night and in the winter and at high latitudes - the times and places of least solar influence) and because it does not account for the effects of the CO2 buildup.

**MetaKron** · 04-03-08, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by iceaura

Solar fluctuation has always been a chancy explanation because of the pattern of the warming observed (the greatest warming has been at night and in the winter and at high latitudes - the times and places of least solar influence) and because it does not account for the effects of the CO2 buildup.

There is one solar influence that can warm just one end of a planet. The magnetic field of a planet sends protons from solar flares one direction and electrons the other.

**Enmos** · 04-03-08, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by MetaKron

There is one solar influence that can warm just one end of a planet. The magnetic field of a planet sends protons from solar flares one direction and electrons the other.

What end is that and how does it warm the surface ?

**MetaKron** · 04-03-08, 08:44 PM

The end that receives the protons gets warmer than the end that receives the electrons. There is no way around it. The protons are far more massive.

**Mr. G** · 04-03-08, 10:55 PM

And you believed Al Gore when he said he also invented the proton?

**iceaura** · 04-03-08, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by metakron

The end that receives the protons gets warmer than the end that receives the electrons. There is no way around it. The protons are far more massive.

So now the theory is that the northern lights heat the lower atmosphere of the planet ?

The theatrical term for these successive explanations is "farce".

Please don't tell me that someone is using this to explain why the nights are warming more than the days, and the winters more than the summers - because the northern lights only come out at night.

BTW: it's mass times velocity squared, for delivered energy. The mass of the protons doesn't cover the matter.

**MetaKron** · 04-04-08, 05:57 AM

It's one half the mass times the velocity squared, and protons have 1836 times the mass of electrons. That's 1836 times the energy.

During the bad flare weather that we were having in 2004 astronomers noticed that some of the planets were warming up and it was just one end of each planet.

**Captain Kremmen** · 04-04-08, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by iceaura

Please don't tell me that someone is using this to explain why the nights are warming more than the days, and the winters more than the summers - because the northern lights only come out at night.

Isn't that like saying that the stars only come out at night,
or possibly you are joking.

**iceaura** · 04-04-08, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by metakron

and protons have 1836 times the mass of electrons. That's 1836 times the energy.

Depends on the velocity. How much of this delivered energy reaches the lower atmosphere ? Do we notice daily or weekly fluctuations in temperature in response to solar flares ?

btw: The Earth's field differs from, say, Mars's Mars's is almost non-existent, Venus's also weak, so large differential polar heating by this mechanism would not apply to Mars or Venus, right ?

Originally Posted by metakron

During the bad flare weather that we were having in 2004 astronomers noticed that some of the planets were warming up and it was just one end of each planet.

And during the non-flare weather in other years, the Earth's temperature trendline just kept rising - in the lower latitudes as well, and mostly at night and in the winter.

Originally Posted by kremman

Isn't that like saying that the stars only come out at night,
or possibly you are joking.

I certainly hope I'm joking, but I've been listening to Creationists talk about "water shields" and worldwide floods of a few thousand years ago. That crowd is lining up against the liberals and their global warming, and similar popular science is to be expected.

**guthrie** · 04-04-08, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by TW Scott

yeah, I love how this study ignores the fact that all the temperature readings we are getting form the other planets are also high by a similiar percentage to what we are facing on Earth.

They don't. Please check your sources.

**guthrie** · 04-04-08, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. G

And you believed Al Gore when he said he also invented the proton?

He did? Man, thanks for clearing that one up. Did he invent the electron as well, or was that someone elses? Imagine if we didn't have protons, what would we do?

Mind you, since you are taking the mickey out of a silly person, perhaps I shouldn't bother...
Nahh, lets leave it.

**guthrie** · 04-04-08, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by MetaKron

There is one solar influence that can warm just one end of a planet. The magnetic field of a planet sends protons from solar flares one direction and electrons the other.

Evidence please.

**TW Scott** · 04-04-08, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by guthrie

They don't. Please check your sources.

Well think on this then. Why would they come to the conclusion that the Sun has no link to global warming when we seem to experiencing Solar system warming? They might mention it in their report, but they obviously could not fathom the connection.

**iceaura** · 04-04-08, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by twscott

Why would they come to the conclusion that the Sun has no link to global warming when we seem to experiencing Solar system warming?

You could ask them. They did investigate the matter, after all, with well-publicised satellite launches over the Sun's poles and into special orbits for measuring solar wind and radiation and lots of measurements of solar radiation in many places for many years now and paleontological research into the traces of the solar variations of the past and so forth - or do you think the consensus report of the IPCC failed to consider the influence of variations in the solar flux ?