Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.00 average.
  #1  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:41 PM
moneyhand (Thomas)
Registered User

moneyhand is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Posts: 1
A hotter sun means a hotter earth

Today the sun is dragging the whole solar system into a neighboring "bubble" of plasma, which causes the sun to give off more light( and heat). Are these bubbles of plasma around the milky way ,here and there ,remnants of a galaxy that the Milky Way collided with and absorbed eons ago? Man -made increase of CO2 is not the cause of the rapid melting of our ice caps. As the inside of this "lightbulb" ( with the earth in the light bulb) gets hotter ,so will the earth and the other planets too-such as Venus which just recently displayed a "small" looped coronal mass ejection coming out of it.). We should be thinking of how to survive a hotter ,brighter sun ( not carbon credits ) and developing cold fusion devices (free energy) to stop the use of fossil fuels and biofuels. What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:44 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,079
... looking forward to the fireworks! (in this thread I mean)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:48 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Been googling have we? Next time leave out wacky theories and complete lack of scientific knowledge and you may get nearer to reality.

If you are serious come back when you have read all the scientific information that is easily digestible from here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:11 PM
Dave2042's Avatar
Dave2042 (Dave)
Registered User

Dave2042 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
Been googling have we? Next time leave out wacky theories and complete lack of scientific knowledge and you may get nearer to reality.

If you are serious come back when you have read all the scientific information that is easily digestible from here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Bert
... and bring some citations from scientific sources.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:05 PM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Monto
Posts: 16,741
Here is a video explaining that Venus anomaly that was mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oonmWJvFMyw

You can see how it does look a bit like a CME.
But you'd have to have more than one screw loose to think that Venus has miraculously changed from a rocky planet into a ball of hydrogen and helium. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:43 PM
Paddy's Avatar
Paddy (Patrick)
Canis Minor

Paddy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Strangways, Vic
Posts: 2,214
Why does someone from the US make their first post on this forum a climate change denial bid. Smells like a propagandist to me. Stinks I should say. I'd have a bit more tolerance for this kind of post (I mean drivel) if the poster was a community member.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:42 PM
Smigatron (Ben)
Registered User

Smigatron is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
I don't buy the official climate change propaganda, but OP you give us 'deniers' a bad name. C'mon bro your theory sounds like something out of a cartoon.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-02-2012, 10:16 PM
marki's Avatar
marki
Waiting for next electron

marki is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,427
This thread will be long lived, still I expect a short "heated" debate before it is closed .

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-02-2012, 10:23 PM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
Don't panic everyone. The OP is an Annunakian from Planet Nibiru just trying to play with our heads!

before he eats our heads

Sounds more like a 'General Chat' section joke
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-02-2012, 10:42 PM
MikeyB's Avatar
MikeyB (Michael)
Registered User

MikeyB is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 760
On the other hand it's great for those of us with Ha solar telescopes to have a second target to observe!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:35 AM
joe_smith's Avatar
joe_smith
Registered User

joe_smith is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ingleburn
Posts: 481
Quote:
and developing cold fusion devices (free energy) to stop the use of fossil fuels and biofuels. What do you think?
I only agree with this bit.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:55 AM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
Quote:
and developing cold fusion devices (free energy) to stop the use of fossil fuels and biofuels. What do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_smith View Post
I only agree with this bit.
What? that you think?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:07 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,105
Cold fusion is impossible.
(this is just to raise the discussion temperature a bit - pun is of course intentional )

Last edited by bojan; 03-02-2012 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:08 AM
OICURMT's Avatar
OICURMT
Oh, I See You Are Empty!

OICURMT is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Laramie, WY - United States of America
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyhand View Post
Today the sun is dragging the whole solar system into a neighboring "bubble" of plasma, which causes the sun to give off more light( and heat). Are these bubbles of plasma around the milky way ,here and there ,remnants of a galaxy that the Milky Way collided with and absorbed eons ago? Man -made increase of CO2 is not the cause of the rapid melting of our ice caps. As the inside of this "lightbulb" ( with the earth in the light bulb) gets hotter ,so will the earth and the other planets too-such as Venus which just recently displayed a "small" looped coronal mass ejection coming out of it.). We should be thinking of how to survive a hotter ,brighter sun ( not carbon credits ) and developing cold fusion devices (free energy) to stop the use of fossil fuels and biofuels. What do you think?
If I agree with you, will you promise to go away?

Come on man, we yanks have enough problems with humanities perception of us, your post doesn't help at all...

Might I suggest heavy drugs, and iron mittens so you can't type anymore? I'll buy them for you if you give an address...

Thanks
OIC!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-02-2012, 03:48 PM
Keltik's Avatar
Keltik (Trevor)
Canis Major, Canis Minor

Keltik is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smigatron View Post
I don't buy the official climate change propaganda, but OP you give us 'deniers' a bad name.
You must mean "a worse name". It's bad enough already.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-02-2012, 03:57 PM
mswhin63's Avatar
mswhin63 (Malcolm)
Registered User

mswhin63 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Para Hills, South Australia
Posts: 3,622
Wouldn't be bad idea to get references. I may get a toe in.

Cold Fusion, even the idea of bringing this up is ridiculous. If you said Hydrogen and Deuterium fusion then maybe the thread would have got a look in, at least there is a race to get this running.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:29 PM
OzRob's Avatar
OzRob (Rob)
Registered User

OzRob is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Thailand
Posts: 446
It doesn't matter as the Earth will be destroyed in December anyway....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-02-2012, 06:20 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2042 View Post
... and bring some citations from scientific sources.
A rudimentarily function cerebrum would probably come in handy too.

btw) As mentioned earlier in the thread, the following page is a must read for anyone interested in the science being applied to anthropogenically forced climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Lots of good info for the deniers to chew on.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-02-2012, 06:43 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
For Example...

The Sceptics argument:
It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."


What the science says:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/grap...s_temp_500.jpg

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 2).

Table 1: Trends in °C/decade of the signal components due to MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the five temperature records from 1979 to 2010.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Table3.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Figure7.jpg

Figure 2: Influence of exogenous factors on global temperature for GISS (blue) and RSS data (red). (a) MEI; (b) AOD; (c) TSI.

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades (Figure 3).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...ttribution.png

Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

Huber and Knutti (2011): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."
Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.
Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-02-2012, 08:11 PM
mswhin63's Avatar
mswhin63 (Malcolm)
Registered User

mswhin63 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Para Hills, South Australia
Posts: 3,622
Just thought i post a program on SBS last week "Science under Attack"

Has a scientist that agrees with sceptics about 8:30 into the program. He primary reason is about the Sun too. The program says that the primary reason comes from this bloke but not sure if that is the case. Anyway was a good program to watch.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement