As is described in that article, Earth has a unique system of "thermostat control", some of which is regulated by atmospheric composition and some is regulated through biotic metabolism. This makes us different from other planets that are less resistant to solar and cosmic radiation. It is not logical at all to assume that just because other solar system planets are experiencing heating that is caused by solar and cosmic rays, that Earth is also. This is a logical fallacy.

The sun not only influences weather, but is also the source of energy for nearly all life on Earth. My point is not that this radiation doesn't affect weather and climate patterns, but that the current data and models are not accounted for by this alone (or even for the most part). That article says that the energy from the recent solar flare that reached Earth's atmosphere could have powered NYC for 2 years, but since 95% of the energy was deflected from the planet, then this is more like 36 days of NYC energy consumption worth. This is a lot less dramatic. Also looking at the graph of nitric oxide emission power for 2011 until now, it shows that this spike is hardly a significant increase in total average energy at all. Since this graph is of power, the area under the curve is total emitted energy and, as you can see, this short lived spike will have very little impact on the total amount of energy reaching earth in an extended amount of time. Furthermore, this being the largest amount of energy to hit earth's atmosphere from solar radiation since 2005 doesn't make it seem extraordinary at all. I would like to see a graph of several thousand years worth of solar flare data, but this is probably impossible. My guess is that the amount of cosmic/solar radiation that is affecting earth is nothing new and that these fluctuations are typical and minimal in effect. Every respectable scientist who has seen the data agrees that man-made climate change is real and will be a significant problem for many species and areas on the planet. Don't be a climate change denier.

saw this movie .. very lame sorry to say, but like all these type of films they go one to say the big business is destorying this perfect free energy concept whic is so much BS!

As anyone in the IT industry know opensource is the future of computing software .. besides apples authoritarian benevolence in its products. the whole construct of the interent is made up a free to use and distribute software .. php , apache, mysql, drupal wordpress, android linux and the list goes on.

With this said free energy would no doubt go the same way if they created it. But all of these so called free energy creates still want money .. granted they need to build it but .. if free energy was created by these people with grandiose delusion of a better world without oil then all they would need to do is patent the creation and let the plans for the product go viral on the internet , heck they could make a ton of money just on google ads if there system was what they say it is .. but it is not and nature does not allow free energy in the current imagination of these people.

Our sun is the all the free energy we need, i think when we learn how to exploit it to its full potential we will be able to do away with coal energy at least

Are you really going to argue that the sun does not affect climate? Really? You should take a second to think about this one, because frankly, without the sun, we would have NO CLIMATE to speak of.

It is perfectly logical to draw the connection that if other planets are experiencing change similar to what is occurring on this planet, that there is a cause outside of human influence that is producing these changes. Otherwise it would be logical to assume that the other planets had life on them as well as a species that was pouring CO2 into their atmospheres.

The thrust of the article I posted was that the recent solar storms had created the heat wave the central US had recently experienced. You are right, much of it was irradiated back into space...but when you have 26 billion kWh hit the earth, and 5% gets through that's 1.3 billion kWh. If a normal day is 1 billion kWh, and 5% of that is 50 million kWh, you can see that it is not an insignificant amount of energy that is coming to the planet.

No need for Ad Hominem attacks, please. Especially ones that are contradictory to what I have actually stated.

I have clearly stated in my posts that I am not a climate change denier, I am an anthropocentric climate change skeptic as the evidence is just not there. Yes, we are having an impact upon the planet with what we are putting into the atmosphere. Yes we should be better stewards of the plant and not degrade the environment in any way. But, we are not the main cause of what is occurring, and taxing the people under a false paradigm is wrong in my opinion.

You are right, 'respectable' scientists have come out in agreement that climate change is happening, of that I am not denying. What is still at question, and being questioned by 'respectable' scientists is what is causing it. There is not uniform acceptance among 'respectable' scientists whether it is anthropocentric or not. If you read the articles, it is very clear that they say climate change, and not man made climate change, because the evidence, beyond circumstantial, is not there.

The earth is still cooler now than it has been in the distant past, (In 3 million of the last 6 million years the earth was warmer than it is today) so there is no way to say with 100% certainty that anthropogenic actions are the cause. It is circumstantial evidence but has not been proven. Does an increase in CO2 cause warming, or does warming cause an increase in CO2? So far there is no way to know for sure. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been much higher in the past as well, when there were no humans putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As for solar irradiation...did you know that the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does not even account for indirect solar forcings (cosmic rays) in their climate modeling? In fact they don't even measure for it, and from some accounts, when you combine direct (the sun) and indirect (cosmic rays) the amount of energy reaching the planet is 3.8 times higher than direct forcing alone? So the Earth could be getting 4 times the amount of energy from space than is being accounted for by 'respectable' scientists.

Doesn't sound very respectable to me...

This just in the news recently:

Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC
http://www.theregister.c...d_little_ice_age_global/

The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2

In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al's work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

When did I say that the sun doesn't affect climate??? In fact, I said the opposite. Please read more carefully.

Please don't use the term "perfectly logical" to describe your argument, it is not logical at all.. it is a fallacy. The reasoning in your argument doesn't necessitate the conclusion.

Please understand what Power is. It is a measure of RATE of energy transfer. This means that the integral of power is energy. Therefore short burst of power (that wasn't even that large) does not cause a large increase in energy.

One reason why we cannot compare warming/cooling effects on Earth to those effects on other planets is because Earth has radically different feedback mechanisms than these other planets and a number of other factors to take into account.

Are you seriously going to make the argument that CO2 levels have increased because of warming??? That is ridiculous beyond belief. First of all, the Earth has not warmed very much yet. Secondly, the CO2 concentrations have increased steadily with the increase of burning carbon. Thirdly they've demonstrated many times over, through carbon isotope ratios and other methods, that the increase is absolutely due to human activity. The only ones who deny such facts are scientists that are funded by companies like Exxon or conservative think tanks. I don't know how much Fox News you watch, but there is massive amount of data showing that the current CO2 level increase was caused by humans. This is a fact. What is being debated now, is the degree to which these changes will affect climate. To say that this has "not been proven" is asinine. Please provide a plausible alternative hypothesis if you think that this CO2 is arising from another source.

Yeah the Earth has been warmer in the past, but why are you comparing the temperature today when there has only been a 1 degree fahrenheit increase since 1900. The issue is the drastically warmer temperatures that we will see in the next 50-100 years. Did you also know that there used to be no oxygen on Earth? Did you know there used to be only one continent on Earth? These facts are irrelevant. The point is that the models show what would happen without human activity and what is happening with human activity and there is a massive consequence resulting from human activity.

By the way, scientists do factor in irradiation from space. The IPCC is not the only group examining this issue. There is global consensus that we are the problem for this. You are the outlier.

That is one reason why you couldn't. I understand your point, that if all other planets are experiencing climate change, that does not mean the same mechanism is causing it here. Jupiter has a different climate than all the other planets, so does Mars, and Venus, and Neptune, and Pluto, and Mercury, etc. But the one thing they all have in common is that their climates and characteristics have been significantly changing in the last few decades. To claim that something external (a common denominator) to each planets climate is not causing change seems to me to be ignoring the obvious. :shrug:



By the way, scientists do factor in irradiation from space. The IPCC is not the only group examining this issue. There is global consensus that we are the problem for this. You are the outlier.[/quote]

LOL Fox News...no I don't watch Fox News at all, in fact I haven't had a television in over 2 years. I don't like being told what to believe. I like to make up my own mind from researching all the data available...

"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority. Then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan that comes along." -Carl Sagan

My hypothesis would be whatever has caused a cyclical rise in CO2 throughout history. Rises in CO2 levels are not dependent upon us, never have been. Perhaps today is something different, but it is circumstantial evidence, and not something that should be taken as unadulterated fact.



Which scientists? What reports? If every 'respectable' group studying this issue comes to the same conclusion while omitting what could be significant data, who cares if they are all saying the same thing? Every one of their conclusions is based on an incomplete model. No matter how many scientists tell me 2+2=5, that does not make it so...

Since the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change is the world body that speaks authority on these matters and is the organization whose conclusions are what governments are basing their responses to this 'crisis' on, one would think that they would use all the data available. And this overseeing body does not include INDIRECT forcings into their modeling.

That is one reason why you couldn't. I understand your point, that if all other planets are experiencing climate change, that does not mean the same mechanism is causing it here. Jupiter has a different climate than all the other planets, so does Mars, and Venus, and Neptune, and Pluto, and Mercury, etc. But the one thing they all have in common is that their climates and characteristics have been significantly changing in the last few decades. To claim that something external (a common denominator) to each planets climate is not causing change seems to me to be ignoring the obvious. :shrug:



LOL Fox News...no I've never watched Fox News at all, in fact I haven't had a television in over 2 years. I don't like being told what to believe. I like to make up my own mind from researching all the data available...

"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority. Then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan that comes along." -Carl Sagan

My hypothesis would be whatever has caused a cyclical rise in CO2 throughout history. Rises in CO2 levels are not dependent upon us, never have been. Perhaps today is something different, but it is circumstantial evidence, and not something that should be taken as unadulterated fact.

Which scientists? What reports? If every 'respectable' group studying this issue comes to the same conclusion while omitting what could be significant data, who cares if they are all saying the same thing? Every one of their conclusions is based on an incomplete model. No matter how many scientists tell me 2+2=5, that does not make it so...

Since the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change is the world body that speaks authority on these matters and is the organization whose conclusions are what governments are basing their responses to this 'crisis' on, one would think that they would use all the data available. And this overseeing body does not include INDIRECT forcings into their modeling.