There is no Planet B

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

What it has to do is with you undermining your own personal theory that Earth has been warming since the 1950’s and is now going into ancooling phase. You support warming to give credence to your Cosmic Ray Cooling Theory but then attack it when it is attributed to AWG.

You are consistent only in being contrarian.

you really should study more there is a lot more than just cosmic rays at work here . There is the whole bit about the primary source of all energy on the planet . ( actually all of it)
the sun . Take a year on the basics of astrophysics and cosmology they you might grasp what I am telling you.

Its natural not man caused. Major difference here.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Many on the CO2 GHG side say no, there is not enough difference in insolation to account for the observed temperature increases we have seen in the historical record. However, insolation is measured at the surface of the earth, and doesn't account for what happens in the upper atmosphere and thermosphere.

The sun is in a very quiescent phase right now - no sunspots, greatly reduced output of x-rays - and each succeeding 11-year cycle has been weaker than the one preceding it since the 1970s. The temperature of the earth's thermosphere has dropped over 600C due to the drop in x-ray emissions from the sun.

What effect that can have on surface temperatures, we don't know. But, if you subscribe to the GHG theory - that gasses warmed by IR radiation from the surface can further warm the surface - then you also have to at least consider the possibility that gasses higher up warmed by x-ray radiation can also warm the surface.

And along with the decrease in sunspot activity and x-ray emissions, the solar magnetic field has also weakened, allowing more cosmic rays from deep space to strike the earth. There is a theory that increased cosmic rays results in increased cloud cover over the earth, resulting in a cooler surface.

We clearly don't have the full picture yet, but it is coming into better focus. I will say that the next 10-20 years will make it a lot clearer.

precisely but they will fight tooth and nail against the facts that go against the political narrative.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I disagree with your 40%

During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm ... In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.

(source)

400/280 x 100% = 143%, or the CO2 level has increased by 43% above the highest pre-industrial levels of the last 500,000 years.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(source)

400/280 x 100% = 143%, or the CO2 level has increased by 43% above the highest pre-industrial levels of the last 500,000 years.

what percentage of that rise is carbon 14 ?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by oldjags

... https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

Your chart, “Daily Sunspot Area Averaged Over Individual Solar Rotations” ~ Hathaway 2016" appears to come from:
➥ https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

Or, perhaps, Dr. David Hathaway’s* “Solar Cycle Science” website.
➥ Discover the Sun!

* David Hathaway, a member of the MSFC solar physics group for 29 years, transferred to NASA's Ames Research Center in California, and retired in December 2016. Dr. Hathaway created his own website, which hosts sunspot cycle data and predictions.

But, I’m not certain what you think the chart suggests/proves. Could you elucidate?

➥ https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

➥ https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the atmosphere has regions from the dirt up you have the troposphere, the stratosphere , the methosphere, the thermosphere , the exosphere , and the ionosphere.

Edit I forgot the magnosphere its between the exosphere and the ionosphere

Wouldn't it be fun to ask a "Flat Earther" to name those?
What would they call all those "sphere" things connected to a pancake shaped earth?

[hpeer]

Skeptical Science has a very long discussion of the role cosmic radiation plays in climate change. The short answer seems to be that, baring all other factors there maybe some correlation. However the CO2 signal is now much stronger and over riding any Cosmic Ray contribution.

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-...g-advanced.htm

Note: when reading the article you can long click on the graphs to get additional information.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

what percentage of that rise is carbon 14 ?

What has that got to do with anything? Humans begin burning fossil fuels in increasing amounts, CO2 in atmosphere goes up in commensurate amounts. Um, duh.

[Budawang]

And meanwhile the effects of global warming are all around us for all to see: retreating glaciers, heat records being broken left right and centre, one in one thousand year floods, increased beach erosion, longer fire seasons etc etc.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Rough Magic

Here's food for thought:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/

Just the beginning. Just another in a long line of industry deceptions; lead, paper, coal, steel, chemical, pesticides, plastics.

I wish it were not so.

Now one has to wonder if someone here is going to refute Scientific Americans story and pretend that our leaders know more about Climate Change than the world's Scientific Community.
HORSE HOCKEY
SV Cloud Duster

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by newhaul

precisely but they will fight tooth and nail against the facts that go against the political narrative.

Sail yer boat on Mars, cause that's what these levels of CO2 will cause,The Atmosphere on Mars.
Sand Sailing, you can have that, thank the Fossil Fuel Fanatics.
SV Cloud Duster

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really should study more there is a lot more than just cosmic rays at work here . There is the whole bit about the primary source of all energy on the planet . ( actually all of it)
the sun . Take a year on the basics of astrophysics and cosmology they you might grasp what I am telling you.

Its natural not man caused. Major difference here.

Nice try at deflection. That’s not the point.

The point is you argue whatever side you want even to the point of contradicting yourself. As I’ve pointed out in the above post.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What has that got to do with anything? Humans begin burning fossil fuels in increasing amounts, CO2 in atmosphere goes up in commensurate amounts. Um, duh.

If CO2 in the atmosphere increased 40% due to burning of fossil fuels, it doesn't seem to have that great of an impact on the earths temperature. Is the warming effect being offset by a cooling mechanism? Will we run out of fossil fuels before heating the planet to unacceptable levels? This really seems to be a fairly simple problem but will require the input from several disciplines to solve. Why try and make it a lifetime career?

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really should study more there is a lot more than just cosmic rays at work here . There is the whole bit about the primary source of all energy on the planet . ( actually all of it)
the sun . Take a year on the basics of astrophysics and cosmology they you might grasp what I am telling you.

Its natural not man caused. Major difference here.

Nice try at distraction.

The point is you try to argue the Cosmic Rays warmed the Earth until 2016 but now cool the Earth at the same time you deny any Global Warming.

See post 866 where I detailed this.

This is a disingenuous argument or the argument of a disturbed mind. You have lost all credibility.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Many on the CO2 GHG side say no, there is not enough difference in insolation to account for the observed temperature increases we have seen in the historical record. However, insolation is measured at the surface of the earth, and doesn't account for what happens in the upper atmosphere and thermosphere.

The sun is in a very quiescent phase right now - no sunspots, greatly reduced output of x-rays - and each succeeding 11-year cycle has been weaker than the one preceding it since the 1970s. The temperature of the earth's thermosphere has dropped over 600C due to the drop in x-ray emissions from the sun.

What effect that can have on surface temperatures, we don't know. But, if you subscribe to the GHG theory - that gasses warmed by IR radiation from the surface can further warm the surface - then you also have to at least consider the possibility that gasses higher up warmed by x-ray radiation can also warm the surface.

And along with the decrease in sunspot activity and x-ray emissions, the solar magnetic field has also weakened, allowing more cosmic rays from deep space to strike the earth. There is a theory that increased cosmic rays results in increased cloud cover over the earth, resulting in a cooler surface.

We clearly don't have the full picture yet, but it is coming into better focus. I will say that the next 10-20 years will make it a lot clearer.

It's nice to hear the voice of reason in these discussions once in a while. Thanks.