Why is the climate changing. (Page 48) zeffur: According to the following website, our solar system orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy in 225-250 million earth-yrs at:828,000 km/h (230 km/S) or 514,000 mph (143 miles/S)--not 72 Mm/hr The rest of the article is interesting, but, it would be even more interesting if they explained how they arrived at their conclusions. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Galactic_year By the way, the earth orbits our sun at 66,630 mph (i.e. 584088920.703 miles per yr 365.256 days per year / 24 hours per day) -- which is 107,231 km/h over a distance of 940 million km in a yr. Here's something else that is interesting: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/July-2019-Earths-Hottest-Month-Recorded-History?cm_ven=cat6-widget It's odd, but true for my region. I wonder why the "Land & Ocean Percentiles July 2019" map shows only my region at "Cooler than Average"---not that I'm complaining--just wondering why only my region in the US is cooler than average this year. Maybe the extra rainfall?? It's seems to have been a bit higher than usual, but not that much extra rainfall or cloud cover. (Edited by zeffur)  ghostgeek: Our solar system, as it moves through space, is traveling through a cloud and potentially experiencing some turbulence. The Local Interstellar Cloud, or the Local Fluff as it is more colloquially referred to, is a thin layer of magnetically charged gas that is 30 lightyears across and as hot as the surface of the sun. ... Luckily, our sun, in addition to providing us with the perfect amount of light and heat, has shielded us with a magnetic bubble that is pushed outward by solar wind. This protective layer is known as the heliosphere and it is like a carapace for our solar system, keeping cosmic radiation and pesky interstellar fluff from fogging over our planets. ... While the heliosphere and heliosheath, an area before the boundary to interstellar space, seem to be doing their jobs, there is a possibility that the Fluff is compressing our bubble. As our solar system passes through the Fluff, it becomes oblong, while simultaneously resisting the magnetic bubble of the Fluff. There is also the possibility that there are ‘cloudlets’ of significantly higher density gas within the Fluff. Could these higher density cloudlets make it through the heliosphere and into our solar system? The average density of the Local Fluff is about 0.3 atoms per cubic centimeter. To put this into perspective, the density of the edge of Earth’s atmosphere is 12 billion atoms per cubic centimeter. At this extremely thin density there isn’t much reason to worry about it penetrating our heliosphere, but if cloudlets of significantly higher densities came through, they could potentially burst our bubble. [ https://www.gaia.com/article/are-interstellar-clouds-raining-on-our-solar-system ] ghostgeek: While anthropogenic causes of climate change are undeniable, there could potentially be additional outside factors at play, according to a Russian scientist named Dr. Alexey Dmitriev . This energy that is being emitted from the Fluff could be affecting all the planets in our solar system. Dmitriev believes that this energy is producing hybrid processes and excited energy states in not just the planets but also in the Sun. So, what are the consequences of this for life on Earth? Dmitriev states that this excited state could accelerate a magnetic pole shift, it could affect ozone distribution in the atmosphere, and it could generally increase the frequency of catastrophic climate events. While this may sound apocalyptic, he says that this is a regular process and it is natural for Earth’s biosphere to undergo these changes. Essentially, Dmitriev says that these changes will create a necessity for adaptation of all life on Earth. [ https://www.gaia.com/article/are-interstellar-clouds-raining-on-our-solar-system ] ghostgeek: Have you noticed that whatever the weather, it's always the fault of global warming? I just found this: The country is freezing in an unprecedented fashion, and global warming is to blame. Sound crazy? The cold snap that North America is experiencing east of the rocky mountains, with temperatures at Arctic-like levels, is real, but it's only part of the story. Simultaneously, there are record warm temperatures happening in other parts of the world, from Australia to the actual Arctic. [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/30/this-is-why-global-warming-is-responsible-for-freezing-temperatures-across-the-usa/#1271ce57d8cf ] ghostgeek: You can bake or you can freeze but it's always the fault of humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Some days I want to scream that it doesn't matter because in the long run the sun is going to destroy everything.  kittybobo34: ghost,, I think the logic goes, more heat, more turbulence in the atmosphere, more moisture, bigger storms. All that brings sudden changes both warm and cold from the North. zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: There wouldn't be much transferable heat, since the molecules are so far apart." How do you reach that conclusion? Voyager is traveling over 38k mph in a hot (6000 C) cloud of gaseous particles that are .3 atoms per cubic foot (which isn't very dense). At that speed,the vehicle-particle collision rate is ~5577 particles per second (i.e. 38027.9 mph * 5280 ft per S / 3 ft per cubic ft / 3600 seconds *.3 atoms per cf) . It's like an ice cube traveling through much warmer thin air for who knows how much time? The longer Voyager is within the cloud the hotter is should get. kittybobo34: Zeff,, I just meant its not the same as being in a 6000 degree flame on earth. I know they hardened the craft for radiation and minor collision because of the swing through Jupiter and Saturn, Not really sure what it can take out there in interstellar space. zeffur: re: " its not the same as being in a 6000 degree flame on earth" A. There are no 6000 C (10,892 F) flames on earth. The hottest flame is dicyanoacetylene (4,990 °C; 9,010 °F). B. The particle collision rate & heat transfer rate between of such a flame (dicyanoacetylene) & gold would be much higher on earth (although, I don't know what those rates would be--it would depends on how the heat is applied, the heat dissipation rate of gold, & the structure & form of the gold being heated). Nevertheless I would be curious to know how much a .3 atom cloud at 6000 C would heat Voyager per second as it passes though such an cloud. (Edited by zeffur) ghostgeek: Anybody wanting a mental workout should take a look at this paper: Abstract Recent global warming is correlated strongly with not only levels of carbon dioxide but also increased geomagnetic activity. Factor analysis indicated these three variables share the same source of variance. Quantitative statistical analyses and physical equations suggest the presence of variable structures in spacetime through which the solar system is moving that may be responsible for the doubling of the solar coronal magnetic field, increased geomagnetic activity and the elevating temperatures on Earth and Mars. The apparent relationship to human activity would be epiphenomenal. [ http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange110.html ] kittybobo34: By that reasoning then Mars should be warming up as well? Life on earth has maintained the status quo to some extent by changing the values of co2 and oxygen, That feedback loop is what we are messing with, and that could throw this planet into a new stable point that is about 50 degrees higher than we are used to. zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: ...That feedback loop is what we are messing with, and that could throw this planet into a new stable point that is about 50 degrees higher than we are used to. Where's the evidence to support that belief/conclusion? This is interesting from the url that GG provided: "Both El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib (2006) and Persinger (2009a) have shown that at least half of the variance in the global warming can be accommodated by the energy available from the upward drift in geomagnetic activity." Anyone see that MAJOR factor listed in the last IPCC report??  theHating: The Journal of Cosmology describes itself as a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal of cosmology,[1] although the quality of the process has been questioned.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The journal has been closely related historically with a similar online website, Cosmology (or Cosmology.com).[8] The journal was established in 2009 and is published by Cosmology Science Publishers. Rudolph Schild is the editor-in-chief and executive editor.[1] theHating: Questions the lines of evidence for agw feedback loops, then copies and pastes (with no link) presumably an excerpt from the frickin IPCC.  zeffur: re: "theHating: ... what should we conclude from that "major" fact?" Reasonable people should conclude: 1. There is more to the climate picture than just the greenhouse gases that the IPCC & it's arrogant supporters blather on endlessly & incompletely about. If "... at least half of the variance in the global warming can be accommodated by the energy available from the upward drift in geomagnetic activity" is true, then I think the IPCC pretty much botched their assessment of the climate factors involved--which really shouldn't surprise anyone when you consider their base motivations are primarily political in nature--under the guise of saving the people of the world by enslaving them with unnecessary carbon taxation to further their 'new world order' agendas. 2. Other factors may paint a clearer picture that mankind isn't responsible for and can likely do nothing about climate cycles that have been occurring forever on earth (unless we develop the capability of controlling sunlight from outer space). 3. theHating should read more of this forum's content more carefully & realize "GG" = "ghostgeek" and the url that s/he can't seem to find is just 2 posts above my post (i.e.: http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange110.html ) before embarrassing her/himself again. 4. "theHating ...then copies and pastes (with no link) presumably an excerpt from the frickin IPCC" is an erroneous presumption. 5. The reasons people are providing such contrary & otherwise alternative feedback to the IPCC's short-sighted claims is because the IPCC obviously hasn't gotten things right--their predictive models & simulations have proven over & over to be incorrect. At this point only numbskulls consider what they've presented thus far as credible & trustworthy. (Edited by zeffur)  Sir Loin: Hating you're confusing weather and climate. Weather is happening today, climate has been happening for years. I was a meteorologist for 10 years before becoming a climatologist. The basic skills for either role are similar so most climatologists begin life as meteorologists. The ability to think in deep geological time is the difference. Being knowledgeable in the other earth sciences helps too Sir Loin: Zeffur, "Reasonable people should conclude"??? Really? Isn't that a bit arrogant when what you really mean is anyone who agrees with me? Also The folks in IPCC are not very arrogant, in fact they're a heck of a nice bunch. I know; I used to share an office with the current head of the Climate Task Force, Dr David Wratt. A few others had neighbouring offices or labs. Dave is always forthcoming with any data or info I request, even advising me of something new which supports my opinion that CO2 doesn't factor in climate change. He freely admits much of the data do not support the currently accepted theory. Prof Jim Renwick may be completely mistaken in working on his X2 CO2 scenarios but he's not at all opinionated about it. He is also aware I oppose the current theory but freely provides me with data I request. Like all true scientists the IPCC folks just want to get to the bottom of the problem. All except one member of the IPCC task force are happy to listen to my hypothesis and give it equal consideration to their own. zeffur: re: "Sir Loin: ...Isn't that a bit arrogant when what you really mean is anyone who agrees with me? Also The folks in IPCC are not very arrogant..." No. The arrogance is in their projection of certainty that they are right in their beliefs--which they've been wrong & fudging the numbers on for years, as well as rejecting alternative theories & evidence. They've also posted quite dire & unnecessary predictions in the past to panic people. Here's an example of one of them talking about their 'certainty'-which is bogus, imo: Consider this: YouTube for an alternative to their 'certainty'. Plus they have twisted/conflated some facts: YouTube I can't find the vid at the moment, but there was vid on YT of an ex IPCC scientist who shared many reason why the IPCC should not be trusted. If I find it, I'll post it. I'm sure some of members of the IPCC are quite well intentioned, but, overall, I think many people disagree with their assertions. Man's contribution are only one factor (and some believe a small factor) in all of the factors that are contributing to climate change. In the end, we aren't introducing any new CO2 or other gases into the earth system--we are just liberating them by burning fossil fuels. Nature will do what nature has done with CO2 & other greenhouse gases/compounds--and it isn't going to make much difference in the long run. Sir Loin: I agree. The CIFOR chap uses a lot of words though and says almost nothing. All he does is spout the same old mantras of the AGW groups. The 2nd vid is 100% correct. NASA and NOAAH have both had to admit they "revise" previous temp data by feeding it through their own models which presume a CO2 effect and adjust temps downwards to make it appear the Earth is warming. They also treat their future modelled (predicted) warmer temps as actually observed fact. Nature can take care of the CO2 in its normal carbon cycle. The fertilising effect of CO2 is enabling more prolific plant growth today, although it is increasing acidity of the ocean enough to affect coral reefs in some parts. My research indicates the primary driver of climate change is solar flares. We are currently in a minimum so likely to experience a glacial period within 2 decades. The AGW group is making too much money to let their theories go right now. theHating: Contrast 20 years of climate funding with a certain oil company's market cap on any given day. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |