The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Science

The Other Climate Theory (That Uses Actual Science)

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 · >>
El_Tino On October 12, 2023
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#16New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 19:18:50
El_Tino On October 12, 2023
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#17New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 19:27:48
Here's an experiment you can try at home, TPT.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387247
Richard142 On February 15, 2015




Greater London, United Kingdom
#18New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 19:45:44
Trying to assimilate all this evidence, viewing these dramatic graphs all awesome. Afraid I can't give the source of the following story that to me is credible.
A householder has been recording the time when a flowering tree first flowers outside her home. According to these records the tree now flowers 6 weeks earlier than when the record was started 30 years ago. To me this is a clear indication that Globule Warming [GW] is not a myth. This evidence is not pointing to any particular cause just that GW is happening.
Even while scientists disagree to the cause of GW who, in tfs, still disputes that GW is happening.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#19New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:06:00
@El_Tino Said


Not quite " During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth." More cosmic rays = more clouds = lower temps, so more solar activity = less cosmic rays = less clouds = higher temps, according to this theory.



With all due respect you have that backwards. The concern here is with the greenhouse effect. More clouds means heat is less able to escape the Earth meaning more warming. More solar activity means less gamma radiation which means less clouds which means the heat is able to escape and we have lower temperatures. Less solar activity means more gamma radiation is able to reach the Earth, generating more clouds, meaning more heat is trapped.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#20New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:07:34
@Richard142 Said

Trying to assimilate all this evidence, viewing these dramatic graphs all awesome. Afraid I can't give the source of the following story that to me is credible.
A householder has been recording the time when a flowering tree first flowers outside her home. According to these records the tree now flowers 6 weeks earlier than when the record was started 30 years ago. To me this is a clear indication that Globule Warming [GW] is not a myth. This evidence is not pointing to any particular cause just that GW is happening.
Even while scientists disagree to the cause of GW who, in tfs, still disputes that GW is happening.



No credible scientist is disputing that the Earth is getting warmer. It very obviously is. The dispute is over what is causing the warming, and whether or not something can be done to slow it down. Your experiment doesn't prove anything other than the obvious.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#21New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:09:15
@boxerdc Said

Please explain why you changed your stance from gamma rays to sunspot activity?

Do you think that sunspots are the only source?

Because if you do, then, as with everything else you think, you're wrong.



Apparently you didn't read the article. The entire discussion is about the effect solar activity (sun spots) has on incoming gamma radiation. More solar activity means less gamma radiation, and vice versa.
El_Tino On October 12, 2023
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#22New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:14:46
@drman321 Said

With all due respect you have that backwards. The concern here is with the greenhouse effect. More clouds means heat is less able to escape the Earth meaning more warming. More solar activity means less gamma radiation which means less clouds which means the heat is able to escape and we have lower temperatures. Less solar activity means more gamma radiation is able to reach the Earth, generating more clouds, meaning more heat is trapped.



From the article

" Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. "

Translation: more sunspots = less cosmic rays = less clouds = warmer temperature, so there ought to be a positive correlation between sunspots and temperature, the graphs presented show this relationship breaking down starting in the late 1970s.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#23New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 20:28:43
@El_Tino Said

From the article

" Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. "

Translation: more sunspots = less cosmic rays = less clouds = warmer temperature, so there ought to be a positive correlation between sunspots and temperature, the graphs presented show this relationship breaking down starting in the late 1970s.



hmmm, it does say that in the article. I wonder where they are getting that, I mean yes more heat reaches the Earth if there are less clouds, but what heat does reach the Earth would then easily dissipate.

My understanding of the issue was always that it was increased cloud cover such as what we see on Venus that leads to heat being unable to easily escape the atmosphere that was causing the increasing rate of change on global warming. That is after all why we call it the greenhouse effect.
boxerdc On December 18, 2012

Deleted



,
#24New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 21:45:26
@drman321 Said

Apparently you didn't read the article. The entire discussion is about the effect solar activity (sun spots) has on incoming gamma radiation. More solar activity means less gamma radiation, and vice versa.


You are correct. I never read any "science" or "facts" that the painfulone presents as evidence, because they're generally hopelessly flawed and biased.

I prefer to just poke at him with a stick and see him jump.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#25New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 21:54:46
@boxerdc Said

You are correct. I never read any "science" or "facts" that the painfulone presents as evidence, because they're generally hopelessly flawed and biased.

I prefer to just poke at him with a stick and see him jump.



I posted the actual article from nature on the first page. It is worth a read. Interesting stuff.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#26New Post! Sep 09, 2011 @ 02:18:44
At least you're now listening to scientists PT, so I congratulate you, as it's a start. However I advise you to start looking into theories that HAVE been backed by extensive testing as well.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#27New Post! Sep 09, 2011 @ 02:20:10
@Leon Said

At least you're now listening to scientists PT, so I congratulate you, as it's a start. However I advise you to start looking into theories that HAVE been backed by extensive testing as well.


Eh don't give him too much credit. The only scientific theories he is willing to consider are the ones that agree with his politics.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#28New Post! Sep 09, 2011 @ 02:30:07
I found it funny how Gov Perry used Galileo as an example of his denial of the climate scientist consensus in last night's GOP debate.

Sure Galileo also went against a consensus, but it was a wholly UNscientific consensus that didn't want to face the rather blatant evidence of a politically inconvenient truth.

Use a better example next time Perry if you don't want your true motives to show.
restoreone On January 30, 2022




, Ohio
#29New Post! Sep 09, 2011 @ 02:31:22
@drman321 Said

hmmm, it does say that in the article. I wonder where they are getting that, I mean yes more heat reaches the Earth if there are less clouds, but what heat does reach the Earth would then easily dissipate.

My understanding of the issue was always that it was increased cloud cover such as what we see on Venus that leads to heat being unable to easily escape the atmosphere that was causing the increasing rate of change on global warming. That is after all why we call it the greenhouse effect.



Well when you have more heat in the air then the air can hold more moisture Psychometric if the air has more moisture in it then wouldn't that create more clouds? don't know just asking
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#30New Post! Sep 09, 2011 @ 02:32:32
@restoreone Said

Well when you have more heat in the air then the air can hold more moisture Psychometric if the air has more moisture in it then wouldn't that create more clouds? don't know just asking



I think they are looking at cause and effect from the other angle, not that more heat would cause more clouds, but that more clouds would cause more or less heat.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Site Support
Thu Feb 11, 2010 @ 00:57
5 3573
New posts   Site Support
Wed Jul 29, 2009 @ 14:59
10 4037
New posts   Health & Fitness
Thu Jul 16, 2009 @ 06:30
3 470
New posts   Relationships
Mon Jun 30, 2008 @ 14:51
13 1064
New posts   Environment
Mon Jun 16, 2008 @ 13:49
8 2096