tethys  Wrote:

LoneWolf  Wrote:

Go to the 31 minute mark of this video and then tell me what your thoughts are on that:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-...firefox-a#

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programm...g_qa.shtml

70% of the surface of the Earth is water (mostly ocean) therefore global dimming would not impact evaporation in this case as not enough flights to cover the ocean area.

We are now in a solar minimum.

Just saw your last post LoneWolf which wiki references would you like me to get additional links to?

I agree we are in solar minimum. I have no problem with that. But please don't try to tell me that we have NO impact in what is going on on this planet.

I agree we are in solar minimum. I have no problem with that. But please don't try to tell me that we have NO impact in what is going on on this planet.
[/quote]


I did not say anywhere in this thread that mankind has had no impact on the environment.

I did say that the climate of the Earth is driven by the sun.

Of course mankind has had an impact on the environment with deforestation and pollution, every bit of concrete removes the habitat of many species.

I don't think the climate of the earth is driven solely by the sun. The sun affects us in different ways based on the "conditions" of the planet.

IF the poles were still ice instead of water, the heat would be reflected back. IF the forests in and around the equator were still there, they would absorb some of that heat.

It's all IF. And based on what's going on here.

LoneWolf  Wrote:

I don't think the climate of the earth is driven solely by the sun. The sun affects us in different ways based on the "conditions" of the planet.

IF the poles were still ice instead of water, the heat would be reflected back. IF the forests in and around the equator were still there, they would absorb some of that heat.

It's all IF. And based on what's going on here.

I posted a video showing the ice in the Antarctic and the Arctic.





Here is the information given with the video -

Another so called global warming report came out this week just ahead of the G-20 summit and it as all others before it is based on outdated data from 2003-2007 . With not a word on the historic solar minimum or the conditions that have changed since 2007 .Antarctic sea ice had a record growth in 2008 and is well above normal levels going into spring 2009 . There is over 15.737 miles sq. km of sea ice , .674 above the average 15.063 as of September 21 , 2009 .. Because of abundant snowfall we are actually getting to see glaciation take hold . We have seen for the first time in years the ice shelves begin to grow once more. In this video you can even see some of the more brittle new areas give way. But there is in fact a net increase in many of the ice sheets . Only the Western shelf has seen any decline and the growth on the other shelves more than makes up for the loss on the western side of the continent. . Simply put our leaders are either ill informed , Ignorant or have an agenda .There will not come a rise in water from the melting of this ice but the sea level will rise because of this growing ice . Mr. Moon , Mr. President Global Warming is over . Because of the rapidly changing state of the Sun the Earth is entering a period of global cooling .


Think about all this for just one minute. The Sun is in a state of historical quiet .

1. Cyclone intnesity is at 30 year lows . Ove the last 2 years this number has basically collapsed

2. 2008 was the coolest year since 2000 . 2009 looks to end up cooler than normal ~ Overall Global temperatures have continued to fall

3. 2008 there was over 250 blank spotless days on the sun . 2009 will surpass this number
3.a . Any sunspots that are able to form are often short lived
3.b. Magnetism remains at multi century lows. Magnetic fileds that errupt fluctuate and are superficial

4 .The ozone hole is beginning to heal despite using chemicals that cause more depletion , there is little Solar Forcing in the minimum

5. The Ice Caps and shelves have made a drastic recovery and are rebounding 5.a Antarctic sea ice is .674 above the average . 2008 was also a year of above average growth 5.b. Arctic ice has rebounded to levels not seen since 2005 .The water is cooler and allowing quicker and earlier development

6 . Torrential rainfalls in record amounts around the world because the cooling atmosphere , Another sign of this has been the persistent "Noctilucent" clouds at lower latitudes




2 month observation of - Ross Ice Shelf - Ronne Ice Shelf -
Larsen Ice Shelf Images - Nascent Iceberg Images -
B-15A Iceberg Images
Category: Science & Technology

And there is data out there to show that mankind is interfering with that. Mankind is "cloudseeding". Mankind is attempting to create nocilucent clouds....

Dont know if this one was posted yet...

thought I'd try to contribute..


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/...nspots.htm

Honestly I believe THIS is the calm before the storm. I fear the next solar max will be the one.

So are we to expect the climate conditions of the Younger Dryus or worse?

Dervish  Wrote:

So are we to expect the climate conditions of the Younger Dryus or worse?

http://solarchaos.blogspot.com/2009/12/s...nimum.html

I don't know, meanwhile the solar minimum continues - you also have to factor in the fact that features are being counted as sunspots which would not have been counted in the past being added to the total.

Presently what we are observing increased flooding events and this precipitation will fall as snow in the higher latitudes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7111623.stm

I have given links on page 1 to show that there is increased volcanic activity and earthquakes during solar minima - and as there is volcanic activity in the oceans (ocean ridges) this will add to the effects.

Being unable to trust the data from the 'climate scientists' does not help.

Insider 535 on "that other forum" said we were headed for a huge disaster and the sun was the key. Is this a part of it?

Anonymous Coward  Wrote:

Insider 535 on "that other forum" said we were headed for a huge disaster and the sun was the key. Is this a part of it?

I don't know - If I had to pick a likely disaster I would pick flooding.

Certainly I think the global warming, climate change propaganda may be a cover to explain unavoidable climatic events. People feel safer if the circumstances can be controlled (such as reduce C02 levels to reduce climate change) rather than if the control is out of our hands such as changes to our sun and solar system.

Check this out, too long to post, a bitch to format, but a very interesting and worthwhile read: http://www.halfpasthuman.com/RadioSpecial.html

I still think there's large galactic component involved though.

I'm going to throw this in here too. Basically, it's a paper on a study of pertroglyphs and how they represent plasma energy. The author uses petroglyphs dating from 10,000BC- 2000BC.

Here's a couple of quotes from it:

Data shows petroglyphs have preferred orientation on a worldwide basis and on morphology type, indicating that they are reproductions of plasma phenomenon in space."

The accuracy of these MHD instabilities suggests that an appreciable amount of time of a particular morphology was visible to the petroglyph carvers.

Such a current would be produced if the solar flux from the sun were to increase one or two magnitudes or if any other source of plasma were to enter the solar system."

It seems our ancients all over the world saw an extended and enlarged aurora borealis. This would only happen if our magnetic field was extremely weak right?

There was also mention in there that extreme energy was represented by wings in many of the ancient drawings. So could this be where the "winged disc" came from? Was it a representation of a massive CME from the sun?


pdf file: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/Antho...-Antiquity

NormalIsSubjective  Wrote:

Check this out, too long to post, a bitch to format, but a very interesting and worthwhile read: http://www.halfpasthuman.com/RadioSpecial.html

I still think there's large galactic component involved though.

Thanks! Had a quick look and will read it more thoroughly soon. It kind of goes with what I just posted regarding CME and magnetic pole shift.

tethys  Wrote:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/...inimum.htm

We are presently in a historic deep solar minimum and this has implications for humankind as these periods in the history of the earth correspond to the fall of civilizations and population reduction.

And where is your data to support that? You quote the following:

tethys  Wrote:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summ...europe.php

"In conclusion, the Dark Ages Cold Period has been observed in paleoclimatic data from all parts of Europe, often in long temperature histories that reveal the existence of similar multi-century cold intervals sandwiched between equally significant periods of warmth. In Europe, as in Asia, there is also evidence that the Dark Ages Cold Period was not a particularly good time for human societies residing in the northern parts of the continent."

Of course. If it gets colder, people leave the northern latitudes. This is why the Vikings left their Greenland settlements to the Inuit after 1150 AD. But what does that have to do with the "fall of civilizations"?

tethys  Wrote:

The populations residing in the lower latitudes are also impacted as these periods coincide with increased earthquakes.

http://www.lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Eart...ar-minimum

And for evidence you cite you own post? What correlative data do you have for periods of lower solar activity and earthquakes? You say "We are presently in a solar minimum but this is being covered up ..." and then link to an anonymous YouTube.

That's not science; that's paranoia.

We can determine solar activity over a ten-thousand-year period, given our understanding of dendrochronology, as well as our abilities to analyze ice cores, stalactites, etc. But we have no way to record earthquakes which happened a thousand years ago, so we don't know a thing about how many there were -- or their severity.

You could certainly make a point about how something like the Indonesian mega-volcano in 525 AD resulted in climate changes, and could have been instrumental in the first great Pasteurella pestis plague which wiped out a good portion of Europe and Asia's population. David Keys offers some interesting hypotheses for this.

But as far as making any claim for a positive correlation between solar activity and the "fall of civilizations", I don't buy it. I want evidence, not unsupported suppositions!