Posted on 01/23/2019 6:16:56 AM PST by all the best
Devastating news for human-caused global warming proponents. “The sun, not CO2, drives Earth’s climate,” says Dr Roger Higgs, long-time consultant geologist and sedimentologist. Higgs bases his statement on four vital points: Global warming and cooling are driven by the sun, specifically by the solar-sourced Interplanetary Magnetic Field, which regulates incoming cosmic rays, which in turn govern cloudiness and thus global temperature (the breathtakingly elegant Svensmark Theory). Global temperature oscillations lag 25 years behind the causative solar magnetic fluctuations. This 25-year lag is due to ocean thermal inertia in remarkable agreement with the 15-20-year time lag estimated by Abdussamatov et al. 2012). The idea that CO2 is the main climate driver, despite its scarcity in Earth’s atmosphere, ie 400 parts per million, near plant-starvation level, contrasts starkly with CO2’s 1,000 to 4,000 ppm levels for most of the last 600 million years. Earth is now cooling. Global warming ended in 2016: proof that the sun, not CO2, drives Earth’s climate. Moreover, from AD500 to 1200, CO2 levels were anti-correlated with Earth’s temperature. “The reality is that man’s industrialization just happened to occur in a period of solar-driven warming, a mere coincidence, causing governments to needlessly spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on CO2-reduction efforts,” says Dr Higgs. See entire paper, with several graphs:
(Excerpt) Read more at iceagenow.info ...
Which flavor of global warming are we talking about?
a) The intercontinental glaciation is over & now its getting warmer, or
b) Evil SUVs and anything combusting is going to kill us?
*ping*
He is a heritic!!
Tie him to stakes in the ground and let the sun burn him!
My mistake. What drives climate is the subject, not global warming. I still don’t see how magnetic pole drift affects climate, though.
#60 When women are going round and round a pole, things do heat up.... :)
Change in pole strength directly effect the amount of charged particles entering the earth’s atmosphere. Charged particles from the sun & cosmic rays. The earth’s field as well as the Sun’s field - which also changes, Jupiter’s & even Saturn’s field! They all change over time!) deflect these particles. Primarily its the earth’s field, weak field more particles are let in and we have more clouds hence cooler earth. Clouds reflect light & heat back. (Think of charges particles going through a cloud chamber, they leave a vapor trail - a cloud!). Stronger the field fewer particles fewer clouds more light & heat is absorbed. There seems to be places along the galactic rim as the solar system rotates around the galaxy where there are higher rates of charged particles (cosmic rays). These “patches” correlate to major cooling events particularly if the earth’s field strength is down.
Got it. Thank you for your patience.
What does it matter? We’re all going to
be dead in 12 years anyway. (A really
smart bartender told me that.)
And if you go back further it was so low that we were in danger of all plant life dying. Further than that it was over 800 ppm. Your point?
Let me add something because I might just know what you mean. I was referring to the more recent rise from 350 ppm to 400 ppm, which is an increase of 50 ppm. We are talking very small numbers here, and a 50 ppm increase adds (roughly) 1/100th of 1% more CO2 in our atmosphere than there was before.
Brilliant, just brilliant. It is the SUN, it has always been the SUN. We are part of the Sun’s “atmosphere,” we live in our Sun’s “neighborhood,” in just the right spot.
Trillions of dollars spent to control what we cannot control.
I guess we could spend some of that money capping volcanoes so they can’t erupt those nasty gasses and particles into our atmosphere. But, what a task that would be.
Maybe the Chinese could do it? After all, they built THE WALL!
I’m saying that trees require a certain number of CO2 molecules per given volume of air, increasing the concentration of CO2 30% provides the same concentration in 30%-less-dense air, which would raise the treeline thousands of feet.
Which hasn’t happened.
Your logic is faulty, as is your understanding of what a tree line is and why it exists.
My logic may be faulty, but so’s your chemistry.
Chemistry?
As related to concentrations of reactants and the effects thereof.
I thought you may have been referring to my remark about the weight of Oxygen vs Carbon Dioxide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
