Another Theory about climate change?

Question

What is your opinion about this theory about climate change?

*NOTE INGNORANUS REMARKS WILL GET DELETED*

the sun's magnetic field and the solar wind modulates the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

Answer 1

I think you meant to say that the "earths magnetic field" deflects the solar wind radiation amounts that the earth receives.  That is true.. That part of climate control is constant. (except when the earth's magnetic field reverses{see geologic history of the earth} a rare event).. That said, the earth without mans input would be due for a global cooling period. But, due to exponential world population growth destroying the rainforests and previously agarian nations industruralizing worldwide, only drastic population reduction can save the planet in the near term.

Answer 2

The global warming religion likes to use this info (from the National Academy of Science report) as their bible, but this is bias and funded by special interest groups. Look carefully at the facts. For example, it states that temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century. This is true. However, temps have NOT increased in the last 10 years. You'll notice that, in the 2008 report, none of the graphs contain data past 2000... sketchy, huh? It's because recent data defies the rising temp theory.

Even though the polar bears have now been put on the endangered species list, it is because they changed the rules. The population has actually tripled in the last 30 years. The ice shelfs are the among the highest seen in 30 years.  There are so many more facts against the case for man made global warming to list, and NOT ONE irrefutable fact that it does.

No matter what environmentalists say (or how they say it), there is no evidence that man is causing global warming. They will use sleight of hand to try and get you, but don't be a sucker. For example, notice how NO commercials say anything about "global warming" anymore? The use the words "climate change" now. That's because environmentalists realize that time is becoming limited on this scare, but they can use the words "climate change" and keep us afraid that we're going to die, whether it be from warming, cooling, etc.

A link that'll get you started on your de-programming (not funded by any special interest groups): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...

For your own good, the good of the nation, and yes, the planet, you should be VERY skeptical. Look carefully at the facts and the language. Environmentalists are not always keeping the green of nature in mind. There is a lot of money to be made in this hugely expanding industry.

Even if you are someone who will never believe that global warming doesn't exist, think about this... it will cost 29 trillion dollars to fight this threat of sketchy (and special interest funded) "science" along with ruin our economy. Know how much it will take to feed the entire human population for the next 100 yrs? 7 trillion.

Still think we should be making public policies and spend all that money? Then do one thing for me before you call your local congressman: Name ONE thing that the government hasn't screwed up.

Answer 3

This is a theory that is difficult to develop due to the difficulty in getting data and verifying hypothesies.

It is on the wrong end of faith and politics as people just can't get smug, angry and feel enlightened about warming being caused by natural processes.  

AGW is an incomplete theory in that it relies on CO2 causing warming by mechanisms that have not yet been discovered.

Answer 4

This theory has been disproven by many scientists.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2298

etc.

Scientists promoting it have been caught manipulating the data:

Damon, Laut, Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos,Vol. 85, No. 39, 28 September 2004

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pub...

Answer 5

First, that's not a theory--its a hypothesis.  Specivically, an ad hoc hypothesis.

An ad hoc hypothesis is one that is not based on empirical evidence, and is advanced when a person recognizes they have no evidence to continue opposing an opposing arguement--so they invent a new "hypothesis" to confuse the issue.

A theory--in science--is an explanatory model that has been proven.  In the case of global warming, the theory  states that the primary cause is the rise of CO2 in th eatmosphere is the proximate cause, and the ultimate casue is the releas of COw2 by human activities.

As with all ad hoc hypotheses, this one is trivial and easy to disprove.  Simply put, for the hypothesis to have any validity, even on the most superficial level, there would have to be a measured increse in the average water vapor content over the last century. There isn't.  end of discussion.

Of course, the so-called 'skeptics" won't agree.  but we can disregard them.  How seriously is  any educated person supposed to take someone so ignorant of even basic science that they don't know the definition of the word "theory!" LOL

Answer 6

this is my opnion global warming is b.s.

Answer 7

It looks interesting.  The IPCC included solar cycles in their assessment of human activity as well as the ice age cycles and the effect of volcanic eruptions.  I haven't read any of this carefully, but it may be incorporated to help give better estimates of solar portion of global warming.  I haven't checked the peered reviewed literature for this method and probably won't get the time this summer. But the little bit I looked at seemed interesting.  It only includes solar activity though.    Notice the flat and downturned temps at the end (20th century) of the graphs.  This does not match observed temperatures.  The natural solar cycle has not increased in the past 30 years (consistent with the graphs), but the temperatures have increased.  The fit of the graphs might be better if it included anthropogenic factors too.

It just isn't clear about why any of the information given is credible. Trying to figure out what the credentials were of the people doing the research and interpreting the results, I clicked on the "donate" button.  It came up with "global cooling".  I know this is not correct - I just did a search in web of science and found no peer reviewed articles at all on the subject.  It is a myth typically used to obscure the facts about global warming.  "Global Cooling" is not a scientific theory.

Answer 8

This theory is called the galactic cosmic ray theory.  It's an interesting theory, but unfortunately there is essentially zero scientific evidence supporting it.  Basically it's like "this theory could explain the current global warming...as long as you ignore all the scientific data."

Further details are available in the 'Galactic Cosmic Rays' section in the link below.