mmcakes said:
As is described in that article, Earth has a unique system of "thermostat control", some of which is regulated by atmospheric composition and some is regulated through biotic metabolism. This makes us different from other planets that are less resistant to solar and cosmic radiation. It is not logical at all to assume that just because other solar system planets are experiencing heating that is caused by solar and cosmic rays, that Earth is also. This is a logical fallacy.
The sun not only influences weather, but is also the source of energy for nearly all life on Earth. My point is not that this radiation doesn't affect weather and climate patterns, but that the current data and models are not accounted for by this alone (or even for the most part). That article says that the energy from the recent solar flare that reached Earth's atmosphere could have powered NYC for 2 years, but since 95% of the energy was deflected from the planet, then this is more like 36 days of NYC energy consumption worth. This is a lot less dramatic. Also looking at the graph of nitric oxide emission power for 2011 until now, it shows that this spike is hardly a significant increase in total average energy at all. Since this graph is of power, the area under the curve is total emitted energy and, as you can see, this short lived spike will have very little impact on the total amount of energy reaching earth in an extended amount of time. Furthermore, this being the largest amount of energy to hit earth's atmosphere from solar radiation since 2005 doesn't make it seem extraordinary at all. I would like to see a graph of several thousand years worth of solar flare data, but this is probably impossible. My guess is that the amount of cosmic/solar radiation that is affecting earth is nothing new and that these fluctuations are typical and minimal in effect. Every respectable scientist who has seen the data agrees that man-made climate change is real and will be a significant problem for many species and areas on the planet. Don't be a climate change denier.
Are you really going to argue that the sun does not affect climate? Really? You should take a second to think about this one, because frankly, without the sun, we would have NO CLIMATE to speak of.
It is perfectly logical to draw the connection that if other planets are experiencing change similar to what is occurring on this planet, that there is a cause outside of human influence that is producing these changes. Otherwise it would be logical to assume that the other planets had life on them as well as a species that was pouring CO2 into their atmospheres.
The thrust of the article I posted was that the recent solar storms had created the heat wave the central US had recently experienced. You are right, much of it was irradiated back into space...but when you have 26 billion kWh hit the earth, and 5% gets through that's 1.3 billion kWh. If a normal day is 1 billion kWh, and 5% of that is 50 million kWh, you can see that it is not an insignificant amount of energy that is coming to the planet.
No need for Ad Hominem attacks, please. Especially ones that are contradictory to what I have actually stated.
I have clearly stated in my posts that I am not a climate change denier, I am an anthropocentric climate change skeptic as the evidence is just not there. Yes, we are having an impact upon the planet with what we are putting into the atmosphere. Yes we should be better stewards of the plant and not degrade the environment in any way. But, we are not the main cause of what is occurring, and taxing the people under a false paradigm is wrong in my opinion.
You are right, 'respectable' scientists have come out in agreement that climate change is happening, of that I am not denying. What is still at question, and being questioned by 'respectable' scientists is what is causing it. There is not uniform acceptance among 'respectable' scientists whether it is anthropocentric or not. If you read the articles, it is very clear that they say climate change, and not man made climate change, because the evidence, beyond circumstantial, is not there.
The earth is still cooler now than it has been in the distant past, (In 3 million of the last 6 million years the earth was warmer than it is today) so there is no way to say with 100% certainty that anthropogenic actions are the cause. It is circumstantial evidence but has not been proven. Does an increase in CO2 cause warming, or does warming cause an increase in CO2? So far there is no way to know for sure. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been much higher in the past as well, when there were no humans putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As for solar irradiation...did you know that the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does not even account for indirect solar forcings (cosmic rays) in their climate modeling? In fact they don't even measure for it, and from some accounts, when you combine direct (the sun) and indirect (cosmic rays) the amount of energy reaching the planet is 3.8 times higher than direct forcing alone? So the Earth could be getting 4 times the amount of energy from space than is being accounted for by 'respectable' scientists.
Doesn't sound very respectable to me...
