Please see the links below from REPUTABLE SOURCES, SPACE.COM, NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM, AND LIVESCIENCE.COM - none of whom receive any money from auto manufacturers or oil companies.
They have to do with warming on Jupiter, Mars, and Pluto and how this is due to solar and not mans activity.
Additional Details
5 months ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...
http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pl...
Please be open minded about this issue. We all have too much to lose by false legislation taking our money that could be used for problems of TODAY that can actually be solved. Even believing scientists agree that if man takes a 180 degree turn around as far as our CO2 output, that there will be minimal, if any affect on the warming. In addition, CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
5 months ago
Ben: You didn%26#039;t read my post. I%26#039;m not denying Global Warming is happening on Earth. I wonder why no one considers how the Earth was warmer in the past before cooling down to modern day temps.Who are we to say %26quot;The current temperature on the Earth is the BEST temperature the Earth should be%26quot;?
5 months ago
Ben: In addition, you%26#039;ve posted a link to one mans BLOG. I think the credibility is an issue. I deliberately did not post any blogs for that reason. I believe my sources are a little more credible than a blog.5 months ago
Another point - The BBC link fails to mention anything about the other planets warming.Again, I don%26#039;t think that is genuinely exploring the issue.
I think that it is funny that global warming deniers often point to climate change on other planets to deny that global warming is happening on this one.
The sun CAN influence climate, but it’s not this time around. Solar output has decreased over the past few decades while the average global temperatures have risen.[1]
As for the National Geographic link, please read the entire article. Especially relevant are the part that says,
[quote]“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg%26#039;s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, … believes that changes in the sun%26#039;s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. … Abdussamatov%26#039;s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. %26#039;His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,%26#039; said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England%26#039;s Oxford University. … Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that %26#039;the idea just isn%26#039;t supported by the theory or by the observations.%26#039; The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet%26#039;s orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.%26quot; [end quote]
Edit: A. I did read your post.
B. People have wondered about the Earth’s climate in the past. There is a whole branch of science out there called paleoclimatology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimat...
C. BadAstronomy IS a blog. I normally don’t source blogs, but this one is pretty informative AND well sourced.
D. Why should the BBC mention warming on other planets? There is no evidence that any other planet is warming globally. The physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood. When discussing other planets, there%26#039;s just phenomenon that we understand well (such as dust storms and orbits cycles on Mars) and thing we don%26#039;t don’t understand very well (such as storms tops on Jupiter.)
E. Habibullo Abdussamatov is a kook, and no one save a few idiots take him seriously. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...
Other Answers (4)
-
That%26#039;s a problem, because all are NOT warming. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, and we can%26#039;t forget the 31 known moons of Saturn.
EDIT - the BBC fails to mention the other planets, because there is no observed warming.
Scientists HAVE discussed the warming on a few other planets in great detail:
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/researc...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1...
By the way, CO2 is most definitely a pollutant. %26quot;Pollutant%26quot; is a legal term, not a technical one. The Supreme Court says it IS a pollutant, since that%26#039;s a legal matter, they win.
Finally, if you want a credible source that says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us, there%26#039;s no more credible scientific source than this:
http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change
Solar Winds
X-Ray Solar Flares
Sunspot Numbers
Planetary K-index
And most Important of All :
Interplanetary Magnetic Fields
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field = It comes from the Sun!
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.htm...
Grossly Failed Predictions about Cycle 24
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predic...
Quote From:
http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/04/0...
“To understand the effect of solar activity on the Earth you must consider how solar charged particles get to the Earth and that is governed by the magnetic cycle of the sun which is 22 years long. This Solar activity magnetic link is why World temperatures have a main cycle of 22years and no CO2 based theory can explain that. Geomagnetic activity which is the measure of solar particles hitting the Earth’s magnetic field has been generally rising from 1910 to around 1990 or 2000 and rising temperatures over this period correlate very well with this – much better than they do with carbon dioxide. Solar activity effect, measured and estimated in a proper way (not by light) and geomagnetic activity are now declining and this (assisted by modulations through magnetic connections) is causing the decline in world temperatures since 2002/3*. %26quot;