is it the cosmic rays that generate clouds in turn cause the changes in temperature due to increasing temperature on sun, and thus interrupting the flow of subatomic particles and cosmic rays to enter earth to form clouds?

or is it the growing gravity field? or the cause of/by post-glacial rebound?

co2 causes green house effect which in turn rise the earth temperature.
is this a fact or just your point of view.
is there scientific indication that the temperature of the sun is rising?

do you mean gravity field or magnetic field ?

i read it somewhere about Global warming, its a totally natural phenomenon, in fact, global warming had happen since ice age. earth has undergo a constant heating curve since then, and the activities of human just merely catalyses the process.

is it the cosmic rays that generate clouds in turn cause the changes in temperature due to increasing temperature on sun, and thus interrupting the flow of subatomic particles and cosmic rays to enter earth to form clouds?

Technologies can be invented to suck out most of the co2 gas to the outer space.

Sunspot link to climate patterns overshadowed by CO2 research
Most of us wouldn’t know by looking at it, but the sun has been in a record breaking mode lately for its lack of activity.

It’s a trend that Charlie Perry, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, follows closely. For the past few decades he has been charting the correlation between droughts and floods in the Midwest and the activity of the sun.

Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. For decades he has been following the correlation of sun activity and climate.

It is from that research that Perry predicts that the current lack of sun activity could lead to a cooler winter this year and drought conditions around 2043.

The sun goes through a cycle of activity about every 11 years. And right now, it is going through what is known as a solar minimum, a time of little activity with few sunspots, solar flares and sun quakes.

Through Aug. 31, 51 days had gone by with no signs of a sunspot. It was the fifth longest period for days without sunspots in 150 years. And, it came close to breaking a record set in 1913.

The sun is still on track to break a record for the fewest number of sunspotless days over a three-year period.

“It’s pretty hard to ignore the big orange ball in the sky that produces all the heat the earth has. And, very small fluctuations in that can make a big difference in our earth and climate,” Perry said.

Explaining sunspots

Sunspots are the dark areas of cooler temperatures in the sun’s photosphere. During times that the number of sunspots are at their highest, temperatures are hotter and the sun is releasing more energy.

First seen by Galileo, sunspots have been tracked by humans since the 1600s.

From 1640 to 1715, when few sunspots were reported, the northern hemisphere experienced what was known as the Little Ice Age. Londoners ice skated on the frozen Thames and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island on ice.

Another period of few sunspots occurred in 1913.

“And, that is a time when old-timers talk about it being really cold,” Perry said.

Perry’s interest in weather began as a youth working on a farm in Douglas County during the drought of the 1950s.

“I would sit on the back of this old horse-drawn equipment and I would pray for rain and it would never come,” he said.

Perry, who has a background in physics, was a meteorologist for the Air Force and started working for the USGS in the 1970s as a hydrologist.

Since the early 1980s, Perry has been looking at patterns to see how the sun’s activity relates to droughts and floods in the Midwest.

What he knew was that the sun has an 11-year-cycle, there is a 22 year-cycle for magnetic polarity and major droughts in Kansas occur about every 20 years.

With that, Perry developed a thesis that when the sun is very active, it puts out more heat and causes fewer clouds. In turn, the oceans heat up and carry that warmth throughout the world, influencing local weather patterns.

The tricky part was figuring out the lag time between when the solar activity occurred and when the ocean currents reached North America to affect the weather system.

The 34-year link came by happenstance.

“I had (looked) at a three- or four-year lag. And I just happened to lay them down on a table, two sheets fairly far apart and looked at them and went ‘my gosh, it’s over a 30-year lag.’ And, I lined it up on the light table and it just fit like a glove,” he said. “I had a hard time explaining a three-year lag. So, how can I explain a 34-year lag? It’s been a slow process.”

An unpopular theory

Perry has traveled around speaking at conferences, gathering new ideas and information along the way. He says his work supports that of a renowned Danish physicist Henrick Svensmark.

Svensmark’s research shows that cosmic rays generate cloud formations. Therefore, during periods when solar activity is high, which slows down the number of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, there are fewer clouds and the earth warms. This phenomenon, Svensmark has argued, contributed to the warming of the planet in the past century.

Perry and Svensmark’s work runs counter to the mainstream belief that carbon dioxide is the major cause of climate change.

Perry — a man who has an electric wind generator and once tried to make a solar collector out of 10,000 beer cans in the 1970s — still attempts to conserve energy for the sake of conserving energy.

“I’m a green guy,” he said. “It’s just that carbon dioxide has very little effect on our climate.”

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change disagrees. The panel has stated that solar radiation plays a small part in the warming and cooling of the planet. But, the panel attributes a much greater contribution to the effect from the increase in carbon emissions over the past few decades.

When looking at fluctuations in the earth’s atmosphere, David Braaten, Kansas University professor of atmospheric science, said the largest factor has been the enormous increase in carbon dioxide versus the ebbs and flows of the sun’s 11-year cycle.

“Basically, we have a long record of little changes going on in the atmosphere and there is this other huge change of concentration of (carbon dioxide). To try to explain that it has nothing to do with (climate change) is crazy,” Braaten said.

Perry knows his and Svensmark’s theory isn’t a popular one.

Even the USGS’s official point of view is that carbon dioxide is unequivocally the cause of climate change. Because of that, much of the research Perry has done has been on his own time and without the aid of grants.

Despite the doubters, Perry said he is not giving up.

“I am having too much fun,” he said. “I am finding out something new that no one else is finding out.”

i read it somewhere about Global warming, its a totally natural phenomenon, in fact, global warming had happen since ice age. earth has undergo a constant heating curve since then, and the activities of human just merely catalyses the process.

It is certainly not natural when:
- endless queues of traffic jam during peak hours everyday in nearly every city
- endless black smoke from factories
- industrial area river/drain water in thick black colour

The list goes on, human can spend all their time blaming the nature and continue doing what they good at.

When we get pass the point of no return, it is irreversible.

On the contrary, the only thing that is irreversible is our lives.

The world still continue to live. We would be just another passing phase of extinct creatures like the dinosaurs. Did the earth die? No.
New things will be formed.

So regardless of how we pollute the earth, equilibrium will set in, and nature will still takes its course regardless of our existence.

lets just forget about the political ideology, the political activists and all that bureaucracies.

and see it at a scientific stand point. the verifiable, empirical and testable stand point.

they say co2 is the main climate driver in the rise of temperature.

but what if its the reverse is the correct order?

is it the cosmic rays that generate clouds in turn cause the changes in temperature due to increasing temperature on sun, and thus interrupting the flow of subatomic particles and cosmic rays to enter earth to form clouds?

or is it the growing gravity field? or the cause of/by post-glacial rebound?

It is certainly not natural when:
- endless queues of traffic jam during peak hours everyday in nearly every city
- endless black smoke from factories
- industrial area river/drain water in thick black colour

The global warming scientific community now has their credibility completely, utterly destroyed.

Google for 'hadley server hack' for more information.
This is BIG, the biggest fraud that would not just drag down prominent Nobel Prize winning scientists but also politicians and corporations who are part of the massive conspiracy to defraud the world.

Global warming is a natural phenomenon, but it is already undeniable that human activities are making a global warming that is far too serious.

I agree. We did a research ourselves on global warming. using greenland data and VOSTOK data. it's a geology first year project and we made a conclusion that global warming is naturally occurring but intensified by man. =) based on data.

eventhough the global warming is a natural phenomenon, based on the current global crisis and the impact to people, it aint that natural no more.

herm..go watch "an inconvenient truth". its based on science. explains a lot. here's the page for that http://www.climatecrisis.net/

No need to do research lah. Global warming and cooling are natural occurring. Otherwise there will be no transgression and regression of the sea....which is basic stratigraphy. Also i am sure you understand the concept of uniformitarianism
...the present is key to the past which is drilled into all first year students

eventhough the global warming is a natural phenomenon, based on the current global crisis and the impact to people, it aint that natural no more.

herm..go watch "an inconvenient truth". its based on science. explains a lot. here's the page for that http://www.climatecrisis.net/

I don't understand why Malaysian still do not get it?

No people in Malaysia actually read the news online?

Climate Change Fraud

There are many more videos and news can be found on youtube and such. Those emails exposed by hacker were enough to make the whole "Global Warming Theory" fall apart.

Data were manipulated by the scientists themselves, please do more research online. We were conned for like 40 years? This is like the 21st century biggest hoax!!

yeah I'm sure your 'research' = searching bias comments/info online. go do the real data interpretation by science point of view. Sheehs. Tell me and prove to me by basis of science/geology that it is a hoax. NOT just posting some youtube videos on ppl talking.

its really hard to pinpoint the actual case for the agenda for whatever its worth manipulating. whenever scientists have something to say, it is always their claims via pocket full of bribes.

the suns temperature is increasing, they say, but there arent no factories and cars to warm it up.

then theres the melting ice in mars. there too i assume are no factories nor cars.

but if you jump over to bbc for some news reading, theres a report saying that the suns temperature is decreasing, thus allowing smooth sail for cosmic rays to eventuate clouds on earth. therefore allowing the earths natural cooling system perform at its prime. yet oddly our temperature here is still on an uphill climb.

you can always ignore facts that dont favor your study and stick with your own opinion. i guess that is science.

Er, right, claims via pocket full of bribes. Proof?

Melting ice in mars? You mean the sublimating ice seen by Phoenix? That's quite likely due to direct radiation from the Sun, or just exposure to the atmosphere of Mars.

And as for the BBC thing, it might just be that the effect of CO2 emissions is obscuring any effect from this supposed natural cooling you're talking about, i.e. AGW?

what could be more motivating to initiate a hoax, and/or to proof wrong a hoax? money perhaps?

oh right, this thread is about global warming in the scientific context. not politicking.

Sure, if you want to make a claim, perhaps you should be able to provide some proof of it instead

heres my claim.

say Co2 is the driver of the temperature, but how can it be when it has been happening repetitively throughout centuries and back then there were no factories to contribute that extra CO2? then some may say, what has been happening then is happening now, but why only now bring in internal combustion engines onto the table?

or it could be rightly explained the other way around, that the rise and fall of CO2 can be the product of temperature change. so nothing to be blamed.

as i see it, the story of cars and factories omitting CO2 is the cause of temperature rise is more dramatic to be sold. it seems as though we have the control over the nature, and preventing our dooms day is viable. so long as it sounds legit, people would buy it. money would be invested into the study of that aspect, in the false pretense of saving our world.

heres my claim.

say Co2 is the driver of the temperature, but how can it be when it has been happening repetitively throughout centuries and back then there were no factories to contribute that extra CO2? then some may say, what has been happening then is happening now, but why only now bring in internal combustion engines onto the table?

o

Ah right, we can finally discuss. Well the first thing we have to say is that it's true, the global mean temperature is a product of multiple causes, and yes, there have been periods in the past where the Earth has been warmer than today. It depends on the configuration of the continents - you can prevent a lot of warming at the poles from occuring if you can block warmer water closer to the Equator from flowing into the poles. There is also a natural variation in our climate, evidenced by past records of warm periods, followed by ice ages. But what's changed is CO2 levels have been much higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years or so, and there is no doubt that this is man's doing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png). What's currently being disputed is to what level is CO2 contributing to the warming, on which I'm not an expert in, and cannot answer, but the general consensus (approx 90-95% of scientists in general, it seems) is that the main driver is CO2 emissions, unless another new driver for warming can be found, and can show that it's led to this recent warming. The sceptics have proposed plenty, and plenty of them have been shown to not be the main driver, relative to the CO2 emissions anyway.♦

But I'd like to bring up another side effect of CO2 production, which is often forgotten about: Ocean acidification. I hope we're agreed that CO2 emissions will lead to acidification of oceans (they've absorbed most of the CO2 we've produced actually), and there are many unknown consequences that might affect us all with that.

Side note: An argument I see often is that CO2 concentrations were higher during the time of the dinosaurs, and life flourished even more back then (tropical forests up to near the poles). True, but it's the rate of change we're worried about.

surprised to see that most people are still ignorant of the breaking news.

I've read those leaked emails and documents and when you have read that you will know who is lying.
something for you to read.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

Ocean/ sea can absorb a certain level of Co2 and reprecipitate it as limestone
During the time of the dinosaurs, earth had more intense volcanic activities which is the main producer of gases. The super continent Pangaea was breaking up when dinosaurs started to rule the earth.
Tropical forest near the poles occurred after the dinosaur era.The dinosaur era ended some 67 millions years ago Arctic was tropical some 55 millions yrs ago. Base on geological modeling, the warm waters from the equator was not flowing to the north. The land bridge between North and South America better known as Panama was not created yet by volcanic activities. When the land bridge was created, it blocked the warm waters flow between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, pushing the warm water northwards, The ice cap was located in Southern Europe/North Africa was pushed northward. Another thing to consider is the rise of mountain ranges eg Tibetan plateau, Rockies and Andes . If you looked at their ages, they are all created roughly in the same period, post Cretaceous era. These mountain ranges affect/ alter global wind patterns.