How many people know that the Sun BREATHES?

Question

This is something I think is overlooked in the 'global warming' argument and I think it has a BIG, HUGE factor in the earth being hotter. The earth is hotter, right now....but as all things, it'll pass. The sun is hot. When the sun breaths, and it doesn't breath like we do, think expanding and contrasting over a big span of years, the earth is effected. It gets hotter. And when it contrast again it'll get colder and people will be preaching about another ice age. (P.S. no matter what I say I'm always gonna be wrong, huh?)

So human are just a 'species' now? People disgust me, do you know that? They seriously do. I would just like to add that I am not an animal, I am a human being and I'd like it that me and my fellow human were no cast down like some disgusting beasts, I don't deserve it and neither does any body else.

Okay ,avail_skillz, It was not my point to make to prove global warming. My point was that this will go away. I agree that it is impossible for planets next to the sun to not feel the heat we are feeling.

Answer 1

You are right. The data from recent studies coming out shows it is the sun that is the primary driver of climate change.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario.”

Critics of this theory only take into account to variance in energy output of the sun, and not correlation between sun spots, solar winds, cosmic rays and cloud formation. If you look at the graph below, there is a lot better correlation between sun spots and temperatures than co2 and temperatures. For a full explanation read
http://www.geocraft.com/wvfossils/refere...

Answer 2

Reasonable theory, but proven scientific data show it's not the problem right now.

The sun is measured routinely, by many scientists all around the world. And the data clearly shows changes in solar radiation cause only about 10% of global warming.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

Bottom line (note the source):

"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by {man}."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html

EDIT: Good grief. You ignore all the scientific evidence and focus on one word used by a FoxNews reporter? OK, I edited it out. Doesn't change the science.

Answer 3

No it doesn't. The sun is a great big ball of incandescent gas. It burns, not breathes.

Your hypothesis that the sun is getting hotter would be interesting, if scientists hadn't already studied it, and found that no such thing was occurring (1).

I think what you were thinking of wasn't the sun itself getting hotter, but variations in Earth's orbit -called Milankovitch cycles (2). They come round every 20,000 years or so, and were responsible for kicking off many of Earth's past ice ages. But again, we aren't in one now, so it can't possibly be the cause of the warming.

On a minor note, since the word 'Animal' is defined as "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure", it seems that we humans fit it quite nicely.

Answer 4

suggestion for you.
next time you are out camping and have a camp fire going, try this little experiment:

When the fire is dying down, stand about 5 feet from it. feel the heat? why sure you do. now have a friend stand 10 feet from it. do they feel the heat from it? possibly, but do they feel the same intensity of heat as you do? probably not.

now throw a log in the fire, and when it is going good, hop back into your respective positions. heat is a little more intense for you both than it was before, right??

now this would definitely add legitimacy to your argument that the sun's energy is responsible for the planets warming, EXCEPT one important key factor. You don't have a friend standing right up next to the fire, that doesn't feel heat, which is what would have to happen(and be possible), for your hypothesis to be sound, because that is what you are saying is happening in our solar system.

is this the "Tim Patterson" that eric c is speaking about?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

granted i do takle the statments of the above link with agrain of salt, this next link is a very good article.
is this the same "Jan Veizer " that eric c is speaking of??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3419975.stm

Answer 5

You are quite correct about the effects of the sun having an effect on climate, however; it isn't the problem we are facing currently.
The Earth will see periods of both warming and cooling in the future as it was in the past, but it occurs at a far slower rate than we see today.

The oly problem with the global warming argument, is that they are trying to lump far too many factors into the situation to be cured at one time. Apparently, CO2 does increase the heat trapping ability of water vapor. Matter of fact, alone CO2 traps three times the amount of radiation as water vapor. But it isn't the biggest problem. I would say it is being focused on more, because of several reasons:
1) it is the easiest to remedy at minimal cost
2) after about 800ppmv concentration, water begins to absorb more CO2 which lowers its pH. this not only has a devestating effect on wildlife, but also on food supply.
3) remediation of other greenhouse gases such as the ones created by nitrogen based farm fertilizers is being researched. a very promising solution is being developed right now, to use microorganisms to reduce the amout of N2O emissions from agricultural sources. Similar research looks very promising for the bioremediation of other greenhouse gas emissions.
4)industries that are the most unwilling to find solutions to their emissions, or even reduce them, emit more CO2 than most other greenhouse gases. So more effort has to be expended to convince them.

none of the factors of the global warming arguements, are "non-issues" that shouldn't demand immediate action.
afterall, they are all pollutants that effect our health and our environment, and definitely need dealt with, regardless if the Earth was remaining at the same temps forever.

Answer 6

global warming as you describe it is not the only thing that is threatening the planet .we are destroying it as well and that is increasing ,not deminishing

Everybody is so desperate to absolve humanity from blame ,and this is not possible

Global warming is one thing ,and for many people it seems to be the knight on a white horse that says
dont worry it is not your fault you can do nothing about it ,
keep on trucking ,poluting, deforesting, desertifying,keep killing the animals ,keep burning the woods

Man is responsible for much climate change it cannot be whitewashed by Global warming

If Global warming now also want to change the climate it has to stand in line
because it is not the only one

Once upon a time
I went to the jungles of Oaxaca and discussed with the Natives the mountain before us ,Mostly deforrested ,scarred by landslides and dotted with madly steep corn patches (which only produced for 3 years ),and devoid of clouds.

They all agreed that the days were hotter ,there was less rain ,And the river was dry part of the year.

When they were boys ,the river was bigger and ran all year around,the mountain was always covered in clouds with daily rains .And the days were more bearable .

Their actions in the desperate plight to feed their enormous families of avarage 12 kids per family ,often much more ,had destroyed their home ground with indisputable climate changes.
They had changed their climate.This happens all over Mexico

In Africa I have seen lush wooded lands change into dessert within a few years by large invading comunities ,who devoured the trees for building and firewood ending up in a dessert with out water
and with a hot sun under which no new plantation was possible.The people had changed their climate,this happens all over Africa.

In Northern china two mayor dessert are merging and 900 vilages are buried under the dust ,thousands of refugee farmers who had changed their climate ,by intensive agressive agriculture are fleeing for their lives,this happens all over the world .it happened in the 20ties in the USA has everybody forgotton that ,was this not a climate change ?

Granted the climatic changes are local ,but effects neighboring areas ,there is less rainfall, rivers dry up ,

Collectively because there is so much of it all over the world ,the global precipitation is affected and so is the climate .And who did it ,the bloedy people did ,they are changing the climate

Like Ghengas Kahn changed the climate when he burned all the forests and filled the wells with sand ,Like the Phoenicians changed the climate of lebanon to build the trading fleet .Like the Spanish climate was changed by using their forest to build the Armada ,

So are we today changing the climate by massive deforestation,agressive corporate farming (using chemicals),overgrazing ,overpumping deep subteranean waters ,ignorence and impartiality

Global warming.carbon emisions ,polution ,sunspots ,solar flares,hairsprays , Al Gore, and skeptics are the rasberries on top

and read up what America is planning with the insane master plan for Ethanol production .

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjHWwGGffFFtirnd17BsN.nty6IX?qid=20070530195737AACbd5b&show=7#profile-info-fHbzOdoIaa

Seems as if America is trying to compete with Global warming

I wonder who will win.?
but who ever it is ,
the rest of the world looses.

we are in trouble,and if we can do something that will make it less ,we should try to do it .

And there are many things that we can improve on
so that ,we can at least last as long as posible .

Answer 7

You should give links to your research, so that I can see first hand what you're talking about.

Without the links I don't know if you're just making it up.

Oh and I don't get how you can follow science on this, yet you won't follow it on evolution, which states that we're all animals. I don't follow your logic there.

You're basically saying you embrace some science, but not all, this stance seems illogical. It's just illogical to believe some, and not all, sounds more like you only believe in science that suits your fancy. Doesn't sound very open minded.

Answer 8

And the Suns "Sings".

And yes. With your attitude you WILL always be wrong.