Fusion fail (TPOD 5/18/15)

[kell1990]

If it is true that fusion is not the driving force in the temperature of the sun, then might that be the source of the periods in the Earth's history when it was entirely covered by ice?

The reason I ask this question is because it is my understanding that a 0.1% change in the output of the sun will cause a 10% change in the temperature on the Earth. I don't remember where I came across those figures, only that they seemed to be credible from wherever I read them.

And since over 70% of the Earth is covered by water, then a minute change in the Sun's output could cause a significant change in the temperature of the oceans. The oceans are the principal CO2 sink on the Earth. This may--repeat, may--be the reason that the Earth is warming, not because of an increase in CO2, but because of a tiny increase in the output of the Sun, which would in turn cause the oceans to warm.

When the oceans warm, they retain less CO2, and when they cool they permit more CO2 to become entrained in the oceans, thus removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

[moses]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/0 ... sion-fail/

I do feel that the 0.1% change in the Sun's output producing a 10% change in Earth's temperature, is an error.

You are diving into global warming and the massive amount of information involved. Is a cyclic variation of incoming electric current responsible for the 11 year Sun cycle, for instance. We have discussed all this in depth on this forum.
Cheers,
Mo

[kell1990]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/0 ... sion-fail/

I do feel that the 0.1% change in the Sun's output producing a 10% change in Earth's temperature, is an error.

You are diving into global warming and the massive amount of information involved. Is a cyclic variation of incoming electric current responsible for the 11 year Sun cycle, for instance. We have discussed all this in depth on this forum.
Cheers,
Mo

Hi Mo,

I could very well be wrong about the 10% number. But somewhere on the internet I did come across a number from a credible source that would have resulted in a vastly different outcome for solar activity. Now if I could just find it again...

And yes I am very much aware that what I wrote is directly connected to the so-called "global warming" scam. I have read most of the content here about "global warming" so I am well aware of its presence here. It's just that the claims of many of the learned men of our era are not true. There are thousands of highly qualified scientists who have shown that the predictions of the majority are not right, but they have a very hard time being heard. Apparently, the fix is in and outside information is not welcome.

Back in the early 1980's I read a book written by a Pulitzer-prize winning associate editor of the Washington Post by the name of Ben Bagdikian. His thesis (then) was that 50 people controlled over 90% of what Americans read, see and hear. Fast forward to 2015, and that number is down to about 6.

Imagine this: You could put into a single limousine the number of people who control what over 90% of what Americans read, see and hear. To my way of thinking that is entirely too much unchecked power in too few hands. The reason that matters is because it is an informed electorate that selects those who will lead us. If those who inform us have their own agenda, then the majority will be swayed to their point of view.

[moses]

kell1990, I hear you but I only see my own personal state as significant, and hopefully I am sufficiently aware of bias in what I read and see, etc. Politics is not for me.
Cheers,
Mo