Why is the climate changing. (Page 5)
ghostgeek: Ever taken a look at the CIA 1974 National Security Threat: Global Cooling/Excess Arctic Ice Causing Extreme Weather report? It states that scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2,500 years they are quite positive; that it may occur sooner is open to speculation.
[ http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ]
It would seem that scientists are always confident of their predictions, even when they decide to disagree with what they said earlier.
ghostgeek: Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
[ Rasool and Schneider 1971
Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141, doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138. ]
The irony I want to point out is that Galileo was a forward thinker, reaching into previously untrodden territory. His innovation and imagination helped him see past the prevailing state of human knowledge at the time and go into new ground. What are the denialists doing here? Digging up decades old research with results all over the place, results that lead to all sorts of impossible conclusions and then trying to claim that this is the reality and the new, consistent and refined results are the ones that are wrong. Never mind that this is what progress looks like, this is many minds working to overcome the challenges that caused prior confusion to finally achieve consistent, sensible and reliable data.
i was beginning to word a response, but then i realized i could just copy and paste
i think this ties on very well
(Edited by theHating)
theHating: i could be wrong but the cooling myth came from 2008 or so during a short period of cooler temperatures during the obama administration's inauguration. no one argues that the sun can create some rather wild weather on earth, but the arguement is about co2, and even the army admits man-made co2 contributes to adverse climate changing effects.
4th paragraph, last sentence
even while writing a spin article
AchillesHottie: "It would seem that scientists are always confident of their predictions, even when they decide to disagree with what they said earlier." -ghostgeek
Ghostgeek, you are the only person with any common sense here.
I know nothing about the climate change brouhaha; it's not an issue I follow in any detail.
The scientists may be right, in this particular case, or they may be wrong. I know not whether.
What I DO know is that scientists, time and time again, throughout history, have advanced claims with the utmost certainty, that were false.
Just one example:
"Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge." -- J. C. Maxwell
There can be no doubt? Oh, there certainly can be, unless you've been irretrievably brainwashed by your own priestly caste.
theHating: okay, i have a hypothesis, who knows best about the climate?
i would posit people that have the best predictions of weather. maybe there is a nuance of compartmentalized understanding between climatologists and meteorologists, but it shouldn't be too hard to notice.
theHating: its as if the sun is causal of changes in weather (motte) and the greenhouse gas effect on earth can sustain copious quantities of synthetic carbon (bailey)
that style of argument has beaten me more than once, but im wise to it now
to claim the sun affects weather and by longer processes, global climate doesnt afford an opportunity to attack the logic, because the logic doesnt begin breaking down until you admit that you have to include greenhouse gases into your model of climate when previous models have failed.
so, did the model that holds humans dont contribute to climate change succeed? what were their predictions? that we would enter an ice age, snow caps down to southern europe and massive crop die off plus huge floods; global cooling. well, this is an empirical claim and empirical claims are testable, so if your model of climate is correct, and synthetic greenhouse gases are not heating up the earth, i should expect to see ice sheets covering half of europe by this logic...
well, i dont know what planet you live on where ice sheets cover europe and human co2 isnt trapping solar radiation, but here in our reality, we have less ice on the poles and it keeps shrinking away and melting, and never looks any bigger everytime one of you truthers comes out to denounce science.
ghostgeek: Research into the effects of cosmic rays on earth's weather, and thus climate, isn't digging up decades old research, it's offering fresh insight into a very complex subject. It's interesting, though, that you mention Galileo. Didn't he fall foul of the consensus at the time that the earth was at the centre of the solar system?
theHating: indeed, and what was his approach to changing the paradigm, and how does it compare to your approach?
ghostgeek: The energy output from the Sun has increased significantly during the 20th century, according to a new study.
Many studies have attempted to determine whether there is an upward trend in the average magnitude of sunspots and solar flares over time, but few firm conclusions have been reached.
Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century.
Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.
[ https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html ]
ghostgeek: That was in 2006, but it's unlikely to have changed much in the last few years. A more active sun will limit the number of cosmic rays reaching the earth, which in turn will limit cloud formation. And as we all know from experience, the fewer clouds there are the warmer it is because the sun gets to shine more.
ghostgeek: First, a little science:
For well over a decade Svensmark has studied how the energetic particles reaching Earth from deep space, known as cosmic rays, can influence the planet’s climate as a result of changes to the Sun’s output. The idea is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth’s atmosphere that draw in other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapour can condense to form cloud droplets. The low-lying clouds that result then have the effect of cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunshine back out to space. Since the Sun’s magnetic field tends to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low.
[ https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation/ ]
ghostgeek: Indeed, it is a long scroll. It's interesting to find out that in the distant past carbon dioxide levels were far higher than they are now and life didn't go extinct:
While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.
[ http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml ]
smokemeblind: sup, theHating here, just wanted to pop in a say to ghostcheeks;
okay, fair enough, i concede, you are probably right, i guess we will see how many kids contract lung cancer from smoking cigarettes before you stop to consider climate science and alllll the ice we are getting thanks to a weaker solar cycle
The flying Squirrel: Yeah the Co2 levels arnt a good indicator
There only been monitoring the ICE for 50 years Sounds like a lot of guess work to me
The flying Squirrel: Sea level hasn't risen one ioata in this part of the world. If there Just figured out we live in a big green house.
ghostgeek: Here are some facts to munch on:
As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation.
It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.
The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.
Human emissions of CO2have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
[ http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CO2-Emissions.pdf ]
(Edited by ghostgeek)
ghostgeek: So what do you make of that? Without us humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere the extinction of life on planet earth will begin to happen in as little as two million years.
ghostgeek: There is no question that the climate has warmed during the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere. Yet, there is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is a major factor in influencing climate in the real world.
[ http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CO2-Emissions.pdf ]
ghostgeek: Eh? How did we have a Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago if climate change is driven by human beings being naughty and pumping out CO2? This was at pre-industrial times so no cars on the road and no aeroplanes in the sky. Did people stop lighting fires so they wouldn't get warm?