Why is the climate changing. (Page 7)
ghostgeek: Anyway, it would seem that one mystery has been solved:
After a century of mystery, scientists now have the first conclusive evidence that cosmic rays come from the violent aftermaths of exploding stars, researchers say.
[ https://www.space.com/19786-cosmic-rays-origins-star-explosion.html ]
kittybobo34: The theory just mentioned came from an observation of what happened with the little ice age, An ice damn broke in the Americas flooding the North Atlantic with cold fresh water, thus stopping the Gulf stream from getting past England, leaving the European continent and the East coast of America very very cold.
ghostgeek: To be truthful, I actually like the idea of global warming. The thought of having to contend with ice all year round is just too depressing to contemplate.
kittybobo34: If it were just a little, I would agree. But, this has the potential to wipe out most of the life on earth. The co2 levels are already almost double what it was during the last Green house. The oceans that normally balance that level are already maxed out. Glaciers and reefs are disappearing. If the temps rise as high as it was during the last Greenhouse one could expect an average temp of 130 f in say Missouri, Ocean levels would make St. Louis the new sea port city. The whole food chain of the ocean would collapse with the change in salinity and temperature. Most of the world depends on food from the sea. Land crops would be hard pressed to produce food with the heat and constant rain. With starvation and war the usual result, So in effect we could be looking at the end of our civilization
ghostgeek: Something to think about before bed:
I later joined forces with Canadian geochemist Ján Veizer who had the best geochemical reconstruction of the temperature over the past half billion years, during which multicellular life left fossils for his group to dig and measure. His original goal was to fingerprint the role of CO2 over geological time scales, but no correlation with the paleotemperature was apparent. On the other hand, his temperature reconstruction fit the cosmic ray reconstruction like a glove. When we published these results, we instantly became personae non gratae in certain communities, not because we offered a data-supported explanation to the long-term climate variations, but because we dared say that CO2 can at most have a modest effect on the global temperature.
[ https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way ]
ghostgeek: The ultimate question is not, is CO2 rising, which it clearly is, but does it have more than a marginal effect in changing earth's climate.
ghostgeek: Well, seeing as it's going to be a long wait, I think I'll puff a little more CO2 into the atmosphere and go and get myself a long snack.
The flying Squirrel: Who came up with all this Climate change Al Gore wasn"t it , That should tell every one what they need to know
The flying Squirrel: Also Strange that the Country that Came up with it , Pulls out of all the Agrements , Do they know some thing the rest of Us people still paying for it don"t
kittybobo34: Just shows who is being controlled by the big Corporations. They don't want the cost of dealing with Global warming.
ghostgeek: On November 1, AFP joined news outlets around the world in covering the release of a major academic paper warning that our oceans were warming dramatically quicker than previously thought.
The study was undertaken by some of the world's most pre-eminent climate scientists, using state-of-the-art modelling systems reviewed by their peers, and appeared in one of the most prestigious academic journals.
There was just one problem: it was wrong.
Published in Nature, the paper by researchers from the University of California San Diego and Princeton found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than current estimates.
They concluded, with no small sense of alarm, that even the most ambitious emissions cuts laid out in the global plan to prevent climate disaster would need to be slashed again by another 25 percent.
Soon after publication, an independent climate scientist—one who has repeatedly voiced scepticism of the consensus that human behaviour is causing global warming—spotted an error in the Nature paper's maths.
"After correction, the... results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought," Nicolas Lewis wrote on his Climate Science blog.
[ https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-scientists-wrong.html ]
ghostgeek: Remember Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth"? In 2007, a British court ruled that the film was political propaganda, not science. The court further ruled that the film contained at least nine factual errors.
ghostgeek: Anyway, it would seem that Gore's been up to his old tricks again. He recently spoke at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco where he said, “This is the first time in history that two major storms are making landfall from the Atlantic and Pacific simultaneously.” Gore cited the simultaneous storms as clear evidence that climate change is causing extreme weather.
There was one problem with what he said. While simultaneous cyclonic activity in both oceans is a bit unusual, it is hardly unprecedented, so he was wrong.
ghostgeek: TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”
[ https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud ]
ghostgeek: It seems that whether the temperature rises or falls, its always manmade. I guess there's something sexy about always blaming ourselves for what happens to the world.
ghostgeek: An example of his ( Al Gore's ) power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”
[ https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud ]
ghostgeek: When you get politicians interesting themselves in science you know it's going to turn out badly.
kittybobo34: THere is no doubt that the normal cycle of warm periods and ice ages are regular and have been for millions of years. We should be entering an ice age as our warm period is over and was steadily ending. I guess if we were going to over warm the planet , this is the best time to do it.
The flying Squirrel: Hee He got Fired Suprise Suprise , Oh well at least some one had some Integrity
ghostgeek: Which, of course, means that there's something iffy with the party line. Persecution tells you that somebody's got doubts about their position that they don't want others to find out about.
AchillesSinatra: Ghostgeek noted, very astutely in my opinion, at the top of page five that ...
"It would seem that scientists are always confident of their predictions, even when they decide to disagree with what they said earlier."
... to which I responded on the same page.
We all ought to know by now that in the past scientists have -- not infrequently -- made claims to knowledge with supreme confidence that turned out to be untrue. Presumably the scientists themselves also have some inkling of the hyper-confident, yet quite false, assertions of their forebears.
How, then, is this extravagance of confidence to be explained? On grounds of intellectual integrity alone, shouldn't we expect to hear a few more qualifications such as "in my opinion", or "but I could be wrong about this" or even "there's a high chance I'm wrong abut this"?
Even in our own little microcosm here, you may have noticed -- much to my own chagrin -- that our resident science experts tend to evince precisely the same grotesquely inflated confidence in their own claims. Rare is the acknowledgement of intellectual modesty. "I'll tell you how it is, and that's that!" seems the order of the day.
And why is the public, by and large, so easily infected with this overconfidence?
The following remarks by Freeman Dyson might shed some light on all this...
"In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know.” The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed."