 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 595/600) |
|
avengador1
|
FEB 26, 11:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Mickey_Moose
|
FEB 27, 02:29 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
I mean, the land mass currently at the North Pole was not always at the North Pole. Nor was the North Pole always the North Pole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superocean
Also, comparing CO2 levels and temperature in the age of dinosaurs to claim humans are having no effect on the environment, is just ludicrous. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the comparison. Dinosaurs didn't strip down entire forests to build cities and mine resources. They didn't dig up oil and coal (which didn't exist yet, because the dinosaurs hadn't died and turned into oil and coal), and burn it constantly for hundreds of years. They did not reproduce uncontrollably, causing significant extinction events to other species. |
|
And the north pole is still moving as is the earth's magnetic field changing (weakening).
Could this also not be some sort of a factor in the climate?
It has been noticed the rate of change in Earth’s magnetic field between 2000 and 2015 shows what scientists called “rapid localized field changes”. Kind of goes along with this "rapid change" in climate?
It has also been noted that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, perhaps allowing more cosmic radiation and charged particles that bombard Earth in those areas and as such affecting the northern ice pack?
http://www.sciencealert.com...idly-than-we-thought
http://iopscience.iop.org/a...e/10.1086/506320/pdf
etc, etc.[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 02-27-2017).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
FEB 27, 02:48 PM
|
|
The "rinselberg" scenario
Year 2017 to 2040
Arguments continue about what's causing global warming. The latest candidate is something to do with the Earth's magnetic field.
Year 2041
"Oh s**t, we're all ditzed. Instead of going to the beach, the beach is coming to us--everywhere there's a coastline. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have exceeded the 500 ppm threshold.
I'm not ridiculing the effects of these observed instabilities or change in the Earth's magnetic field.
Should "we" (as a species or a global culture) try to hedge our bets with persistent and systematic efforts to cap CO2 levels in the atmosphere at or close to their current level of 400 ppm? Consider that whatever we do to try to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, it would still be many years--decades really--before any changes that we would make in terms of power generation, vehicle fuels, construction industry and building architectures, forestry management, agriculture (etc.) would be reflected in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In just two words, "lag time".
Do you ever "hedge your bets" in terms of your own personal life--investment strategies, career choices, deciding where to live..?
What is the likelihood that it would prove beneficial for humans to cap or reduce the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, even IF it can be determined that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are also contributing to global warming?
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 27, 02:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
And the north pole is still moving as is the earth's magnetic field changing (weakling).
Could this also not be some sort of a factor in the climate?
|
|
Yes. It certainly is related. A great many things are related. There is no single silver bullet answer. However, trying to find other variables which are also part of the equation as a whole, does not negate the impact of humanity on the environment.
We are here. We are part of the environment. We are involved. No amount of denial is going to change that.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
FEB 28, 03:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
And the north pole is still moving as is the earth's magnetic field changing (weakening).
Could this also not be some sort of a factor in the climate?
It has been noticed the rate of change in Earth’s magnetic field between 2000 and 2015 shows what scientists called “rapid localized field changes”. Kind of goes along with this "rapid change" in climate?
It has also been noted that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, perhaps allowing more cosmic radiation and charged particles that bombard Earth in those areas and as such affecting the northern ice pack?
http://www.sciencealert.com...idly-than-we-thought
http://iopscience.iop.org/a...e/10.1086/506320/pdf
etc, etc.
|
|
the magnetic pole is not the geographic pole [spin]
and warm water is melting the ice not charged particles do to the magnetic pole shifts
|
|
|
|
Mickey_Moose
|
APR 07, 01:58 PM
|
|
https://townhall.com/column...ths-climate-n2308564
| quote |
Last year, the world’s top particle physics research facility, CERN, turned the global warming debate upside down. CERN found, in the first-ever laboratory analysis of cloud chemistry, that solar variations—not CO2 molecules—were the biggest factor in the earth’s recent warmings! To be fair, climate modelers always admitted that clouds were the biggest unsolved mystery in climate change.
CERN’s CLOUD experiment findings are now being used to model predictions for the next 100 years—and the model shows a solar sunspot minimum will soon lower earth’s temperatures by half a degree C. The long cold minimum is expected to hit about 2040, and such minimums have historically lasted about 60 years. Equally important, the solar minimum will come on the heels of the current 20-year “hiatus” in earth’s warming, which has defied the climate modelers.
Together, the two events could mean no trend increase in earth’s thermometer readings from 1998 until after 2100! That’s a century of non-warming, and neither occurrence is connected to CO2 changes. This finding demotes CO2 to a supporting role, contributing no more than one degree C warming for a redoubling of atmospheric CO2.
The new modeling was done by four European institutes, all previously strong supporters of the CO2/greenhouse-gas theory: The Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern.
The new solar quantification is vital to help us understand climate change factors. Evidence of the sun’s pivotal role in climate change is growing, but still incomplete. For example, neither the sun’s magnetic activity nor its important ultraviolet emissions are presently measurable.
CERN confirmed that the Little Ice Age was cloudier than thought. Moreover, they found modern pollution from burning fossil was less important than the computer models guessed. That means the Little Ice Age morphed naturally into a Modern Warming after 1850. The centuries-long warmings and coolings of the natural Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle, previously gave earth the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD), the cold Dark Ages, (60–-950 AD) the long Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD) as well as hundreds of earlier abrupt climate shifts.
CERN used a high-energy particle accelerator and a huge stainless steel cloud chamber to prove that when a weak sun allows more electrically charged cosmic rays to hit earth’s atmosphere, the rays shatter atmospheric molecules into tiny cloud seeds. The seeds are ionized with an electric charge, so they attract other molecules and form more low heat-deflecting clouds. CERN says ionization increases cloud numbers by one to two orders of magnitude. Moreover, the ionized clouds deflect more heat, and last longer.
CERN’s lead author, Ken Carslaw of Leeds University, wrote in the CERN Courier for December, 2016, that all the climate models cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change need to be redone—and revised downward.
Warnings that CO2 was not the controlling climate change factor have been presented for years—and ignored by climate modelers, the media, and the public.
1) In 1970, Hans Neuberger studied 4000 Old Masters paintings in the world’s museums concluding that the Medieval Warming featured sunny skies and long summers, while Little Ice Age skies were heavily overcast with cooling clouds.
2) The temperature record since 1850 shows three strong upward surges that each lasted decades: 1860–1880, 1915–1940 and 1998–2000. Phil Jones, Director of Research for the UK’s University of East Anglia, conceded on BBC radio in 2010 that the three warmings were statistically identical, but his university called only the 1976-98 warming “unprecedented” and “man-made.” It is now clear that all three temperature surges were caused by the 60-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation, recognized by fisheries experts only in 1996.
3) In 2001, NASA and MIT collaborated on a major study of the sky over the Pacific Warm Pool. They found that when the warm pool reached 30 degrees C, an “iris” opened in the sky overhead. The high, heat-sealing cirrus clouds dissipated, and huge amounts of heat escaped to space through the opening. Enough heat escaped, the researchers said, to have dealt with an instantaneous doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth was defending its own climate stability.
The NASA/MIT study involved top government and university scholars, geostationary satellites for cloud measurement, and the best aerial sea-surface data that could be gathered. The results were published in Science, and the American Meteorological Organization issued a press release. Again, the climate modelers, the media and the public ignored it.
The media ignored all of this evidence and the general public had no way to know. That is why the CERN study and the new follow-up by European modelers are so important. The Obama White House pushed the United States into a Paris Agreement that statistician Bjorn Lomborg says could cost $100 trillion by 2100. Worse, it would reduce earth’s temperatures by only 0.003 degrees C—even if CO2 was the Earth’s thermostat.
The Democrats rail against any effort to reduce our commitment to cutting CO2 emissions. They even set a requirement for U.S. autos to average an impossible 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025! They also launched a “war on coal,” severely disadvantaging heartland states that rely heavily on coal-fired power plants. If allowed to continue, the war on coal’s job losses will extend far beyond the coal miners in West Virginia.
EPA’s Scott Pruitt has become a very important man indeed.
|
|
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 04-07-2017).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 10, 03:53 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
[posts article from Townhall, "New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate"; April 4, 2017] |
|
"
For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.
There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations. One important factor in the unchanging rise and fall of the Earth's temperature and its different cycles is the sun. As its activity varies, so does the intensity of the sunlight that reaches us. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth's climate. IPCC reports assume that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future.
Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.
--> According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.
<SNIP>
Source:
https://phys.org/news/2017-...mate-quantified.html
"
Some "borrowed time", but not a way for a responsible humanity to just "blow off" the warming effect of continued human greenhouse gas emissions.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-10-2017).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 04, 05:15 PM
|
|
"Should I stay or should I go..?"
CNN contributor John Sutter has remarks on the possibility that President Trump will be announcing (an Executive Order, I guess--unless he can just accomplish it in this New Age with another #RealDonaldTrump tweet on Twitter) that his administration is nullifying the Obama-era pledge to commit the United States to taking actions in line with the international Paris agreement for countries all around the world to reduce their planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
So I guess that leaves anyone who is reading this with another question: Should "I" read or should I (fore)go..?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/...-sentence/index.html
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
MAY 08, 09:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
MAY 31, 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|