U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Got tired of the Cabbage Farts so he's on ignore; things smell a lot better now.
You are embarrassing yourself. Jonathan Swift was a Dean. Give it up before you get too deep.
i do not care whether it is 'true.' it is irrelevant and little known. It has not a thing to do with climate change.
Are you really nuts?
I am tying nothing. I am informing you of facts. One of which is that it was a project of little Georgie.
Not PAWNED. I could not get antone to give anything for you.
Why don't you care about the truth? It's too hard to wrap your head around being lied to for so long?
There's a lot of things that influence climate. The best indicator is not the CC of this, that, or the other thing, but it's the net energy flux that is the most indicative of climate change. Basically that means at this point in time we are hanging onto more energy from MOST of the influences than we are shedding or reflecting. That means the planet gets warmer. And human activities DO have an impact. There's been many instances in various scientific fields showing that we periodically push things off-balance. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we've done it with climate balances.
You're nucking futs. Way back in 2009 the Danish discovered the effect of the magnetosphere on climate. http://phys.org/news151003157.html
You're a better man than I.
I'm not sure there's any point in trying to explain this further to people who are more than likely screwing around with the debate on purpose. It's been explained to Petros and either he's incapable of understanding the difference between the solar wind and it's interaction with the Earth's magnetic field(which creates the magnetosphere) and solar electromagnetic radiation from the Sun which like any body is emitted as a function of its temperature, or he's intentionally screwing around.
My guess is he knows what he's doing and doesn't give a damn, which in my mind considering the inherent risks involved in this subject makes him truly insane. He was also making bizarre statements about laws requiring food to be turned into biofuels and by processing garbage into ethanol we'd be creating more garbage in the Tar Sands discussion.
scepticism based on facts is a necessary part of science, contrarianism based on psuedoscience is dangerous in the wrong hands.
Of course there's a lot of things that influence climate and one of the most important based on the science going back into the late 1600s is the presence of compounds in the atmosphere that moderate the radiative balance of the globe...and the most important persistant compound for the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. A gas we're rapidly increasing the concentration of while at the same time seeing marked changes in the Earth's environment, not the least of which is the changes in ice and snow cover.
Basically what more CO2, CH4, N2O and a bunch of manmade compounds like CFCs do is slow the rate at which long wave electromagnetic radiation is transmitted back into space. The higher the concentration of these compounds the more opaque the atmosphere becomes to the heat being released by the Earth's surface and the more heat is transmitted back to the surface that otherwise would be emitted into space. The greenhouse gases are one of the most significant factors in moderating the Earths' energy balance and we're rapidly changing that.
We have not had the ability to force the earth's radiative balance to a new higher state at this rate and to this degree in the past, the first major effect we've had on the planet was wet agriculture in Asia and the Pacific rim which has probably stabilized the Earth's climate since the end of the last glacial period by producing methane. What we're doing now is orders of magnitude over an activity that already had signifcant effects.
That's not the issue, there are many things that influence the earth's climate, as I've just posted the make-up of the atmosphere is one of the most important for it's ability to redirect outgoing longwave radiation back to Earth's surface. The Earth's magnetic field plays an important role in moderating the global environment, it doesn't nullify the effects of rapidly increasing the amounts of the most important persistant greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Unless you rewrite the Standard Model and basically revolutionize all of science today then it's pretty much a given that rapidly and significantly altering the Earth's radiative balance by the emission of BILLIONS of tons of greenhouse gases a year will dramatically alter the Earth's climate. There's far more energy present in the system, looking at the Greenland icesheet alone which is losing around 200 billions tons a year we can see the affect of this, it takes 81 times the energy to melt a gram of ice as it does to heat a gram of water by one degree C. That's for the Greenland ice sheet alone which is just a fraction of the Earth's surface, the amount of new energy in the system is staggering.
Trying to pull magical rabbits out of a hat to make the issue go away like this is pointless and indicates a lack of understanding, not insight into the issue.
Sometimes what you don't know(or don't want to know) can kill you.
Last edited:
uhuh I do not see the cause of global warming being attributed to human activities, though. The planet has been going through the cycles of warming and cooling over thousands of centuries. I think (based upon a lot of reading) we've merely extended the latest warming stage of a cycle.
Yes, but not as rapidly as you might think. The effect of GHGs on climate is logarithmic, not linear. What has more effect is a snowballing (scuse the pun) where our reflectivity is lessened by darker areas on the planet (and a few other things). The normal cycle of cooling and warming is self-aggravating. The planet will cool again and I really doubt there's much we can do at this point to aggravate warming much more than we have nor much we can do to stop it.
Yeah, we changed the rate of warming. I agree. But we did not cause the warming.
I know that's not the point, but Cabbagefarts claimed that the magnetosphere had nothing to do with the climate. That's just plain BS so I said so.
I doubt it. It will certainly change the rate of the natural cycle, though.
but no-one seems willing to post how much of an influence our activity has had in comparison to natural forcings here lately.
Yeah, I took highschool physics and chemistry, too, thanks.
The amount of "new" energy that comes along each warming period is staggering anyway. The situation will reverse again.
Who's doing that?
Ya think?
Last edited:
If you knew the magnetosphere was dimishing and knew full well there was nothing we can do about it, would you at least try to curb warming effects of ionizing radiation by easing carbon output?
If people knew would they want their money to go keeping CO2 in balance or to fight the cancers that the radiation will induce?
If people knew would they want their money to go keeping CO2 in balance or to fight the cancers that the radiation will induce?
I think wifey & I are doing a pretty good job of keeping our contribution to pollution to a minimum. Yep
I'd do both.
I've done mine too, maybe not for just to be clean but because the Eco-Energy incentives were worth it. It would have been stupid not to.
Too bad there isn't a an X-Ray blocking lotion.
Based on what, the basic Quantum Electrodynamics demand that as you increase the concentration of atmospheric GHGs the raditiave balance will shift to a more energetic state. Where do you think all the new energy that in the past would simply pass through the atmsopheric envelope that is now redirected is going to go. Keep in mind that we're dealing with probabilities here which underlies all of physics. By signifcantly increasing the concentration of GHGs we also increase the probability that longwave photons will interact with and be redirected by molecules in the atmosphere. It's not hypothesis, it's been well established by extensive experimentation over a century and a half.
Two orders of magnitude over geological emissions of CO2 is rapid. And if it was just CO2 alone forcing the radiative balance the there would be less cause for concern, but there are strong direct and indirect feedbacks that multiply the effects of relatively small changes in CO2 concentration. We are not in a normal cycle of warming and cooling, we probably left that over 8,000 years ago as wet agricuture of rice and taro increased the amount of atmospheric methane. The planet will not cool again as long as we're producing massive amounts of GHGs, the relative radiative forcing mean we're already out pacing the natural forcings by a factor of 10 or more. The most important forcing of the Milanchovitch Cycles is about -0.2 w/m^2, we're already over +4 w/m^2 from increased concentration of GHGs.
This makes no sense. We have significantly altered the radiative balance of the entire globe, much more energy that in the past would have simply passed through the atmosphere into space is now redirected back to the Earth's surface where it warms the planet.
petros was going on about some bizarre psuedoscience that claims that CO2 levels and the magnetosphere are somehow linked. The Eart's magnetic field is produced by helical currents in the Earth's outer liquid iron core, thousands of feet under the crust. The magentosphere redirects ionized radiation from the sun, not electromagnetic radiation which has no charge.
I doubt it. It will certainly change the rate of the natural cycle, though. but no-one seems willing to post how much of an influence our activity has had in comparison to natural forcings here lately.Yeah, I took highschool physics and chemistry, too, thanks.
I'm posting it, we know the differences and they're significant. We won't have another glacial period on Earth as long as there are people producing GHGs, the effect of which is far more important in forcing the radiative balance than the Milanchovitch cycles or the Solar Sunspot cycles, which while they are important lack the amount of forcing that GHGs do.
Posters claiming the recent warming is the result of something other than increases in the concentration of GHGs. Unless you can somehow account for all that new energy being rapidly transmitted back into space then by increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere is going to have a significant effect on the global environment....just as we've been seeing.
Yes, I do. And I also think that trying to come up with unlikely scenarios about how it's not us driving the changes is blind.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19710070123&qs=N%3D4294966724%2B4294959693%2B4294937145
Read close....
This paper considers the process of upper atmosphere heating by the wave and corpuscular ionizing radiation. Examination of the photochemical processes in the upper atmosphere allows judging about the distribution within it of temperature as a function of altitude. It is shown that about 40 percent of ionizing radiation energy passes to heat upon absorption in the atmosphere. The daytime ionizing radiation flux, estimated according to data on atmosphere heating, is of 3 to 12 erg/cm2 sec. The distribution of temperature with the altitude is computed in the night ionsphere. It is shown that the mighttime heating of the upper atmosphere may be induced by electrons with energy exceeding 100 eV, whose flux is approximately 0.4 - 1.6 erg/cm2 sec. It is found that in mighttime the temperature is approximately 700 deg K at 200 km, and approximately 1130 deg K at 350km. Collection:NASANASA Center:Goddard Space Flight CenterPublication Date:Jan 1, 1964
Last edited by a moderator:
Good luck with combating the effects of ionized(not ionizing) radiation as the issue with Anthropogenic Global warming is due to increases in the rate of transmission of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths within the Earth's atmosphere. The shorter wavelength radiation coming from the sun isn't absorbed to the same degree the outgoing longerwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface.
It has nothing to do with the magnetosphere, it has to do with the effect of increased concentrations of molecules in the air like carbon dioxide that absorb and re-radiate energy that otherwise would have passed into space.
Last edited by a moderator:
NASA is wrong too? I told you to read close. but noooooo. LOL
There is no antropogenic global warming...the anthropogens need to keep CO2 balance to stabilize the atmospheric warming effects of ionizing radiation.
P.S. We are being pummeled by x-rays as I type this....
Yeah, that's pretty high. It would be even more impressive if the ranks weren't smoothed.
It's still interesting, but you're reaching too far with your extrapolations. Even the authors noted they could not link the SAA to global warming.
In fact if you read the discussion in that paper you'll note that one speculative causal relationship would not even have an effect on surface temperatures. Other reserachers have investigated for correlations between geomagnetic activity and temperature, and found that the relationships were not significant at all:
Recent studies have led to speculation that solar-terrestrial interaction, measured by sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, has played an important role in global temperature change over the past century or so. We treat this possibility as an hypothesis for testing. We examine the statistical significance of cross-correlations between sunspot number, geomagnetic activity, and global surface temperature for the years 1868–2008, solar cycles 11–23. The data contain substantial autocorrelation and nonstationarity, properties that are incompatible with standard measures of cross-correlational significance, but which can be largely removed by averaging over solar cycles and first-difference detrending. Treated data show an expected statistically-significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, Pearson p < 10−4, but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant, p = 0.9954, (p = 0.8171). In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely-cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar-terrestrial interaction in global climate change. With respect to the sunspot-number, geomagnetic-activity, and global-temperature data, three alternative hypotheses remain difficult to reject: (1) the role of solar-terrestrial interaction in recent climate change is contained wholly in long-term trends and not in any shorter-term secular variation, or, (2) an anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar-terrestrial variables and global temperature, or, (3) the null hypothesis, recent climate change has not been influenced by solar-terrestrial interaction.
Long-term signal seems very unlikely, if you accept that in the first paper they found significant signal in the correlation between sea level and the SAA once they smoothed the data with 5-year averages.
NASA is wrong too? I told you to read close. but noooooo. LOL
There is no antropogenic global warming...the anthropogens need to keep CO2 balance to stabilize the atmospheric warming effects of ionizing radiation.
P.S. We are being pummeled by x-rays as I type this....
How is this not trolling, plain and simple?
He claims to not even understand the difference between electromagnetic and ionized radiation, I kind of doubt this is going to clear things up.
All you're really doing is enabling someones insanity.