 |
| Solar activity may be responsible for our climate weather , rather than green house gas emissions. |
Carbon Dioxide Theory .
My reasoning is summarized thus: Scientists are attempting to predict what will happen to the climate in the future. They do so in two ways. 1) To look at past climate data, and extrapolate trends. 2) To understand the mechanisms of climate (ocean currents, ocean temps, CO2 absoprtion, etc, etc), and build a model of how the environment should change.Here is the thing you need to know about scientists...they love to argue with each other. Careers are made by proving someone else wrong. So when you get 95%+ of these disagreeable people to agree on anything, that is pretty significant.That's a good point. Many scientists themselves have a strong incentive to prove climate change wrong, but we still have 95% agreement. Shows there's some strong numbers behind it.While I do not want to diminish how harmful 2 C of warming could be for many ecosystems (especially coral reefs), the Earth has been 2 C warmer many times before in Earth history. The challenge is the rate of change: Ecosystems and societies have adapted over the past thousands of years to something very close to the current climate. If 2 C of warming were to occur over one million years instead of less than a century, it would not be that big a deal. (3)>>The problem is the rate we are changing to 2C; 2 C of warming if achieved over a very long time period is not that big a deal for the Earth system.Though natural cycles and fluctuations have caused the earth’s climate to change several times over the last 800,000 years, our current era of global warming is directly attributable to human activity—specifically to our burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline, and natural gas, which results in the greenhouse effect. In the United States, the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation (29 percent), followed closely by electricity production (28 percent) and industrial activity (22 percent).Climate scientists expect droughts, heat waves and extreme rain events only to get worse out here. It seems that they have . The Southern Plains averages seven days per year above 100 degrees Fahrenheit – but that number is expected to quadruple by 2050, according to the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment. WE have to remember too that any increase of any type of gas in the atmosphere will have consequences to living , breathing life [ see my note to "an increase of more than 20% 👇] if co2 levels did rise by 20 % we would be having breathing problems right now . The Science can't explain that part , remember .
Using The Planet Venus as climate model .
The pseudo science modelling hard at work again (4)>>*Venus had oceans, rain, oceans, and perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics". (5)>>Dr. Carl Sagan back in the 1960's introduced the models for Climate Change . He used the planet Venus to demonstrate a runaway green house as the cause of the Planet Venus having surface temp 900 F , the crushing pressure of 92 atmospheres .While the Venusian C02 concentration is 95 % comparing Earth's 0.04%. Remember that Mars the next planet with c02 with the same percentage the temp on Mars surface is much lower. Carbon Dioxide on Mars is more like antifreeze, it keeps Mars cold with a thin atmosphere. So Carbon Dioxide can't be the sole factor driving the high temperatures on Venus . The cloud tops on Venus are much colder than the surface which can't explain why heat from the sun is being trapped on Venus by the thick clouds . Venus own thick clouds deflects a lot of the sun light. So where is the Venusian heat coming from ? Dr. Sagan missed a point about Venus , now the science on Venus is current that the Venusian green house may not be caused by the sun trapped heat . The hellish conditions on Venus are all in part due to out of control volcanism . Venus C02 is volcanic , again . Venus is a highly volcanic planet that has constant resurfacing , the crust is elastic that it flows like glaciers under a ocean . On Venus the ocean is molten rock . The thin crust , the volcanism , the large amounts of Co2 that out gassed from a volcanic origin . These findings about Venus create problems for the climate change models for Earth . Earth has volcanoes the amount of Co2 on Earth is too low to explain the weather we have that has been linked to global warming so something else is going on .
AL GORE'S Gory Climate model .
AL GORE's chart is hard to read. My link has an easier to read version. The point of his graph is that CO2 and temperature move together. However, the data he shows does not adequately demonstrate the theory that CO2 drives temperature increase. The climate deniers have gotten a lot of mileage from that graph since they have a strawman that's easy to refute. Remember that chart from (6)>>An Inconvenient Truth about the projected temperature increase? (http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/full/00_23_53.jpg) Is that turning out to be correct? Does anybody know where to find a chart of this prediction vs current temperature . Gore's climate model has pretty much taken in by society . The good news for all of us is that Mr. Gore appears to have overstated the threat of eco-apocalypse, which he seems to implicitly acknowledge on his latest media tour. In the interim, conservatives like talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh haven’t let Mr. Gore forget his most dire and least accurate weather predictions. But the Gore analysis on another issue is being rejected by even some of his committed climate allies.I have only a few words to say to Al Glore about his gloom and doom scenario regarding the imminent dangers of global warming as he climbs into a chauffeur driven gas guzzling SUV when he could have been driven in a hybrid. Just BLOW a puff of air on ME.Gore is not a natural honest edifice of truth.He is a condescending pusher of lies, to promote his stock in alternative fuels and energy.It's all about profit for him, by twisting the narrative through self promotion, and glorifying the environmental left...Take the profit from him, then lets see how long he would stay on this path.
The Midnight SUN .
Perhaps if we just skip the Co2 as the leading cause of the wild weather , the hot flashes we get every summer . We have look at our Sun . (7)>>The Sun is what drives weather on every planet in our solar system. Earth is no exception .But sometimes the Sun gets extra restless. It has “solar indigestion!” These sudden and intense hiccups and burps are called solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). The effects of these types of space weather are not so pretty! As a matter of fact, they can be very bad for humans and their equipment.A solar flare happens when the Sun suddenly burps out a blast of extra energy. Some of this energy is very “high-energy” energy called X-rays. CMEs are even bigger burps. CMEs are the biggest explosions in the solar system.About half the sunlight reaching the surface of the planet is radiated upward in the form of infrared heat, absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, warming the surface of the Earth. The rate of energy coming from the Sun changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia the Earth-Sun orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of the sun’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in solar output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of solar heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes.Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). In the last Million years the Sun has gotten brighter , more intense , so we had fewer , fewer Ice Ages . Best wisdom on how sun-sized stars evolve suggest that, at its current age the (8)>>Sun is brightening by about 1% every 100 million years. If that rate of brightening were constant, 100 years would see a brightening equal to the one millionth root of 1.01, or about 0.000001%. However, we know that the Sun’s brightness can fluctuate by a far larger amount year-to-year, and certainly century-to-century. Measurements of Solar brightness from 100 years ago and our current understanding of how the sun works both lack precision that would let us conclude that the sun has brightened over that period.There is a slow (very slow) trend of an increasing luminosity of the sun (+6% every 1000 million years). On top of that the sun shows little variations and fluctuations. A time scale of 100 years is very short. The last three decades satellites have measured the total solar irradiance (TSI) and before that we have proxy measurements from which we can deduce the TSI.
IN Crease of Solar Brightness and Earth .
When I was a kid, I have very specific memories and instances of the sun being(9)>>YELLOW/ORANGE in color. That's why we drew the damn thing that color in pictures. But beyond that, I remember being able to look up at the sun and not have to immediately turn my eyes away. You could look at the sun kind of unfocused like, and it would almost darken in shade, and the rest of the sky would turn a purple/reddish hue, like you were wearing shades. Obviously you couldn't do this for like, ever... But I definitely remember being able to look at the sun for about 30-40 seconds. That's literally why the whole concept / phrase don't stare at the sun, it will mess your eyes up came about! I mean, if looking at it instantly blazed your eyes like it did now, making you immediately turn away, why would there even need to be a warning....? As the sun is now.... It is WHITE. Very clearly WHITE and not a hint of yellow or orange. If you look at that thing, it's like shining a match lighting laser pointer at your retina. I'm sorry but the sun was never this damn bright! W. T. F.??? Like it literally makes me crack up because of how God damn ridiculous it is!!! I mean come on guys, they changed the SUN?!?!??!!!??? This is a really interesting speculation! I hope it’s accurate, we could use some uplifting progress in the condition of the world that is actually visible. While we all can point the finger the C02 concentration as a culprit , over the next Century the Sun will dominate headlines as a star undergoing evolutionary changes begins to brighten .
My Last word AS I escape the Midnight Sun.
I read Poul Anderson's "Winter of the World" which took place in a very distant future at the ending of "an Ice Age". Our time is so far in the tale's past that the names of places and our various polities are all lost completely. Some sort of nuclear exchange had apparently also happened so long before that the craters were believed to be natural features. It was a good story which explored Anderson's usual tropes but it was hardly a warning of the shape of things to come. SilverBob's novel "Time of the Great Freeze" was published in 1964.
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>an increase of more than 20%. A Sudden increase in Co2 , 339 parts per million in 1980 (averaged over the year) to 410 parts per million if the measure is correct , would we have a few things here to note . How much of it is is changing the way we breathe , the animals breathe , the insects & so on . Even a slight increase in Co2 is dangerous to humans . Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and convulsions. In 1958, Charles Keeling started taking daily measurements of the amount of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas He wanted to study the seasonal cycle that drives carbon dioxide higher when plants are dormant during Northern Hemisphere winter and lower in the summer when plants are taking carbon dioxide out of the air through photosynthesis. But Keeling found an unexpected change over time – that the total amount of carbon dioxide was increasing year after year. (2)>>So I was a believer for a while.But now I'm skeptical again. Why l asked for your definition of climate change, and l often ask others is that the term is so broad it is essentially meaningless ie the term climate change, not your definition.This is an oxymoron. In science, there is evidence to support a theory or there isn't, but there is no "belief." In the case of climate change, there is evidence that the climate is changing and there is evidence that a large portion of the change is the result of human activity.I think in the future, the foreseeable future that is, younger scientists and journalists will not conform to the current narrative. I think they will say "our older generation had it wrong, lucky we are now here to correct their misconceptions"(3)>>The problem is the rate we are changing to 2C; 2 C of warming if achieved over a very long time period is not that big a deal for the Earth system. There were a few predictions of global cooling at the time, but part of that was due to the huge rise of sulfur emissions from the burning of coal. As environmental regulations were tightened in the 70s, sulfur, which has the effect of blocking out the sun, cooling the earth, disappeared and by the 80s it was clear that the earth would get hotter, not colder.The "global cooling consensus" is one of those myths that climate deniers spread to sow doubt and is just as fundamentally dishonest as all the others.t's simplistic, but nevertheless true to say that in the 1970's scientists underestimated the role that anthropogenic emissions would play in the climate balance. If you underestimate the role that CO2 and other greenhouse gases play in the climate, your predictions are going to be incorrect. We've seen this mistake repeatedly. Contrarian and denialist spokespeople have frequently predicted that climate change will reverse and we will enter a cooling period, or that the current warming trend has ended (this latter assertion was particularly popular between 2003 and 2012). These predictions have repeatedly and universally been wrong. So the lesson here is: don't underestimate the role of greenhouse gases in climate.What kinda blows my mind is the notion that because people in past underestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2, CO2 must play not role at all. That doesn't make a lot of sense.(4)>>*Venus had oceans, rain, oceans, and perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics".Venus is a very strange place, totally uninhabitable, except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life. But the surface is totally inhospitable.Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modeling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.(5)>>Dr. Carl Sagan back in the 1960's. Sagan reflected scientific conclusions of 1990 – the laws of science have not changed in the last 20 years. The same conclusions are being constantly rediscovered – The laws of CO2 heating the atmosphere remains.Sagan also made statements about global cooing.” . . . But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests and encouraging domestic animals to graze on and destroy grasslands. Slash-and-burn agriculture, industrial tropical deforestation and overgrazing are rampant today. But forests are darker than grasslands, and grasslands are darker than deserts. As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining, and by changes in the land use we are lowering the surface temperature of our planet. Might this cooling increase the size of the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect still more sunlight from the Earth, further cooling the planet, driving a runaway albedo2 effect?” For some reason, we don’t ever read about that. Can you say “cherry picking?”(6)>>An Inconvenient Truth about the projected temperature increase? Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.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.” (7)>>The Sun is what drives weather on every planet in our solar system. Some scientists tried to find a link between changes in Earth’s weather and solar variability. Some scientists have wondered if changes in our weather and climate might be linked with short or long term solar cycles. Weather is the current atmospheric conditions, including temperature, rainfall, wind, and humidity for a given area, while climate is the general weather conditions over a longer amount of time. This has been an active area of research for decades.The first hypothesis relies on the fact that in both the 11 year cycle and, in the longer term, the changes in solar energy are highest at ultraviolet (short) wavelengths.The short wavelength radiation is particularly effective in modifying ozone concentrations in the level of the atmosphere above where typical weather occurs. According to this hypothesis, modifications in the ozone layer could in turn filter down to that level of the atmosphere where our weather is formed, potentially modifying clouds and temperatures there. Solar radiation is the climate’s fundamental energy source. In this chapter we consider the solar irradiance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, its variation with location and season, and its energy distribution within the climate system. We discuss how changes in the radiation balance may influence global surface temperature and may thus be involved in climate change.(8)>>Sun is brightening by about 1% every 100 million years. LETS HOPE that modern science is correct that we will see the Sun getting brighter in it's evolution only in a billion years from now .The sun definitely changed, but it’s not an M.E. It’s a natural cycle of our star that we’re not taught about.The sun is moving into its next phase of existence. Its getting hotter, and will eventually turn blue (not red like we’re told in school). The changing of the sun comes with a whole host of impacts.This is a different star in our sky. We are in the Orion Spur of the Milky Way. We were in outer Sagittarius arm before. Our star, EARTHS YELLOW SUN (Superman's power source...?) is back there.The sun probably is changing. I read somewhere that it started burning helium instead of hydrogen, but someone told me that’s not yet true. It’s definitely more intense though, no question. When I’m out in the sun I feel like I’m being radiated! Maybe it’s because we have less ozone? (9)>>YELLOW/ORANGE in color. This is something that has been a hot (No pun intended) topic among my family and friends since at least 2005 when we started calling the Sun “the blinding orb in the sky”.Yes, we used yellow crayons as kids and the sun goes more to the red end of the visible light spectrum as it gets lower on the horizon or is filtered through dust/pollution - but it never was instantly blinding like it is now.Picasso famously used to stare at the sun for long lengths of time *and didn’t go blind (though one can perhaps say it influenced his vision. And his art).There were jokes about the sun burning us more back in the 90s in movies like Robocop but this bright white light appears to really be different.Maybe it took 30 years to get to where it is now and kind of snuck up on us but people have been talking about this since long before they started talking about the Effect.
