Are there other variables that control climate change?

  • #1
302
30
Hello all
It's been a while ,as I read the almost daily news on climate change , some question come up to my mind , dose the ionosphere has any effect on climate change , as we all know now the earth magnetic field is weakening ,and the temperature is rising ,dose this two variables related to each other throughout ionosphere ,for example the weak magnetic field will effect the ionosphere ?

Best hope for all
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
jim mcnamara
Mentor
4,593
3,484
Pretty much not a major player. The consensus (meaning virtually all of the climate scientists) is that human activity is the driver for climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Please read the article carefully before you decide, without much scientific support, something else like major changes in the sun are the major cause.
 
  • Like
Likes hagopbul and bhobba
  • #3
10,070
3,185
Yes there are variables that lay people often do not consider, but professionals do. For example see the following peer reviewed paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008746

It says due to the thermal inertia of the oceans it thinks the rise in temperature will only be about .7 of a degree. Is it true - who knows - the earth is a very complex system and models have not proven that accurate.

The best we can say now is climate change is real - but the exact effect on the climate, by which I mean knowing exactly what its effects in say 2100 are is extremely difficult. Take this into account when listening to what both the alarmists and deniers say - we deal with science here and only consider legitimate science from peer reviewed sources or similar. Science is never certain - in fact the very essence of science is doubt. That's why I shake my head when I hear we are doomed unless we we take very drastic action now, or its all a hoax. Its not a hoax, but neither is there a scientific certainty doomsday is around the corner - our models at the moment are just not that good. Only you can decide through the democratic process what our response should be, and remember this is science, if the the political response is not what you think it should be realize what I said - in science there is always doubt.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jim hardy, NTL2009, hagopbul and 1 other person
  • #4
302
30
What frequencies the ionosphere reflect?
 
  • #5
berkeman
Mentor
62,510
13,311
What frequencies the ionosphere reflect?
Google should be able to answer that. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy, bhobba and hagopbul
  • #6
302
30
Could the ionosphere work as one way mirror? For example allowing frequency to pass from one side but not allowing them to pass from the other side
 
  • #7
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,628
15,893
Could the ionosphere work as one way mirror? For example allowing frequency to pass from one side but not allowing them to pass from the other side
Not in that strict way (either or), as it is no shield. But basically that's exactly the problem with climate relevant gases: reflection of IR wavelengths from below.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and hagopbul
  • #8
302
30
then could changes in the ionosphere contribute to the global worming

Not in that strict way (either or), as it is no shield. But basically that's exactly the problem with climate relevant gases: reflection of IR wavelengths from below.
 
  • #9
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,628
15,893
then could changes in the ionosphere contribute to the global worming
I'm not sure whether our (Montreal) gases get as high as the ionosphere, I'm inclined to say no, but basically yes. The thinner the atmosphere the less important is it, and the ionosphere is already quite high aka thin. It's name already says that it is the part of the atmosphere which interacts the most with cosmic radiation, but I'm no atmosphere physicist, so don't quote me. As I've learnt it, IR reaches the ground without major disturbances. It's the reflections which causes problems. The ionosphere shouldn't play a role here.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #10
10,070
3,185
then could changes in the ionosphere contribute to the global worming

Well its possible - there is a link between solar activity and earths climate:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

But as the article says:
But scientists are the first to admit that they have a lot to learn about phenomena like sunspots and solar wind, some of which is visible to humans on Earth in the form of Aurora Borealis and other far flung interplanetary light shows

Interestingly it was Feynman's sister who was first to work a lot of this out - so not just is the Feynman we usually think of amazing his sister was no slouch either.

Again - that's the whole issue with the the global warming debate - there is a lot of stuff we do not know and we have an interesting media view of the situation - mostly they are ether deniers or alarmists, so much so one wonders if its not science they are reporting but simply politicized cherry picking. This really makes it hard to figure out what is going on. Peer reviewed scientific papers are the only reliable source - not reports supposedly citing them you see on the media, which can easily be cherry picked to have the slant the reporter wants.

The book to get about this sort of thing is Feynman's (there is that name again) - What Do You Care What Other People Think. Here he describes his experience with being on the Challenger Disaster Panel. He solved the cause, and issued his own report that was only allowed to be attached as an appendix
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

IMHO it should be required reading by everyone. Subject politically sensitive scientific reports through the lens of the lessons Feynman learned. I will not express an opinion - we discuss science here - not politics - but I think Feynman's experience is important.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Tom.G and Bystander
  • #11
Tom.G
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,404
3,157
After reading Feynman's Appendix-F.txt from the above post, his observations of the NASA culture bring to mind occurences in industry in general. Having been an independent for much of my working life, I would frequently get called in as a troubleshooter. The attitude of 'Get it done, regardless' would sometimes crop up, usually in a business that had a new owner or top level manager that was 'Always right' (often with little experience or business sense) and/or was intent on extracting as much value as possible at the expense of killing the company.

Yes, the NASA management mind-set that Feynman presented is entirely believable but at the same time unsettling. I dearly hope that mindset does not endanger the future projects NASA undertake.

Tom
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and hagopbul
  • #12
10,070
3,185
To the OP the point of Feynman and other things mentioned about the title of the thread is:

1. Even more than NASA climate change has become very politicized. When that happens be very careful of your sources. Reports in the media are not good enough - read the actual peer reviewed literature yourself - if interested that is.

2. There is a lot we do not know and we are not even sure of what we do or do not know - there is also a lot we do know. Its not easy to sort out which is which - you asked a direct question 'then could changes in the ionosphere contribute to the global worming'. I do not know, I am not sure if science advisers here know, and we have some very knowledgeable posters. I suspect it does - but suspecting is not knowing and certainly I doubt anyone knows for certain the size of the effect if any. I posted a paper about the weather inertia of the earth - the author is a very creditable and legit climate scientist. Even before publishing the deniers hit on it as proof it's all a hoax - the alarmists trying to poke holes in it. They did not even wait until the regular feedback and discussion from publication. IMHO, scientifically, this makes the situation a mess, so bad I personally just want to roll my eyes and say let others sort it out. IMHO likely what will happen is what Brian Cox thinks - he believes in climate change - the degree I am not sure of, but the chances of politically galvanizing the world to action - I don't like the chances.

Just watching the news right now. There is now an issue brewing that electricity companies are going slow on installing smart meters for rooftop solar panels. Why? The more solar there is - the less profit they make so they are worried about going into a death spiral - it's do or die for them so they deliberately go slow. You shake your head - you really do. That's just one issue and its likely going to get worse making it more important to get the facts from reliable sources.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #13
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,628
15,893
That's just one issue and its likely going to get worse making it more important to get the facts from reliable sources.
Not everybody is capable of understanding the original sources, so to some extend we all depend on what climate scientists tell us about. However, my personal favorite filter to distinguish propaganda from truth is to look at economic data: the balance sheets of re-insurance companies are a reliable source, because they don't ask whose fault has been what, they only consider hard facts. Sure, it doesn't tell me something about the causes, but it tells me about what is really going on. One of the advantages of open, barely regulated capital markets: economic data.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #14
302
30
The reason why I am asking about the ionosphere is trying to see if the rotation of the earth core , is related to the climate change ,we all living on this earth.
 
  • #15
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,628
15,893
The reason why I am asking about the ionosphere is trying to see if the rotation of the earth core , is related to the climate change ,we all living on this earth.
I'd say it's rather related to the figures of malignant melanoma than to climate change. High frequency radiation will be affected, IR radiation less.
 
  • #16
olivermsun
Science Advisor
1,250
120
Not in that strict way (either or), as it is no shield. But basically that's exactly the problem with climate relevant gases: reflection of IR wavelengths from below.
I'm pretty sure GHGs aren't reflecting IR, but I agree with the sentiment...
 
  • #17
10,070
3,185
Not everybody is capable of understanding the original sources, so to some extend we all depend on what climate scientists tell us about. However, my personal favorite filter to distinguish propaganda from truth is to look at economic data: the balance sheets of re-insurance companies are a reliable source, because they don't ask whose fault has been what, they only consider hard facts. Sure, it doesn't tell me something about the causes, but it tells me about what is really going on. One of the advantages of open, barely regulated capital markets: economic data.

Absolutely.

Take the example of the solar panels I mentioned. People are going to solar panels not because they believe in climate change and want to save the planet - some may - but most do it because its cheaper than buying it from the power company. In the news report I saw people were complaining how the deliberate go slow by the power companies was affecting their hip pocket - until the new meters were connected they got zero benefit form their panels in their bill. Now the Tesla battery is getting cheaper they will eventually go off grid - the power companies, as far as your normal home consumer is concerned, is in many cases going the way of the do do, like taxis are with UBER, and UBER will transform significantly with driver-less cars. Already renewables are cheaper in many situations than coal, uranium etc so they are on the way out - again not because of worry about global warming - but just plain economics. Large power stations will still be required for heavy industry - I was reading wind turbines are now cheaper than coal or nuclear for that and that is where investment capital seems to be heading. I was hoping that the new nuclear reactors that burned spent fuel would eventually come online but the company formed to commercially develop the idea has evidently floundered. IMHO, regardless of what the Global Warming science says we are headed for a cleaner future anyway by pure economics. I remember a debate between an economist and a climate change alarmist on this very point. The economist personally wasn't worried one way or the other because economics he thought will sort it out - his only concern was the government subsidies and the power industry becoming hooked on them - once you have a subsidy its hard to remove.

So to try and stay on topic I suspect the molten core and the ionosphere does affect global warming, but not by much. However a much greater effect is likely to be good old simple economics - strange isn't it.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #18
2,167
500
The reason why I am asking about the ionosphere is trying to see if the rotation of the earth core , is related to the climate change ,we all living on this earth.

There are discussions about a possible influence of cosmic rays to cloud formation. But that should have an opposite effect. The observed weakening of the Earth magnetic field should reduce deflection of cosmic rays, resulting in increased cloud formation and therefore in global cooling due to the increased albedo. As we observe global warming instead, this effect is at least not dominating (if it excists at all).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #19
302
30
There are discussions about a possible influence of cosmic rays to cloud formation. But that should have an opposite effect. The observed weakening of the Earth magnetic field should reduce deflection of cosmic rays, resulting in increased cloud formation and therefore in global cooling due to the increased albedo. As we observe global warming instead, this effect is at least not dominating (if it excists at all).

You may over estimating the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation ,

And the changes in magnetic field may not be that much to induce real effect on cosmic rays deflection, the changes may effect only a certain value only
 
  • #20
285
27
The largest area of uncertainty in the climate models is based on our poor understanding of how clouds interact
with radiation, Baede et al 2001 IPCC TAR,
"It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation."
So an external input that regulates cloud formation may play an important role.
 
  • #21
Bandersnatch
Science Advisor
3,241
2,459
Baede et al 2001 IPCC TAR
There has probably been a bit more work done on it since 2001.
 
  • #22
285
27
There has probably been a bit more work done on it since 2001.
You would think, but IPCC AR5 in 2013 cited Baede as the more comprehensive assessment.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf
"Here, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described;
many of these were summarized more comprehensively in earlier IPCC
assessments(Baede et al., 2001)"
Also the range of uncertainty has not changed much, Still 1.5 to 4.5 C, like it has been since 1979.

.
 
  • #24
302
30
As long I check this thread , no buddy talking about how the earth magnatic field plays or not play at all , a roll in our atmosphere?
 
  • #25
302
30
Hello again

Nobody answered my primary question dose ionosphere or magnetosphere have any effect what's so ever on climate change ?

Best
B.H.
 
  • #26
Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
2,503
454
Its not a hoax, but neither is there a scientific certainty doomsday is around the corner - our models at the moment are just not that good.
Hi bhobba:

I am hopeful you might be able to cite a generally accessible reference that discusses the scientific history of quality climate change models. My general impression has been that (almost) each new model makes a prediction that is more serious than previous models. I am unfortunately not a good enough researcher to confirm or refute this impression.

Regards,
Buzz
 
  • Like
Likes hagopbul
  • #27
Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
2,503
454
Certainly, maybe take note of the work of Sybren Drijfhout on the role of oceans for instance.
Hi Andre:

Here is a quote from the cited reference.
“When the atmosphere gets extra warm it receives more heat from the ocean, when it is extra cool it receives less heat from the ocean, making it clear that the ocean is the driving force behind these variations."​
.The text before the last comma seems to me to be saying that the oceans are amplifiers of the atmospheric temperature, rather then the "driving force".

What am I not understanding here?

Regards,
Buzz
 
  • #28
10,070
3,185
\I am hopeful you might be able to cite a generally accessible reference that discusses the scientific history of quality climate change models. My general impression has been that (almost) each new model makes a prediction that is more serious than previous models. I am unfortunately not a good enough researcher to confirm or refute this impression.

Sorry no. It's not a big interest of mine. What I discovered early on however is what peer reviewed papers say varies quite a bit from global lukewarming to global alarmist warming. That's one reason I lost much interest in it. You can do internet searches and find peer reviewed literature and make up your own mind. If you do not understand any peer reviewed paper you can post it here and people will be able to help you. But please peer reviewed - statements by for example the intergovernmental committee are not that - they even admit they use what they call 'grey literature' which is a fancy name for non peer-reviewed. Don't fall into that trap - make sure its peer reviewed,

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ChemAir and Bystander
  • #29
68
72
Yes there are variables that lay people often do not consider, but professionals do. For example see the following peer reviewed paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008746

It says due to the thermal inertia of the oceans it thinks the rise in temperature will only be about .7 of a degree. Is it true - who knows - the earth is a very complex system and models have not proven that accurate.

The best we can say now is climate change is real - but the exact effect on the climate, by which I mean knowing exactly what its effects in say 2100 are is extremely difficult. Take this into account when listening to what both the alarmists and deniers say - we deal with science here and only consider legitimate science from peer reviewed sources or similar. Science is never certain - in fact the very essence of science is doubt. That's why I shake my head when I hear we are doomed unless we we take very drastic action now, or its all a hoax. Its not a hoax, but neither is there a scientific certainty doomsday is around the corner - our models at the moment are just not that good. Only you can decide through the democratic process what our response should be, and remember this is science, if the the political response is not what you think it should be realize what I said - in science there is always doubt.

Thanks
Bill

Well, the paper you choose to publish here is controversial. Most of its quotes are either from climate deniers books and other controversial publications or from climate science publications but with negative critics. I need to precise however that Stephen A. Schwartz is a respectful scientist, he is not a denier. But his article is about a model and an interpretation he built alone and it didn't convince other climate scientists. His work is mainly put out of context by climate deniers.

There is a peer-reviewed comment available there:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_of_Earth's_climate_system''_by_S_E_Schwartz

Especially with the temperature anomalies of the two previous years, this paper should be read with caution.

Hello all
It's been a while ,as I read the almost daily news on climate change , some question come up to my mind , dose the ionosphere has any effect on climate change , as we all know now the earth magnetic field is weakening ,and the temperature is rising ,dose this two variables related to each other throughout ionosphere ,for example the weak magnetic field will effect the ionosphere ?

Best hope for all

First of all, there are actually several fingerprints of the effect of increasing greenhouse gases in the troposphere and one of them is concerning your question:
  1. As expected by the theory which says that a greenhouse gas will absorbs and re-emits outgoing infrared at specific wavelengths, there are measurements of downward radiation at the wavelength expected by the CO2 that are showing an increase.
  2. As expected by the pioneer scientist John Tyndall, an increase in greenhouse gases will proportionally warm faster the nights and the winters than the days and the summers. The reason is simple, greenhouse effect is still active the night contrary to the sunlight. A faster warming of the nights and of the winters is what we actually measure here and here.
  3. And finally, since the greenhouse gases in the troposphere are reducing the outgoing infrared radiation, there is cooling effect expected for the stratosphere and other layers above the troposphere (our air). We are measuring a cooling as expected as you can see here. A cooling of the upper atmosphere will cause a thermal contraction and will cause a shrink in our protecting ionosphere. Thus in the actual climate change, the causality seems to be from the greenhouse gas to the ionosphere and not the reverse.

For others parameters that could influence the climate, I suggest you the statement of the Geological Society of America:

"Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several explanations for the ongoing warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in the observed rate of temperature increase over the last 150 years. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation for the recent trend have similarly failed.

As a result, greenhouse-gas concentrations and solar output are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. The 5th IPCC report (2013) concluded that solar irradiance changes contributed only a few percent to changes in radiative forcing of the atmosphere over the past century. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).

Greenhouse gas concentrations remain the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~40% higher than peak levels measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 1.5 times higher (IPCC, 2013). The measured increases in greenhouse gases are more than enough to explain the observed global temperature increase at Earth’s surface. In fact, considered in isolation, the greenhouse gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but mechanisms that limit increases in near-surface air temperatures from aerosols, ocean heat storage, and possibly clouds have offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of recent greenhouse gas increases."

https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position10.aspx

Best,
 
  • Like
Likes Bandersnatch, bhobba and BillTre
  • #31
10,070
3,185
Well, the paper you choose to publish here is controversial.

That's why I chose it. Its to break down the idea that all scientists agree on the details of climate change - all sorts of factors influence it.

Following on from that remark will take us down a political path which is not what this forum is about. One can discuss peer reviewed literature here, and post peer reviewed refutations of that literature. From this you can form your own view free of the bias in the media.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #32
68
72
That's why I chose it. Its to break down the idea that all scientists agree on the details of climate change - all sorts of factors influence it.

Following on from that remark will take us down a political path which is not what this forum is about. One can discuss peer reviewed literature here, and post peer reviewed refutations of that literature. From this you can form your own view free of the bias in the media.

Sure, I agree with the need to put different papers with different conclusions here. Especially because you choose a good skeptical paper. I only highlight the fact that this paper is not convincing others climate scientists, it is something important to say for amateurs that aren't aware of the whole literature on the subject. By cherry-picking papers, you can influence how someone will make his opinion on the subject. Moreover when there are controversies about how peer-review failed to stop fallacious papers, like the paper of Hermann Harde (2017) who has chosen the reviewers himself...

Following on from that remark will take us down a political path which is not what this forum is about. One can discuss peer reviewed literature here, and post peer reviewed refutations of that literature. From this you can form your own view free of the bias in the media.

Actually the question of the OP is about magnetosphere and ionosphere link with climate change. Previous posts have diverged a lot from this. But anyway, if the thread continues the need to be aware of the whole literature will be more and more important. Svensmark is an example of a prolific controversial author on the subject but he is often unable to explain why the CERN CLOUD experiment is contradicting his hypothesis.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #34
10,070
3,185
Actually the question of the OP is about magnetosphere and ionosphere link with climate change. Previous posts have diverged a lot from this. But anyway, if the thread continues the need to be aware of the whole literature will be more and more important. Svensmark is an example of a prolific controversial author on the subject but he is often unable to explain why the CERN CLOUD experiment is contradicting his hypothesis.

Sure. I answered the question asked, but it became clearer later his issue was a bit more specific. That was answered as well, but the more general nature of what was asked has morphed a bit. Don't worry, as a mentor I am keeping an eye on it. Like your posts though - this is good scientific debate - I give such a bit more 'leeway' as far as being exactly on topic is concerned.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #35
10,070
3,185
Actually, while vitally important and a major issue I have with grey literature used by the intergovernmental committee, peer review actually isn't that big a hurdle. Obviously you shouldn't select the reviewers of your own paper, but we get a number of peer reviewed papers here in various areas that would not have passed the scrutiny of a number of the experts that post here. The area I am most familiar with is papers making claims somewhat at odds with well know principles of Quantum Mechanics - its usually a misunderstanding of so called weak measurements. A good book on errors getting through peer review is Einsteins Mistakes:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337685/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Genava

Related Threads on Are there other variables that control climate change?

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
6K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • Sticky
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
34
Views
7K
Top