Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Are there other variables that control climate change?

  1. Oct 8, 2018 #1
    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 8, 2018 #2

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  4. Oct 8, 2018 #3

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Oct 11, 2018
  5. Oct 9, 2018 #4
    What frequencies the ionosphere reflect?
     
  6. Oct 9, 2018 #5

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Google should be able to answer that. :smile:
     
  7. Oct 9, 2018 #6
    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
     
  8. Oct 10, 2018 #7

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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. Oct 10, 2018 #8
    then could changes in the ionosphere contribute to the global worming

     
  10. Oct 10, 2018 #9

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  11. Oct 11, 2018 #10

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    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
     
  12. Oct 11, 2018 #11

    Tom.G

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  13. Oct 11, 2018 #12

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    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
     
  14. Oct 11, 2018 #13

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  15. Oct 11, 2018 #14
    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.
     
  16. Oct 11, 2018 #15

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  17. Oct 11, 2018 #16

    olivermsun

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm pretty sure GHGs aren't reflecting IR, but I agree with the sentiment...
     
  18. Oct 11, 2018 #17

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Oct 11, 2018
  19. Oct 14, 2018 #18
    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).
     
  20. Oct 15, 2018 #19
    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
     
  21. Oct 23, 2018 #20
    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook