bhobba said:
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/publication/258317976_Comment_on_Heat_capacity_time_constant_and_sensitivity_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.
hagopbul said:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
