Slashdot Mirror
The Recent Changes In Earth's Magnetic Field (esa.int)
Europe's Swarm constellation of satellites have documented bigger-than-expected changes that have been occurring in the Earth's magnetic field. Earlier this year SpaceWeather.com reported that the data show clearly that "the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, while it has strengthened about 2% over Asia. The region where the field is at its weakest -- the South Atlantic Anomaly -- has moved steadily westward and weakened further by about 2%. These changes have occurred over the relatively brief period between 1999 and mid-2016."
Science writer Robert Zimmerman reports: It was already known that the field has weakened globally by about 10% since the 19th century. These changes appear to be part of that generally weakening. Some scientists have proposed that this is the beginning of an overall flip of the magnetic field's polarity, something that happens on average about every 300,000 years and last occurred 780,000 years ago. At the moment, however, we have no idea if this theory is correct.
Science writer Robert Zimmerman reports: It was already known that the field has weakened globally by about 10% since the 19th century. These changes appear to be part of that generally weakening. Some scientists have proposed that this is the beginning of an overall flip of the magnetic field's polarity, something that happens on average about every 300,000 years and last occurred 780,000 years ago. At the moment, however, we have no idea if this theory is correct.
Is this nothing to worry about or a portent of doom?
The sun doesn't send its best particles. They bring in ionisation, they bring in cancer, they destroy our power grid. And some, I assume, are good particles.
We need to build a wall to protect ourselves from these particles, and we need to build it quick.
so weather climate change may not be from my truck afterall? who could have guessed they are guessing also..
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
Is this the reason why celebrities are building underground shelters all over the world?
It's entertaining to imagine that when / if the field flips in our lifetime electrons as we know them cease to function, and become instead an extension of the mind.
May your Magick be strong, lest you be devoured by the hoard!
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Layman question here: are there any studies which tried (or could) correlate those magnetic shifts with long-term changes in volcanic activity around the world?
(captcha: deficit)
Is Earht's future. A wasteland. In a few 1000 years it will look as if there was never any life on this third rock from the sun. And what of your gods then?
Oh, Thank the heavens the almighty Donald is here to make the magnetic field great again. God is looking out for me a once again to save us from the rapture of the lst eight years.
Hallelujah!
... because humans have mined ores that are classified as diamagnetic paramagnetic ferromagnetic ferrimagnetic antiferromagnetic and moved them from their natural distributions into localized concentrations.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Wow. I had considered coming here to joke about whether the anti-science deniers would come out of the woodwork to claim that the magnetic field wasn't changing at all and they were just after funding, but it looks like the bullshitters are still fixated on climate change.
that is equally as important as co2, but climate change pushers put all the burden on man.
We can't change the magnetic field (as far as we know), but we can change what we do to the environment. Nobody has ever said that it is only man who is causing climate change, but only man can actually do something about it.
i'm no climate change denier...
Yes you are
i just know ther is way more to this than the gov't and most gov't funded scientists pushing the man made global warming agenda would lead you to believe. follow the $.
The problem with that theory is that when the deniers fund their own study, it also comes to the same conclusion; that climate change is real and that the carbon dioxide curve is the best match to global warming. So following the $ is meaningless, unless you can show evidence that anyone has falsified their climate research to get funding. If not, then there is no basis to the corruption claim. With all the leaked emails in the world, and the massive number of people who would have to collude to perpetrate a hoax, it's amazing that nobody has found any proof to this claim. And that is despite the efforts of the well-funded denial groups out there. Sure, follow the $!
"follow the $."
Solution: basic income. Then citizen scientists can do the research they want without having to beg corporations for funding, with the implicit understanding that if they don't produce results Monsanto likes, they won't get any future grants.
Sen. Inhofe, could you please go back to Oklahoma and guard your snowballs? I have evidence scientists want to steal your magic snowballs and claim their disappearance as evidence of man-made global warming.
Of course the same people who deny climate change is a real thing will also deny that impending magnetic field reversal is not a real thing either, right up to the point where all our satellites die, the power grid shorts out and blows up, every electronic device on the planet quits working, and every complex lifeform on the planet gets cancer. Then they'll retreat into their deep underground bunkers with their 20 year supply of everything and not be heard from again, while the world eats itself.
If solar storms are leaking through, wouldn't there be other effects like more Northern Lights and electrical failures? Why don't we observe those other effects?
Right. A complex system like earth's climate can be reduced to a correlation between something that is poorly mapped over historical time (magnetic field abnormalities) vs. an interplay with thousands of other variables (including anthrogenic CO2).
I love your simple world.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Please publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal, preferably Science or Nature. A Nobel Prize, fame, and fortune await.
The aliens' ship is in a geostationary orbit over the south Atlantic, powered by the earth's magnetic field. Obviously.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Once Trump takes over, we'll have the strongest, most powerful magnetic field in history right here in 'murica! It's all part of his day 1 plan for making America Great Again!
Actually the tsunami of climate change bollocks in the media and on most websites 24/7 implies precisely that. Nobody talks about natural variation at all.
I thought our magnetic field was caused by our molten iron core. Which is not something to undergo rapid changes.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How ironic - everyone was so worried about anthropogenic climate change, and then the Earth's magnetic field disappeared for three years before reappearing with the poles swapped, and killed everyone in the process...a shame we never started Lunar or Martian colonies....
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Svensmark (a real, actual experimental physicist who does actual, real science, i.e. does not spend his career fudging surface temperature records to fit his confirmed bias) has a number of excellent presentations on this.
FFS, CO2 doesn't cause heat itself. It traps sunlight's heating of the earth, making it warmer. So, yes, they DO know about that hot burny thing that some people who get outside claim to see.
"climate will ALWAY keep changing"
What? So it changes magically, for no reason? Or is one reason it changes that CO2 changes, causing climate change. And burning foosil fuels is anthropogenic CO2. Resulting in AGW.
"i'm no climate change denier"
No, you are, just in denial (or pretending for public consumption. No adult human could achieve your level of wrong without denying the evidence.
"how many businesses were made just to be able to sell carbon credits"
So cash changes he laws of the universe, but man can't change the climate?!?!? Bullshit.
"because the average global temperature according to satellites has not changed in the last 15 years" Lie. It is measuring a column of atmosphere, and AGW would cause warming lower down and cooling higher up, so satellite trends would be lower than the 1.7C/century the IPCC says. It shows 1.1C/century.
"were we alive to change the climate since the earth was formed"
We don't have to.
"the climate always changes, from ice ages to warm and prosperous periods like tday, countless times since the age of the dinosaurs."
You weren't there. How the hell do you know?
"explain how our man made co2 did that."
http://ipcc.ch
Short version, it didn't before the industrial age, but CO2 from natural sources could do it just as they do it when we produce it. But there aren't dinosaurs today, so why do you insist that we had to cause it then to cause it now?
Oh, and Fragnet, they talk about natural variation in there lots. But they don't talk about it with AGW for the same reason as they don't talk about agriculture in the age of the dinosaurs.
The Pan Evaporation rate explains it all.
Ah, no they don't. If your entire proof is to ignore the actual temperature readings completely then you can hardly claim that this debunks what the scientists say about the role of greenhouse gases on the climate. You also can't link to an article that claims a link between sunspots and evaporation (based on only six years of observations - don't deniers say that 150 years of records is not enough time??) as proof that it is the Earth's magnetic field "letting things in". How would changes in our magnetic field affect the number of sunspots?
Sorry, but cherry-picking your data just isn't good enough. Why ignore temperature readings? In the crucial graph that "proves" the sunspots link, why does it only cover only a few years. The pan evaporation graph states that an average of 93 weather stations were used. That would only cover the mainland United States; certainly not global readings! That's a small area in a small timeframe recording just one data point. That proves nothing.
Great, now my alien religion friends will say. "The white supremacy aliens that are here to help us transition into a higher dimension are initiating the process!" If you're not familiar, the idea of an impending magnetic flip is central to that belief system. That is if the lizard people don't interfere. I am done arguing this, it is tiring
Not intended to be funny, but I count on any comments being.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Nobody has ever said that it is only man who is causing climate change
Actually the tsunami of climate change bollocks in the media and on most websites 24/7 implies precisely that.
No, you inferred it; they didn't imply it.
Nobody talks about natural variation at all.
What would you like them to say about it? It's not like we can petition the world to stop changing. However, the rate that the world is warming is way above what might occur naturally. Just because the climate could change naturally doesn't mean that we should be make it worse. Besides, don't deniers like to say that global warming is good because we should actually be moving into an ice age and that this warming actually stops that? You can't have it both ways! Is the "natural" climate change supposed to be getting hotter or colder?
" I had considered coming here to joke about whether the anti-science deniers would come out of the woodwork to claim that the magnetic field wasn't changing at all and they were just after funding...
After decades of man's thoughtless self-indulgence, a large part of the Earth's vital magnetic field has been chopped up into small pieces for use in motors, cow trash extractors, toys and worst of all, attaching bits of paper to refrigerators. It's time to return all magnets to mother Earth to do their part in keeping us cosmic particle free.
Lets see what Dr Hans Zarkov, formerly of NASA has to say about it.
Unfortunately, this is about the most on-topic post for this story so far! Now I better go and bury my magnetic pillow. It's a worry, because it stimulates the blood flow to my brain and without it I won't believe in homeopathy.
turn off your computer and step away from the drugs.
No, they imply it. Deliberately so. The reason is if you start talking about natural variation you have to start talking about the limits and extents of natural variation. Once you do that you can easily see that current warming is well within it. It's very deliberate and very deceptive. It's what Michael Mann's "hockey stick" was all about - i.e. denying any variability whatsoever, which is clearly untrue (and so the methods used to generate the graph proved to be, though obviously nobody's talking about that either - it hasn't been retracted as far as I know).
I would like them to tell the truth. Current warming and trends are well within the range of natural variation, that the Medieval Warm Period (the most recent warm period before the current one) was slightly warmer than today and that we should all move along because there's absolutely nothing to see here.
I'll be honest, I read your post twice, and I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. Pan Evaporation rate?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ah, I take it you have to deny AGW to be a real, actual scientist and do actual real work. But Svesnsmark's claims were entirely unfounded and found to be entirely insufficient in the CLOUD experiment. You DO accept that if a theory is tested, if it fails the test, it was wrong, right? You're not going to insist that this idea is unfalsifiable, are you?
Meanwhile 97% or more of the other real scientists have said that they're convinced by the evidence. Svensmark is one of the less than 1% who disagree.
"This will be blamed on Republicans. Before you dismiss this idea,..."
That's funny. I would never have thought of this, until your paranoid screed brought it up. Hmmm... It's the fault of Republicans...
No, your pre-emptive strike against anybody to the Left of Attila the Hun makes _much_ more sense. You've set the terms of the debate right from the outset: "This time it's really true! Republicans aren't to blame! It's those other guys!"
Which leads to the inevitable conclusion, based on abundant past history, that somehow Republicans _are_ to blame. I haven't figured out how yet, but keep on flapping your denialist gums, and soon you will deny the exact reason why. You just can't help it.
Just what is _it_ that you are feeling so guilty about?
Wul, you know the north pole...the magnetic north is actually the south pole. And the south pole is actually the north pole. I mean, it depends on if you're speaking of the north magnetic pole...the north magnetic pole of the Earth is actually the south...or the north-seeking pole, or which is actually the south pole of the Earth. So you have to look at it that way, too, thar.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
You are mistaken about all of that. Current warming is decidedly NOT within the limits and extents of natural variation. The hockey stick graph was not "clearly untrue" and has been supported by more than two dozen reconstructions. The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomena and is therefore not comparable. Even if it was global, it still doesn't prove that the current warming is not the result of the greenhouse gases that we produce. That would be the same as saying the since people died before the invention of the gun then being shot won't kill you. Your opinion that the Medieval Warm Period has any relevance here is really down to the likes of Willie Soon, who has since been found to have received money from vested interests like Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute; a fact that he forgets to mention when he publishes papers on this subject.
If that is the basis of your claim then I stand by my statement that you are inferring the media's cover-up of this based on faulty assumptions.
Deal with it
I don't deny climate change but I don't feel like we should interfere with the environment too much either. Reducing polution etc is good as an end in itself even if only for basic health reasons. However, as time goes by people seem to be becoming more and more desperate about climate change and are starting to push for things like geoengineering. The 1940s showed us how insane the far right (excuse the lazy description) can be, and now we're seeing signs of how dangerous the far left can be.
We don't know for sure how the climate is going to change over the next 1000 years. For example, predictions of polar ice melt have been wrong time and time again. Do you really want these same people that can't predict polar ice melt fucking with geoengineering?
It is dangerous to underestimate human stupidity.
MAKE MAGNETICS GREAT AGAIN
What if all the climate change is merely a climate shift due to the pole movement ?
Just a thought
a fact that he forgets to mention when he publishes papers on this subject.
I missed a word there. I should have said that he sometimes forgets to mention that. He hasn't been completely hiding it.
Just yell about it loudly on political radio broadcasts - that will make people believe whatever you want them to.
I just don't get how people can discount the proven basic effect of CO2 warming e.g. Greenhouse Effect, as demonstrated from basic gas column experiments.
Doesn't matter if you consider current warming "within historical natural variation", because basic science shows ANY CO2 will have some warming effect "above any beyond" prevailing conditions whatever those may be, the "source" of CO2 does not change the outcome of gas column experiment. Sure, plenty of other factors take place in those prevailing conditions, but the human CO2 is above and beyond those, and should always yield additional warming vs. baseline. To challenge human global warming (above and beyond prevailing conditions) one would need to demonstrate a mechanism whereby gas column experimental warming does not apply to the Earth as a whole, and which would apply to ALL CO2/methane in atmosphere man-made or not (unless one can show some homeopathy-like unique quality for human-derived CO2/methane).
And I love how some theoretical solar cooling cycle is coming, as if that negates need for attention. If anything, a future solar cooling cycle on scale of hundreds or thousands of years makes global warming MORE of a problem because rapid sequential up and down shifts of climate will be most disruptive to ecosystems, since the species that do OK with shift in one direction will be maladapted to the reverse shift. So if one believes in possibility of future solar cooling cycle, ceasing CO2 emmissions NOW (keeping climate cooler) is the best bet, and all the coal and oil in the ground stays there where it can still be extracted later to warm the climate if/when climate truly does significantly cool.
Appropriate user name... I prefer the magnetic shoe inserts, aligning... something, who knows, they just make me feel good.
You mean Beub Dyleuhn?
That seems reasonable. Geoengineering should be treated with skepticism. I consider it to be on the same level as clean coal. It would be a great it could work, but it would only ever be a band-aid solution and no substitute for actually reducing the emissions in the first place. And you don't want to deploy some not-well-tested solution simply because some politician wants a quick fix to look like they are doing something (left) or wants to avoid making real changes that could cost their industry buddies money (right).
? You think that if everyone was given sustenance level income by default loads of people would start doing extremely expensive basic research on their own dime???
At best basic income would encourage the arts a LOT and science a little, it MIGHT encourage some who don't want to be beholden to grants for their actual income to go into science but the grants would still have to happen for the actual science.
The problem is that on one side you have those who yell with absolute certainty that they are right, while on the other side there are scientists with their margins-of-error and weasel-words like "may" and "could". I can understand the attraction of believing the one who sounds the most confident, even if they don't have the facts to back up their opinions.
Because theres no solid knowledge of natural feedback mechanisms.
Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood
http://www.icr.org/article/rev...
It might be the Russians !!
Or the Chinese !
Its usually them on here ...
We can't petition the world to stop changing, but we can conduct geoengineering experiments and take as much change into rational hands as possible.
Yes, yes I do, and I want them to develop systems that swing both ways in the case where if something goes too far one way, we can easily push it back the other. With that in place it can't be worse than the situation where the climate and weather is left to nonrational influences.
Wow. I had considered coming here to joke about whether the anti-science deniers would come out of the woodwork to claim that the magnetic field wasn't changing at all
The magnetic field AND the climate are both changing; It's just not humans that are causing them to change ---- they change plenty on their own without any human intervention.
If geoengineering is gone at wholeheartedly, we will eventually be at a place where the world will for the most part be at the temperatures we want with rain and snowfall only occuring when we want, and hurricanes and tornadoes occurring not at all. We may even put a dent in the earthquake situation.
Quick, we need a tax on cheap Chinese neodymium magnets!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Once you do that you can easily see that current warming is well within it
Umm, no. Anyone with even a High School level understanding of basic science can look at the data and see that warming has accelerated by around 1000% of what we would expect to see in normal warming cycles if greenhouse gas contents hadn't been increased from the industrial age onward.
That you choose to base your opinions of well documented science on what mainstream media tells you doesn't change the direct, or even the indirect observations that overwhelmingly support that humans have changed the entire planet. For the worse.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
There should be public labs, lots of scientific challenges, and basic income must be at the median income level as MLK said.
More than skepticism IMHO. A good example of a failure due to attempting to "engineer" a solution without full understanding of the system is the introduction of the cane toad into Australia. They eat everything edible that is smaller than themselves apart from the cane beetles they were introduced to eat, since those beetles are almost never at ground level and cane toads can't fly (without assistance of something like a golf club that is).
EPIC FAIL - He's the guy you ask about planetary orbits and not the guy you ask about hurricanes.
The amusing part is that we most likely have accidentally stalled the onset of the next ice age, which would have been the natural climate progression. While I think this anthropogenic phenomenon is a good thing, we do need to understand and begin to control it before we get too much of this good thing.
Because you didn't look?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Unfortunately the people who actually study this sort of thing full time have looked at the numbers and found that this isn't the case regarding climate change. The warming that we are experiencing exceeds the rate that could happen with just natural variance. If you want to convince anyone there is no man-made factor to climate change then you will need to come under with some compelling figures to prove it. You can't just claim that it is a fact without any evidence.
You also need to explain how it is that all the CO2 that we know we are releasing into the atmosphere and that we know is accumulating there is not having the effect on temperature that the physics says that it will.
How many scientists would still be employed in these studies if they were saying that the climate would change even if we never pumped a molecule of co2 into the atmosphere? why has global warming morphed into climate change?
How many climate scientists are currently employed? That of course depends on exactly how you define "climate scientist" but in the core areas of climate science I doubt the number is more than a few tens of thousands at best. Regardless of AGW or not don't you think we'd be studying the climate anyway? Or should we just fire all of the climate scientists and take what happens in the climate without the foresight that climate science affords us?
If "global warming" morphed into "climate change" then how did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change come to get its name in 1988? How did Gilbert Plass publish his paper "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" in 1956? Both terms have been around for a while.
At this point, that is still in the realms of science fiction. And if you can change the climate to such an extent, any mistake could cause absolutely catestrophic effects that would be completely irresponsible. Maybe one day we will have to knowledge to manipulate the environment like this, but that won't be until long after the time that we need to do something about climate change.
Actually the tsunami of climate change bollocks in the media and on most websites 24/7 implies precisely that. Nobody talks about natural variation at all.
Chapter 8 of the Working Group I report in the most recent IPCC report is titled: "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing" so it addresses natural causes of climate change as well as anthropogenic. You think nobody is talking about natural variation just because you haven't bothered to check to see if they have. But the scientists know you can't understand anthropogenic climate change if you don't at the same time understand natural climate change. Ignoring it would give you an incomplete picture making it harder to square your expectations with observations.
Well not with an attitude like that!
Surely the weaker magnetic field will result in more mutations and therefore more aggressive evolution during this period. More cancer, more deaths too.
It's times like these that, as much as I enjoy text, I lament Slashdots lack of image support. Rath than actually attack my argument you deflected to an irrelevant point that you can more aptly strike down. Do you care to explain why the change in the pan evaporation rate is unchanged from 1950 to 2005 doing a very nice random walk back and forth about 10 mm? I'm not sure if you have even a back past your ability to set up a 5 point strawman, but that random walk is just statistical noise. Which means the data shows no global warming for the time period. After 2005 I have to say the data does show a disturbing increase in evaporation, but it doesn't correlate with CO2, and that mean without correlation you have no causation. The most correlation there is after 2005 is with Solar Cycle 24. I may only have a significant correlation, but the evidence like this article is a part of a growing body of evidence to support my hypothesis.
There are other effects. I'd have to dig up the NASA articles on it. There is a high altitude cloud formation, plasma clouds, that is caused by the plasma that the CME's produce when they leak in. I took one of the local formations a few months back. We actually did see a lot more of these, and NASA predicted it when they started seeing weird things from Cycle 24. Like the entire ionosphere ripping open exposing the day side of the earth to higher levels of solar radiation. Northern lights are complex phenomena that you may not even see unless the conditions are right. Plasma clouds are a lot easier to detect, and just require high energy plasma in the upper atmosphere.
Dissenter actually, and since the Pan Evaporation data only goes back to 1950 under a single collection methodology that's as far back and this particular point can go. You can consult with the US Geological Survey about how the prior method was worthless in measuring the evaporation of Lake Mead. I have that prior data, and before 1950 the measurements are erratic and too few. Temperature data can be used, but ultimately boils down to whether you believe in climate scientists weighted data, or climate dissent raw data. Ice and snow pack data can also complement, but it has an unfortunate collection record resulting in a blind spot before 1950 and after about 2008 due to budget cuts. Those collection errors would lead to the need to weight and comes down to who's weighting do you believe. Pan Evaporation has no need of that. It needs to be very accurate to measure the water loss in our reserves, and that's it. We don't have thousands but give me a couple hundred high quality data points over a thousand separatistic data points any day of the week.
The Pan Evaporation Rate is the rate at which water evaporates from a Pan. The are stationed at weather stations near water reserves so that we can manage and monitor evaporation loss. If Global Warming actually increased the water cycle we would see it in the yearly change in evaporation. Unless one wants to abandon the claim of Global Warming altering the Water Cycle.
Like Ray David Jr?
Sorry, I'm from Idaho where we actually care about managing and monitoring our water. Better known as one of the States you Cal-er-forn-nia folk love to steal water from.
why is the pan evaporation rate a more reliable measure than temperature? If you want to measure warming, why not just measure the temperature directly?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
could we be killing the planet, perhaps with our 4G, hologram surveillance, and directed energy weaponry?
by planet I mean everything we're effecting that's fudging up earths magnetic field.
www.drrobertduncan.com
Please start being more specific in your Language. Of course Climate Change is real. That's what the climate does. It changes.
What is generally objected to is that we should feel guilty for changing the climate. So far there is little real evidence that we (MAN) are the driving force. And if we are then at What percent exactly? 2% ? 5% , 10%?
Spaghetti-O's
let me say
A) it will flip between 50-150 years from now
B) it will hten stay gone for about 500-1000 years ( as evidenced from volcanic rock studies back millions of years )
C) if your outside you better be covered up( the same group that studied rocks said 10-18 million will die in that 1K years time due to it
D) there will be a slight bleed off of earths atmosphere each time this happens
It's mostly different data that should corroborate global warming if the global warming hypothesis was correct. It is far more accurate than using High and Low temperature since the evaporation rate is a continuous measure where High and Low are points in time. For example, if the High temperature was 100 degrees for 1 second, and the low was 0 for 1 second that wouldn't tell you how much energy load was in the atmosphere. The average temperature could have been 50 degrees, or it could have been 75 degrees. High and Low don't tell you much about Energy. If you had the average temperature that would be better, but how frequently you sample the temperature will alter your average. Global Warming Advocates assume that if the High or Low changed the Average must have too, but that's an assumption that the Pan Evaporation rate does not Corroborate. In the case of average temperature you don't know if things are changing due to an improvement in sampling methodology, or due to a genuine change in the environment. We also don't have a lot of long-term average temperature averages until we automate with computer assisted weather stations giving us visibility only from about 1970 to present. As for other measures that can and do corroborate my finding the Precipitation Rate does as well. It may be subjected to a bit more randomness since it doesn't rain at a station every day where evaporation will occur until it freezes, and not all sites freeze.
Have gnu, will travel.
The warming that we are experiencing exceeds the rate that could happen with just natural variance.
AMOUNT or degree of climate change is not capable of establishing that a cause of a change is due to humans. Large volcanic eruptions are completely natural and can have a huge impact for centuries. Could it be that a previous natural variation caused the climate to be colder than it ought to be, and the latest warming is natural restore from a natural variation downwards....
If you want to convince anyone there is no man-made factor to climate change then you will need to ....
Nonsense. First of all by default the assumption should not be No man-made factor at all; the assumption should be No major new man-made factor, or No conclusively man-made major influence. Skepticism against some theory which has been inadequately proposed does not require proof. The burden of proof always falls upon those who wish to propose a theory to attribute the climate change (or other phenomenon) to specific causes to show their theory is true. The proponents of the theory must consider every possible reason for doubting the theory, and perform experiments over every facet that can show every way the theory would be false, And the experiments must be conducted honestly, must have conclusive results, and been successfully replicated proving the predictive ability of the theory.
Nothing like that's been approached by climate change theorists.
The simplest explanation remains natural changes including changes related to the sun and earth's orbit, geography, and oceans are primary things affecting the climates.
You also need to explain how it is that all the CO2 that we know we are releasing into the atmosphere and that we know is accumulating there is not having the effect on temperature that the physics says that it will.
They don't have physics on their side. For one; they can't show the CO2 releases are more harmful than natural methane releases. You think that CO2 is the only thing released into the atmosphere, and Humans are the only things affecting the composition of the atmosphere and dissipation of sunlight/energy?
For two; Climate change models are not based on direct calculations that can be shown to be identical to physics.
In fact, neither climatologists nor physicists understand the physics of earth's atmosphere well enough, and they've been unable to make reliable predictions.
For all they know, the amount of Roads we're building which absorb heat from the sun are more important than the amount of CO2 humans release.
AMOUNT or degree of climate change is not capable of establishing that a cause of a change is due to humans. You think that CO2 is the only thing released into the atmosphere, and Humans are the only things affecting the composition of the atmosphere and dissipation of sunlight/energy?
Really? On one had we have mountains of theories and studies filled with facts & figures, tables & graphs, predictions & observations; all of which are summarised in the IPCC reports. On the other hand, we have an unverified claim based on.... what, your gut feeling??
Large volcanic eruptions are completely natural and can have a huge impact for centuries.
What makes you think that scientists haven't thought of the influence of volcanoes? Oh wait, they have:
As you see, the main climatic forcing factor of volcanoes is to cool the surface, and it usually dissipates relatively quickly. That is because it prevents the heat from the sun hitting the surface, which is the opposite of the greenhouse effect. Of course, volcanoes also release greenhouse gases like CO2, but human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes. A few years ago when that volcano in Iceland erupted and shut down airline flights across Europe, it actually have a positive effect on the climate because the amount of greenhouse gases emitted were offset by the savings caused by shutting down all the airlines. Also, from the link above:
First of all by default the assumption should not be No man-made factor at all; the assumption should be No major new man-made factor, or No conclusively man-made major influence.
That is a good assumption, and it was one that the scientists had when the idea that our emissions could enhance the natural greenhouse effect was first proposed 120 years ago. It was either dismissed or assumed that this would be a benefit. As the decades went by, the accumulation of evidence and our understanding of the scientific principles have convinced those experts that not only is this happening, but it will not be an overall benefit. If you want to come in now and assume that it isn't happening, then you are 120 years late.
Over that period, our technology has progressed so that much of our lives is dependent on using power that generates greenhouse gases. Over that period, the human race has nearly quadrupled in size. We went from just under 2 billion to 7.5 billion people. Is it really so hard to believe that all those people using all that power would be unable to affect the environment in which we live?
Skepticism against some theory which has been inadequately proposed does not require proof.
When that skepticism goes against established scientific understanding then yes, it does require proof. You might think that the theory has been inadequately pr
Good.
Too late. We've already raised the CO2 level from about 280 to about 400 parts per million, and significantly affected the pH of the more interesting parts of the oceans. I believe that qualifies as "too much".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes