Little

Why the global warmists are losing

48 posts in this topic

Aerosols-  interesting study of storm intensity and pollution.  Twice as many lightning strikes on heavy shipping routes in Indian Ocean and South China Sea.  Ships are heavy polluters using dirty fuel.  The correlation is striking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, patchyfog said:

Let's start from here, dena...I think we'd agree that Earth's climate is a complex system. Right down to very basics, like the characteristics of the core and mantle. Those things drive plate tectonics. The location of the continent's themselves influence climate. E.g., when all the continents were ganged up in a supercontinent, ocean circulation was much different than today...a climate influence.

 

With complex systems, EUREKA! moments are rare. It's about accumulated knowledge and multiple correlations. Like, this glacial unit in the U.S. Midwest correlates to that one in Europe. Those stratigraphic units can be dated in absolute terms, and then correlated to ice cores and benthic sediments. And examine the geochemistry of deposits. Etc. And correlated to the absence of things worldwide over the same time period. E.g., during that timespan, there's no massive volcanic deposits that would explain a source of increasing atmospheric CO2. It's when all those things are lined up that causes can be looked for.

 

If ya haven't noticed, much of what I've been posting about on climate is about process, and background, because I don't think it's understood by many. So much of the background on paleoclimates, which is extremely important in looking at today's climate, came from basic research by geologists and chemists and paleontologists who weren't thinking at all about today's climate; that it's relevant to today's climate research is essentially incidental. With the grad work I was doing on buried soils that formed during interglacials, it was related to Pleistocene climates. And that was all I was thinking about...climate during the Pleistocene. What kind of soils (prairie or forest), intensity of weathering, clay mineralogy. Other people at IU were looking at pollen and sediments from lakes. While all that work was directed at understanding the Pleistocene, it's also background for scientists who truly focus on paleoclimates as a basis for understanding today's.

 

It was during the late '70's I was in grad school. Climate change wasn't as much on scientist's minds as today. 1977 was the year that Time magazine cover/article appeared, the article that today's *skeptics* always refer to...the coming ice age. Except that didn't reflect prevailing scientific opinion at all. And I never heard a single faculty member at IU endorse the idea of a coming ice age. Not one. It was a junk article, and the author says it was the worst mistake of his journalism career.

 

"But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

 

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will."

 

 

 

 

I take it the answer is no to the question of why the climate changed way back when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dena said:

I take it the answer is no to the question of why the climate changed way back when.

You'd be largely incorrect. I'll explain later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.