Are environmentalists concerned about global warming because our sun's outer shell is cooling down while the inner shell is heating up, which has a big impact on Earth?
Simply because Earth is the only planet inhabited by human beings.
The data on warming of other planets should be interpreted differently.
AS this post points out, there are reasons to be skeptical of claims that other planets are also warming: https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=147
Subir Bandyopadhyay ,
Thank you for your perspicacious answer!
There may be water on some planetary moons, but, as yet, no evidence of micro-organisms has been found, to my knowledge.
Michael J. Lynch ,
Thank you for your contrary interpretation supported by articles in "Skeptical Science."
In a way, your citation may be interpreted to suggest that global warming is such a big issue here on Earth because none of the other planets in the solar system is experiencing warming, at least according to "Skeptical Science."
It would be interesting to see an academic journal article that either approves (or disapproves) of the assertion that Earth is undergoing global warming.
To create an awareness on how we can participate by our ability. Global warning is due to many factors, some which are contributed by ourselves.
There are thousands of journal articles showing warming on Earth -- and the vast bulk of scientists agree warming is happening. There is limited evidence for other planets, which has to do with lack of instrument measurement, and the fact that years are longer on other planets, so the solar cycle is different (e.g., there are about 11,000 Earth days in a Saturn solar year; 60,200 for Neptune). On global warming/climate change, here is a link to an incomplete bibliography which the post says contains nearly 3,000 manuscript references: https://history.aip.org/climate/bib.htm
Dear Nancy, dear colleagues,
It is important to note that the luminosity of the Sun in the modern era is practically unchanged, with fluctuations at the level of 0.1%. For the Earth, such fluctuations can change the temperature by only 1 degree. Since global warming on Earth over the past 200 years exceeds this value, some other factors play a role, not the Sun or solar activity. The most likely reason is the weakening of the magnetic field of our Earth. Over the past 65 years, it has weakened by 3%. This may well give the effect of global warming. Sincerely, Vsevolod Lozitsky.
"There are thousands of journal articles showing warming on Earth"
The Myth of the Climate Change '97% consensus' ( youtube #FVD )
"They say 97% of scientists agree that humans would cause global warming.
Where does this idea stem from?
It all started with a tweet by Barack Obama.
Obama referred to the controversial study by John Cook from 2013.
John Cook is an environmentalist activist who runs the controversial website “Skeptical Science”.
With his study in 2013, he aimed to demonstrate that there is...
... an overwhelming scientific consensus that mankind would be the main contributor to global warming.
To do so, he analyzed 12,000 papers...
... containing the words “global warming” or “climate change”.
Then, he divided these papers into seven categories.
1. Global warming is caused by mankind for more than 50%
2. Mankind has a role in global warming
3. The increase in CO2 leads to global warming
4. The paper does not comment on the role of mankind, or it is unclear whether mankind has a role.
5. The paper implies that mankind has a minimal impact on global warming
6. Mankind probably does not cause global warming
7. Global warming is caused by mankind for less than 50%
Cook took the results from categories 1, 2, and 3, and turned these into one group: the PRO group.
This amounted to 33% of all papers.
But the vast majority of papers, 67%, belonged to category 4...
... papers that don’t comment on mankind’s role in global warming.
To this group, Cook applied a statistical trick.
He left these studies out of the equation altogether...
...causing the PRO group to increase from 33% to 97%.
This is how the myth of 97% scientific consensus was born.
But it gets worse.
In Cook’s study, the exact numbers for the separate categories 1, 2, and 3 are structurally omitted.
They are only added up and taken together as one big group.
This creates the illusion that all of these scientists agree about mankind’s role in global warming.
In reality, categories 1 and 2 deal with mankind’s influence, but category 3 only deals with the effects of CO2.
But if you at Cook’s underlying data and split up the categories...
you will see that the vast majority of studies, 75%, only support the idea that CO2 affects the climate.
Only 1.6% support the conclusion that mankind is responsible for most of this climate change.
Not 97%...
... but 1.6%.
Most scientists agree that there seems to have been a certain amount of global warming since 1850.
But the idea that 97% of scientists would agree that mankind is mainly responsible for this, is utter nonsense.
And this is completely logical, because the climate has always changed.
In the Early Middle Ages, it was a lot colder.
This period was followed by the era of medieval warmth, in which vineyards were cultivated in Scotland...
... and lively settlements full of activities existed in places that are now buried by hundreds of meters of ice.
A Little Ice Age followed, with its heydays in the 16th and 17th centuries...
...when an elephant could walk on the Thames...
... and when we painted these well-known Winter Views in the frozen Netherlands.
Since 1850, it slowly gets a bit warmer on earth again.
Very gradually: the big increases for which activists warn simply don’t exist.
Therefore, there is no need to panic whatsoever.
Fortunately, most scientists agree with this. Now, we just have to wake up these hotheaded politicians."'
Dear colleagues, there is a clear anticorrelation between the magnetic field and temperature. Sunspots appear dark because the temperature in them is almost 2 times lower. But in sunspots, the magnetic field is significantly enhanced compared to the surrounding photosphere. Secondly, in solar prominences, the kinetic temperature is 104 K, while in the surrounding corona it is of the order of 106 K. The same feature: in prominences, the magnetic field is about an order of magnitude stronger than outside them. Thirdly, the same picture is observed on Earth, if we go along the geographic parallel and compare the magnetic field strength and the temperature averaged over the year. That is, there is reason to believe that the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field in recent decades gives a climatic effect. The reason for this lies in the molten core of the Earth, where for some reason the generation of the Earth's magnetic field has weakened. That is, perhaps humanity is not to blame in this case. But humanity is blame for polluting the planet, for example, with plastic bags. I think and hope that it is in our power to change here the situation for the better. Sincerely, V. Lozitsky.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles