@Eberhard
Germany is not the globe. And weather is not climate
Please check the following links for the answer.
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
climate change is affected by:
1- Land use (example : removing forests, large dam lakes, urbanization,...etc.)
2- emission from transportation facilities (cars, trains, buses, flights,...etc) and emission from industries and other human activities.
3- changes inside sun (storms, magnetic storms,....etc)
The sun has natural periods of warming and cooling. With satellites, scientists have measured fluctuations in the sun's energy and found that these recent variations have been small in comparison to human influences in the last several centuries, with no increase in solar energy in the past 50 years. Thus, changes in the sun's energy cannot explain the warming we have seen over the past several decades. In contrast, the warming we are observing is consistent with the warming properties of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that we are adding to the atmosphere...........
Industrialization and other human activities of global warming increases temperature, where as the Sun energy will be decreasing slowly due burning of its fuel in very long span of time. So the solar energy will be decreasing and resulting in cooling slowly. So the ice age will return finally.
climate change is almost exclusively solar originated. I have described and quantivated the mechanisms in my recent papers.
Major changes are due to orbital parameters changes (often known or referred to as Milankovitch's parameters) and this paper to be published is a good overview of the changes over the Holocene https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/28/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-b/
then over shorter periods of time (i.e. in between 11 to 2400 years) solar activity is the major factor along Svensmark's thoughts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226914864_Cosmic_Rays_Clouds_and_Climate
And the solar activity modelling can be found in the latest papers of Valentina: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina_Zharkova
Good reading.
Patrice.
Article Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate
Best is to read what the experts say
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf
7.4.6 Impact of Cosmic Rays on Aerosols and Clouds
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
8.4.1 Solar Irradiance.......................................................... 688
Professor Svensmark's theories was once looking as they could explain part of the heating. With better data in the last decade it has been disproven repeatedly.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_updates
Article Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements
" ... We built a global model of aerosol formation by using extensive laboratory measurements of rates of nucleation involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions, and organic compounds conducted in the CERN CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere. "
Harry ten Brink, I do not read IPCC chapters as the truth revealed (especially after the climategate and Hockeycross stories have shown the true political nature of IPCC). But I'll re-read the chapters you quoted as I try to gather all viewpoints, not being paid by any side.
Henrik Rasmus Andersen, debate is hardly settled and Lockwood used "solar influence" into computer climate models to "demonstrate" that this influence was exaggerated. Does not sound like science to me either.
BTW, when it strictly comes to nucleation processes, it seems that more and more papers are confirming that various previously unknown factors have a key role in cloud formations (e.g. CERN/CLOUD project results) and cosmic rays being just one of them:
http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/05/24/science.aad5456
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18271.html
Finally, nucleation and its impact on the albedo is just one factor, I mentioned various others, each and all probably more decisive than 0,01% of CO2.
Think about it, just 6500 years ago (yesterday in geological terms), there has been no need for any harmful action from mankind to move from a humid and green Sahara to the hostile desert we know today:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405
As goes natural climate change...
Patrice
Please see for yourself that the report of WG1 is like an encyclopedia with references. I like to mention that the report of WG1 is compiled by climatologists and alikes and you can check the credentials of the authors
Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and in this long time there had been periods that were much, much warmer than it is today (e.g. during the time dinosaurs lived on our planet) and also periods that were far colder (ice ages). In other words: it would be strange when the climate would be the same indefinately. This never has been the case. There were also periods when CO2 concnetration was much higher than today. Indeed there was a time when no O2 was in the atmosphere... Climate change is something that bothers us, because we are effected, because we are there to be bothered. It does not effect Planet Earth in any meaningful way as the planet will be there even if Human aren't anymore (although also Planet Earth won't be eternal). Among many other challenges the scientific mainstream believes that the generation of special gases through the burning of fossil fuels is the driving force for climate change. A few, however, see human contribution little in global warming and some even talk of global cooling. In RG there have been many contributions that put global warming and global cooling as two different processes. What is different is the outcome of very complex processes. The outcome is either warming or cooling, and to make it even more complex both can happen - in different places.... or at differnt times (a specific place can have warmer summers and colder winters as a resukt of change of the climate....,). How much of this change is contributed by human activies we can discuss and do research about, but it would be strange if only humans have contributed to these changes, or if they would be entirely caused by natural processes - both is very unlikely the case. Sometimes people think that IPCC does investigate into global warming, but indeed it looks into climate change. The expression global warming is out since many years as it is acknowldeged that it is much more than around temperature change. Global cooling, if it exists is also climate change. In Germany we can have temperatures in winter of minus 20 degrees Celsius. That is winter and we call this winter weather. Some years winters are mild, other years very harsh, long and very cold. Weather and climate are different things, and the weather is never the same. It changes and also if the sun energy received on January 1 at a particular place would be the same every year (which is not the case as the sender (sun) sends not always the same) it still would result in different weather as the energy received is only one from many, many factors that makes the weather. In the discussion often people speak of a food crisis because of global warming. I doubt that this is the only possible interpretation. Today we produce considerable more food per capita than a few decades ago. When people are starving then it is usual because of the impacts of wars, civil wars, ethnic tensions, or just because of poverty, but not necessarily because of climate change, at least not so directly as often assumed. Here in the Pacific Island countries the talk of climate change and its impact on food security has been rather dominant, despite this part of the world does not know widespread undernutrition and when we look at malnutrition than we discover that the biggest concern is obesity, and when we would anlyze the causes then we would not find climate change, but MacDonalds and other fast food outlets. I think that a cooling effect (if it exists) due to reduced sun activity moderates anthropogenic warming impacts, the same other natural impacts on the climate would such as volcanic eruptions etc. We should realise that something as complex as climate has many contributing factors that lead to change. To assume that everything is caused by humans or everything by natural causes is far too simplistic. For that reason it is rather difficult to make any precise predictions of the future. So both (processes that contribute to warming and such contributing to cooling) not only can happen, but they do, and they always did. What now is sold as new ideas and change to previous scientific knowledge is actually nothing really new other than that one aspect from an extremely complex process is taken out and displayed as the whole truth.
Patrice Poyet, Climategate - Who made the fraud there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lslIyHo6zg&list=PLN2bNBF-nEcOetEXGW8qX2m-gpCiBIu2K&index=60&t=470s
?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change