Climate Change

[drb1976]

I was wondering with all of the discussion on climate change

is it possible that with all of the solar activity, cosmic ray's, gamma rays, x rays and etc that these have a greater effect on our climate than man?

I am not a scientist but it seems plausible.. I never see any astronomers on the t.v discussing this so I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Here's a New Scientist article examining this.

[Knighty2112]

Read a book a few years back stating just this. Can't remember the title, or author, so I'll hunt it down later on.

[nightfisher]

Yes, cosmic activity does interfere, at some stage the sun is going to warm up and we will all be toast

[Alien 13]

Natural events can certainly out do anything man has done, a large volcano could probably dump more CO2 in a few days then we have in the last 100 years.

Alan

[drb1976]

I would love to read the book

 

[drb1976]

thanks for the replies so far, I am amazed that there is such little discussion about this on the debate stage on this issue.

It is obvious that man contributes, but the natural discussion of climate change especially when it comes to space is never discussed.

But with exploding stars, black holes emitting and all of these xrays and gamma rays going everywhere  it seems that it should be included in the discussion

 

[drb1976]

23 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Natural events can certainly out do anything man has done, a large volcano could probably dump more CO2 in a few days then we have in the last 100 years.

Alan

do you know if there is any data on this?

 

[drb1976]

29 minutes ago, Knighty2112 said:

Read a book a few years back stating just this. Can't remember the title, or author, so I'll hunt it down later on.

looking forward to reading it .

[ollypenrice]

Solar scientist Piers Corbyn argues for the sun's natural instabilities outweighing man made effects. He's controversial and fairly opinionated but whether or not he's right I have no idea!

I simply take the view that if we might be responsible for substatntial climate change it would be a sensible idea to act on the basis that we are. I probably won't blow my brains out if I play Russian Roulette once but I still won't be playing it.

Olly

[Knighty2112]

9 minutes ago, drb1976 said:

looking forward to reading it .

The book is called "The chilling stars: a new theory of climate change", by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder. 

[drb1976]

thank you

 

[michaelmorris]

2 hours ago, drb1976 said:

... I am amazed that there is such little discussion about this on the debate stage on this issue....

From time to time we get this subject coming up in the Lounge or in this section. 

Unfortunately, it seems that almost every time this subject comes up someone can't help themselves and starts a debate about the relative contribution of man-made emissions to climate change, which then inevitably quickly descends in to politics and we start having to moderate the thread.  Many of these end up having to be locked by the moderating team.

It's nice to see that for once no one has been tempted.

[drb1976]

5 minutes ago, michaelmorris said:

From time to time we get this subject coming up in the Lounge or in this section. 

Unfortunately, it seems that almost every time this subject comes up someone can't help themselves and starts a debate about the relative contribution of man-made emissions to climate change, which then inevitably quickly descends in to politics and we start having to moderate the thread.  Many of these end up having to be locked by the moderating team.

It's nice to see that for once no one has been tempted.

yeah I am glad too, not wanting to discuss the politics side of it, just wanting to try and form a full picture of climate change

everything contributes  I am more curious of the effects that the cosmos plays into our climate and if there is any data on this topic

[Pippy]

Solar activity definately affects our climate. It would only take a few hours for the entire planet to realise this (in a very major way) if we were to find and use the suns off switch. The temperature difference alone that we experience as we go from day to night and back again tells us this. Plus the UK's winter was a bit extreme during the suns maunder low ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

As for gamma rays and cosmic rays, I'd have thought their effect would be fairly small (compared to our suns solar radiation), unless of cause the planet you're living on happens to be within a certain distance from say a neutron star, magnetar, pulsar etc - especially if you happen to live within a pulsars beam.

 

[Macavity]

17 hours ago, drb1976 said:

I never see any astronomers on the t.v discussing this so I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this.

A lot of things are possible? Data can be used to make predictions! Not so
long back, weather forecasts was a "bit of a guess" - These days better? 

Re. TV appearances, I suspect the *majority* of scientists STILL prefer to
discuss / publish stuff in (however imperfect) peer-reviewed papers etc. 
In THAT sense, I rather lament that "moderate" science is not visible (and
largely ignored) by the public. And maybe real-world decision makers...

These days, trust no one - Even TV scientists. Develop critical thinking? 

[andrew s]

This book is a good introduction about the earth and what made it what it is https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolutions-that-Made-Earth-Lenton/dp/0199587043. Life is a major driving force  of climate change for good or ill of the existing life forms. The Earth will go on but we might not.

While not specifically about current climate change it is well worth  a read and quite sobering!

Regards Andrew

[drb1976]

I've been watching some talks with Henrik Svensmark a physicist and his theory about cosmic rays and climate change.

The team at cern proved a small portion of his theory a couple of years ago, but allot more testing is needed to prove allot of what he has said.

very interesting though

[drb1976]

for some reason this page is not allowing me to quote anyone so I can respond to individual comments, so please don't think I am ignoring anyones comments

[George Jones]

42 minutes ago, drb1976 said:

I've been watching some talks with Henrik Svensmark a physicist and his theory about cosmic rays and climate change.

The team at cern proved a small portion of his theory a couple of years ago, but allot more testing is needed to prove allot of what he has said.

very interesting though

 

Before making up your mind, see also the evidence against Svensmark's theory,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

[drb1976]

14 minutes ago, George Jones said:

 

Before making up your mind, see also the evidence against Svensmark's theory,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

I  will check it out. I am not really for or against, I believe that many things contribute. I am trying to form a complete picture such as what percentage is man made, what percentage is caused by nature on earth, and what percentage is caused by outside our atmosphere such as solar, cosmic rays, and etc

[SonnyE]

Of two things I am certain:

1. Without climate change, global warming, Et Al... Call it what you may, we'd be in the Ice Age still.

3. None of us will live long enough to know.

My opinion is thus: We were ~1 Billion in ~1900. We are ~7 Billion now.

I think eventually we bacteria may over run this Petri Dish.

 

But in some ways, fun to ponder. I think I'd rather look at the stars.

I'm just along for the ride.

[Earl]

Solar Activity will have an impact on the ammount of energy it sends our way in all it various forms and this will have effects on Climate quiet likly over very long periods of time, with oddities here and there, Volcanic activty wiill see larger short term impacts.

[billyharris72]

The best attempt at a consensus out there is the IPPC Fifth Assessment Report. It's not perfect, but it's probably as close as anyone is ever going to get. There has been talk of political pressure being placed on the panel by those on the fringes of climate science (and at least a couple of well documented cases of bad practice), but in terms of political pressures etc it's worth realising that most of the pressure on the IPPC is to downplay the human factor, not to increase it. The last synthesis report did give coverage to non-human influences (mainly solar and volcanic). It concludes

Quote

Changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols cause natural radiative forcing (Figure 1.4). The radiative forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large cooling effect on the climate system for some years after major volcanic eruptions. Changes in total solar irradiance are calculated to have contributed only around 2% of the total radiative forcing in 2011, relative to 1750.

The report can be found at:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf