96% of US NOAA Weather Stations Sited Wrong, Inflate Temperature Record
(www.heartland.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
I've seen the argument for years.
What naturally occurring could cause the sun to drop in luminosity enough to cause a reaction in global temperatures, particularly in a cyclical manner every couple hundred years: sun spot activity.
Thing is, the math doesn't work out, and the level of sun spot activity doesn't correlate well enough to the rise in temperatures, and doesn't really have a good mechanism of which to do so, since the angle of the radiation is far more dramatic (and is what causes the seasons to change).
The sun's electrical output, for lack of a better scientific term because my brain is fried, it's the solar winds type shit that if powerful enough, fries electronics, interacts with our atmosphere. This changes the composition of it, if nowhere else, then at the poles. You get more activity and radiant energy, heats things up. A slight change in the poles changes weather patterns in a domino effect. Electrical activity, dust particles, heat sinks, all of this in the various layers changes things like oxygen and moisture levels. It's all very minor, but adds up over time. Throw in ocean temps, less ground cover, natural fluctuations, and blah blah blah, weather soup.
I'm aware of solar winds and the magnetosphere, that's why I think the argument is stupid.
You're talking about all the right things, I don't disagree with any of that, but what we can't ignore is the blindingly obvious thing you are dancing around. The emissions of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, resulting from the industrialization and the single largest population boom in all of human history.
There's a movie somewhere out there on YouTube about how re-introducing wolves into Yellowstone cause the course of rivers to change by reducing the number of beaver prey that were building dams. It's a cute explanation of how ecosystems change when you increase the number of certain animal.
Humans aren't just any predator. They are the most successful predator in all of Earth's history, cultivates entire ecosystems to their own benefit, created mutualistic relationships with other species, and expanded it's habitat to fucking space. It's not unreasonable to expect humans to effect their own climates, especially when their climate is the planet.
For a thought experiment, we can talk all about the varying weather effects that might effect Ireland's climate over the past 10,000 years. But if I dump 100 million wolves into Ireland, that's probably going to have massive effects on it's environment. Possibly dramatic enough effects to alter it's climate compared to what we've previously seen.
CO2 another greenhouse gases produced by humans through production is only a temporary fluctuator. And I'm not talking about just geological terms. We saw this with covid shutdown.
Temporary? The mass de-industrialization of the planet for year absolutely caused temperature fluctuations, yes. But the point is that outside one year, the amount of carbon emissions are effectively permanent and increasing because human energy demands aren't going to stop until the population of the Earth begins to stabilize somewhere around 10 billion people. Wherefore, the effects are also permanent as the concentration in the atmosphere also change, and ecology adapts in response.
This is one of the reasons why crazy people were suggesting "Climate Lockdowns", and the amount of damage that would be necessary to reduce temperatures fully to their pre-industrial levels is effectively apocalyptic. You'd unironically, kill billions.
These are not good ideas, but it does tell you how dramatically the climate has altered already, and is going to continue to do so.