Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what's your explanation for how Earth's temperature has been steadily rising since the 1970's despite the Sun retaining a pretty unchanging level of activity for that time?
Your 1955 6th grade science class called. They want their simplistic scientific theories back.
I find it amusing, and pathetic, that the 1970's are the benchmark showing the "warming" while the incredible heat of the 1930's is completely ignored.
Changes aren't permanent, but change is, and constant change is here to stay. (NP)
Notice that, yes, there is that sharp bump in temperature between 1939 and 1946 and other little bumps and falls between then and the 1970's...and not much in the way of rising temperature. Since the 1970's the temperature increase has been more consistent than other temperature changes since 1880 though. It's been very steady. That's why the 1970's are the benchmark.
Part of the reason why temperatures were so much cooler in the first have of the century would presumably have been that half of all industrial C02 pollution has occurred since 1988. If you look at the graph in the link: https://blog.ucsusa.org/peter-frumho...since-1988-764
you will find that before about 1950, annual increases of the rate of C02 production from fossil fuels and cement was much flatter than after then. Sometime in the 1960's things turn more sharply upward...suspiciously closely to that 1970 something year mark mentioned above.
But, aside from that, an explanation for that mid-ish century cooling could be aerosols:
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.
And yeah...spraying aerosols might actually be a modern solution-ish strategy for cooling Earth more:
A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That's the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters.
It's the stuff of science fiction. Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up. The idea is to help shield the Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geoengi...ay-2018-11-23/
That's still experimental though, and coal ain't particularly good for people and oil is in finite supply. Apparently they'd need to develop a new type of aircraft capable of flying higher too.
Nuclear for sure seems to be the best bet. Although, until we can get the disposal of the spent fuel situation environmentally safe, can we store it at your home ? Storing it in huge caverns in Utah or under the Great Lakes aren't valid solutions.
Nuclear for sure seems to be the best bet. Although, until we can get the disposal of the spent fuel situation environmentally safe, can we store it at your home ? Storing it in huge caverns in Utah or under the Great Lakes aren't valid solutions.
Who cares where we store it? It'll be a temporary solution until fusion power is developed or batteries for solar and wind power can be improved to the point where that's reliably useful or something.
Who cares where we store it? It'll be a temporary solution until fusion power is developed or batteries for solar and wind power can be improved to the point where that's reliably useful or something.
Wait, what ? I thought this was all about saving the environment ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
