Has Greta weighed in on this?
Posted on 05/18/2020 3:21:15 AM PDT by bolobaby
It’s May 16, 2020, which means that there is nothing out of the ordinary about the phrase ‘sun lockdown’ trending on search engines and social media.
Most of us are in lockdown, after all, because of the coronavirus pandemic, and so if the sun wants to join us, so be it, right?
Wrong, some exaggerated headlines suggest, as they promise famine, freezing temps, and droughts on Earth because the sun has entered a completely predictable and entirely normal solar minimum, according to Astronomer Dr. Tony Phillips in an interview with The Sun.
(Excerpt) Read more at pennlive.com ...
“And the leftist scientists have come full circle in their fear mongering back to global cooling.”
Predictable. Need grant money to study the next coming crisis! Lots of it!
I remember the 1970’s, the talk if a coming ice age, crop failures, freezing seas.
Got a mid-1970’s Time magazine with an article about scientists wanting to dust the polar areas with soot and carbon black, so they’d absorb mor solar radiation to fend off the cooling.
Grand Solar Minimum. Decades of global cooling. Maybe another mini ice age.
Food shortages, high heating costs, brutal winters, warm summer fun a distant memory.
Our snowflakes will be praying for global warming.
This is why they’re working on population reducing microbes.
Especially microbes that reduce the older and useless eater populations.
Solar Minimum indeed the sun has cycles like so many other things even earth quakes.
Has Greta weighed in on this?
You nailed it. I’m just stunned how awful that NASA site is.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Liberal “elites” have bizarre conspiracy theories up the wazoo...
This one is no worse than Peak Oil where we ran out of oil 20 years ago... or silent spring where all the birds died in the 1970’x due to pesticides, or acid rain that killed off our oceans and lakes decades ago... or global warming that’s put Manhattan under water for almost 15 years...
Liberal lunatics are lucky their idiot boys in the press can’t do math... or they wouldn’t be able to get away with theot BS conspiracy weirdness...
There's only a slight drop in CO2 releases, and the rise noted in April (but not in May) is due to the usual annual rise and fall of CO2. That rise and fall is entirely natural. The rise from 280 ppm to 415 ppm is almost entirely manmade.
Spikes is not the right word. Atmospheric CO2 starts to rise about 500 to 1000 years after temperatures start to rise. But the rise from warming the oceans 10C is about 100 ppm at most.
We just had a rise from 280 to 415 (and rising). That is not due to ocean warming 500 years ago, although a small part of it is. Assume the oceans warmed 1C naturally from 500 to 1000 years ago. That means 5 or 10 ppm of the rise was due to that warming. The rest is manmade.
Anyone familiar with the phrase “Vostok Ice Cores”.
Where’d you get that story?
The rise from 280 to 415 is independent of the swing. Obviously from the swing we know that natural uptake and release far exceed manmade in the short run. But in the long run there are simply no other explanations than manmade.
Some say volcanoes but there aren't more volcanoes now than 150 or 50 years ago. Some say biosphere changes like ocean algae. That's possible. But they already measure deforestation and that's not enough to explain the rise in CO2. Algae is harder to measure, but still requires an explanation of why it started decreasing now after thousands of years of relatively steady CO2.
There are measurements of higher CO2 made centuries ago, but those same higher measurements can be replicated today in the right locations at the right time of year. Doesn't mean the whole planet has that same higher measurement.
All of the above could be wrong. But that's how science works, nothing is proof of anything. Just have to consider the evidence, fossil burning from simple economic data (fuel sales) and add it up.
And here’s an explanation of how atmospheric CO2 rises even when fossil-fuel consumption goes down (from a now-deceased hard-lefty who would normally be expected to be all-in on AGW):
Is Global Warming a Sin?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/28/is-global-warming-a-sin/
Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years
To get from 280 to 415 there would have been a temperature rise of 13C at the very least, 800 to 2600 years ago. That didn't happen. Warming oceans does not explain the current rise. Part of the current rise is from warming oceans centuries to millennia ago. Maybe 5 to 10 ppm out of the observed 135 ppm rise.
If we add up partial natural explanations do we get to the whole? Not easily, it would involve hidden processes, e.g. underseas volcanoes or carbon seeps that we don't know about. The very easy explanation is using the giant quantities from fossil burning. E.g. one large volcano (Pinatubo) is about 1/2 day of fossil burning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.