Global Warming: Natural Causes #1
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv has outlined how Global Warming is man-caused came about in a recent article published on Canada's National Post. Scientists use carbon dioxide to explain a greenhouse effect; then the climate warms; no other apparent cause for the warming is present.
The problem with this process is that many variables that impact the Earth's climate have been ignored.
From the Canada's National Post:
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.(emphasis added-Sqotty)
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
Cosmic Rays having a large impact on the climate is a new theory to me. And appears to have a fair amount of validity.
CO2 is only a minor gas in the atmosphere, accounting for .037%, while greenhouse gases account for a total of 3%. (from Friends of Science) Not a lot. Plus CO2 is necessary for all life on Earth, so it is not surprising that there is some amount in the atmosphere. Without it, all life would cease to exist.
Shaviv goes on to state that he supports various alternative energy usage; wind, solar and fusion (if we ever achieve it). Surprisingly, he ignores fission, which has come a long ways since the '60s (but that's another story). These technologies should be implemented, especially nuclear energy, despite the fact that reducing carbon emissions will not change the current warming trends of the Earth's climate.
There is also mounting evidence that solar activity, especially sunspots, has a significant impact on the Earth's climate. Despite these trends in the scientific community, the U.N. IPCC report, and the bulk of the Main Stream Media ignore these facts.