Posted by CliC on April 11, 2008, 8:39 am, in reply to "Solar activity 'not behind climate change'"
84.142.71.X
The sun is what we need for our climate. But take a look at the moon, which gets as much sun ray as we do, but the moon has no CLIMATE. We have climate due to water, and water determines our climate. Therefore it might be more helpful to answer questions which could be answered because all facts and information are available; for example: Who is going to explain the global cooling from 1940 to about 1970? This question has been asked by http://www.oceanclimate.de as IPCC and others think they have explained enough by claiming that a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere may have had a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space, by industrial activities at the end of the second world war. That is defiantly not the major cause when taking the following reasoning into account:
The sulphate aerosols relation towards the mid-century global cooling should be checked against three facts, namely
A. the cooling started with extreme winters in Northern Europe in winter 1939/40; and
B. the temperatures were low during the winter season, when the effect of sulphate aerosols on sun ray was at the lowest, and thirdly
C. the pre WWII industrial activities presumably had been much higher than immediately after the end of WWII in 1945.
D. Actually only since 1950, annual car production has grown fivefold , starting with eight million, today about 40 million cars. Similar figures, if not higher, apply for aviation, electricity production, shipping, etc..
More important for understanding the global cooling since winter 1939/40 until about 1975 is the impact of the seas and oceans. To understand the extreme cold winters all over Northern Europe from 1939/40 to 1941/42, one has to consider the impact of the North- and Baltic Sea, for the global cooling one should take the North Atlantic and North Pacific into consideration, and what men did do with them during WWII, as thoroughly explained at www.seaclimate.com. After all, “Climate” should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’; see: Letter to the Editor, NATURE, Volume 360, 26 November 1992, page 292.
| 181 |
|
Message Thread:
|
