Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Reflecting sun's rays would cause crops fail

358 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

Proposals to combat climate change by reflecting the sun’s rays back into space would cause widespread crop failure, cancelling out any benefits to farming from the reduction in warming, according to new research.

By examining the effects of volcanic eruptions on agriculture – which has a similar effect to proposed artificial methods of scattering solar radiation through aerosols – scientists have concluded that such methods could have unintended consequences.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/08/reflecting-suns-rays-would-cause-crops-to-fail-scientists-warn

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

We need to stop for a moment and actually think through a real strategy, blundering into ideas with no thought of possible consequences is what got us into this position in the first place. Every alternative energy form has side effects, every attempt at changing climate may have side effects we cannot foresee.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, seanjo said:

We need to stop for a moment and actually think through a real strategy, blundering into ideas with no thought of possible consequences is what got us into this position in the first place. Every alternative energy form has side effects, every attempt at changing climate may have side effects we cannot foresee.

As long as we stop and think, that would be good.  We also need to put some thought and foresight into what will likely happen if we do nothing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
52 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

As long as we stop and think, that would be good.  We also need to put some thought and foresight into what will likely happen if we do nothing.

We aren't doing 'nothing' though we are trying lots of tech and alternatives, but some may be worse than the oil/coal based fuels we are using now.

Take Hydrogen cells for instance, Hydrogen is a by-product of oil refining; if we start using millions of hydrogen cell powered vehicles etc. then the by-product of that combustion is water and water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour, do we really want to add millions of tonnes more to that over the years?

Take electric cars and their ecological time bomb batteries, if we all started using electric cars, the power grid would collapse, there would have to be a substantial new power station building project, plus all you are doing is offsetting your carbon footprint to power stations.

It's a complicated bag of worms that needs real thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961

I thought this process was already going on ? 

Global Dimming - 

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface has decreased by about 2 per cent every ten years, because more sunlight is being reflected back into space. The particles from burning fuels reflect sunlight, and they also cause more water droplets to form in the clouds. This makes the clouds better at reflecting sunlight back into space.

It is likely that global dimming has hidden some of the effects of global warming, by stopping some of the Sun’s energy reaching the Earth’s surface in the first place. 

There is the possibility that as the air becomes less polluted by smoke and soot, global dimming will decrease, causing the effects of global warming to become more obvious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/rocks/fuelsrev7.shtml 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

What about artificial clouds made by aircraft? Might have to use chemicals and such to do such a thing. I'd call them "Chemtrails."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 8/9/2018 at 6:34 AM, seanjo said:

We need to stop for a moment and actually think through a real strategy, blundering into ideas with no thought of possible consequences is what got us into this position in the first place. Every alternative energy form has side effects, every attempt at changing climate may have side effects we cannot foresee.

The purpose of research is to provide information needed to keep society out of those blunders.  That's why projects such as this one are done.  Nobody knows whether it's a good idea or not until it has been fully studied and maybe even tested in real life.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
On 8/9/2018 at 10:15 AM, L.A.T.1961 said:

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Solar Cycle 24 was rather weak compared with others.  Note that we got our all-time record high temps during a "weak sun."  We are now in the low period preceding Cycle 25.  What it does is anybody's guess, but some folks think it may be weaker than Cycle 24.  That won't "cool" the earth, but it will keep it from getting quite so hot - maybe.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Solar Cycle 24 was rather weak compared with others.  Note that we got our all-time record high temps during a "weak sun." 

Sure if you at looking at the tampered Temperature data.

ushcn26.gif?w=640

 

1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

This graph shows the difference between the GISS 1999 US temperature graph, and the 2012 version. So once Schimdt and GISS have altered the U.S. temperature record to make all the latest years look like the warmest and they done this a couple of more times since 2012 (and you believe that these are true Temperatures), then of course your going to be able to sit here and say (with a straight face) the warming from the 2015 - 2016 El Nino were the hottest years on record during the very weak Solar Cycle 24. 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
18 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Sure if you at looking at the tampered Temperature data.

ushcn26.gif?w=640

 

1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

This graph shows the difference between the GISS 1999 US temperature graph, and the 2012 version. So once Schimdt and GISS have altered the U.S. temperature record to make all the latest years look like the warmest and they done this a couple of more times since 2012 (and you believe that these are true Temperatures), then of course your going to be able to sit here and say (with a straight face) the warming from the 2015 - 2016 El Nino were the hottest years on record during the very weak Solar Cycle 24. 

Your graph ends in 2000, not 2012.  Better try again.

What dataset are you using as your "raw data?"  That will have a lot to do with your results.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
On 13/08/2018 at 9:47 PM, South Alabam said:

What about artificial clouds made by aircraft? Might have to use chemicals and such to do such a thing. I'd call them "Chemtrails."

Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment -

Thousands of jet aircraft leave contrails over North America every day, especially over the U.S. eastern seaboard and the Midwest. Contrails are created when water vapour in hot air blasted out of jet engines freezes in the intense cold of high altitudes.

Do all those jet trails change weather patterns? It’s hard to tell, normally. But with the once-busy skies silent and empty, the scene was set for a giant experiment.

In 2004, NASA scientist Patrick Minnis wrote that “increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.”

The warming effect happened because the high-altitude clouds that contrails created tended to trap warm air, Minnis wrote. On balance, though contrails can both warm and cool, there is more of a warming effect.

In a 2005 paper, physicist Robert Noland of Imperial College London suggested that restricting airliners to 31,000 feet, and 24,000 feet in winter, could reduce the formation of contrails. Though lower-flying planes would be less fuel-efficient, Noland argued that the increased fuel consumption would be more than made up for by less contrail-linked clouds as a cause of global warming.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
39 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Your graph ends in 2000, not 2012.

Yup, there we go again... This sort of error, which he does over and over again, is why you should be careful with your collaboration choices...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Your graph ends in 2000, not 2012.  Better try again.

 

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yup, there we go again... This sort of error, which he does over and over again, is why you should be careful with your collaboration choices...

Are you both so dense? So absolutely dense? The Graphs in the Gif were published by GISS in 1999 and 2012 respectively. The years the two graphs show are labeled on the graphs geniuses!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

 

Are you both so dense? So absolutely dense? The Graphs in the Gif were published by GISS in 1999 and 2012 respectively. The years the two graphs show are labeled on the graphs geniuses!!!

That's right.  The top graph ends in 2012 and the bottom one ends in 1999.  Better try again, genius.

The graphs may be from NOAA, but the dataset you're using isn't labeled.  So where is that dataset from?  Cite source and, if possible, provide links.  Let's learn how to do a proper attribution.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's right.  The top graph ends in 2012 and the bottom one ends in 1999.  Better try again, genius.

The graphs may be from NOAA, but the dataset you're using isn't labeled.  So where is that dataset from?  Cite source and, if possible, provide links.  Let's learn how to do a proper attribution.

 

I didn't use a data set Doug, the bottom Gif shows two graphs GISS published one in 1999 and the other what GISS published in 2012, it shows how they have altered U.S. temperatures between 1999 and 2012. 

However, I'll show you where the 1999 data comes from. 

This link here. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt Don't bother clicking the link GISS has deleted it since 1999, but we still have the data set because people saved it.

From: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880        -.47         .03
1881         .10        -.23
1882        -.09        -.41
1883        -.77        -.44
1884        -.80        -.54
1885        -.65        -.58
1886        -.38        -.51
1887        -.29        -.32
1888        -.44        -.17
1889         .17        -.16
1890         .08        -.21
1891        -.30        -.28
1892        -.58        -.29
1893        -.76        -.44
1894         .12        -.35
1895        -.69        -.26
1896         .14        -.14
1897        -.12        -.26
1898        -.18        -.01
1899        -.44        -.04
1900         .54        -.04
1901         .03        -.13
1902        -.15        -.14
1903        -.64        -.33
1904        -.47        -.33
1905        -.43        -.35
1906         .03        -.18
1907        -.22        -.14
1908         .18         .01
1909        -.24         .04
1910         .30        -.08
1911         .18        -.12
1912        -.83        -.06
1913        -.02        -.14
1914         .09        -.28
1915        -.13        -.33
1916        -.52        -.31
1917       -1.06        -.34
1918         .07        -.38
1919        -.05        -.04
1920        -.35         .22
1921        1.19         .20
1922         .23         .08
1923        -.01         .23
1924        -.68         .01
1925         .41         .00
1926         .10         .03
1927         .20         .07
1928         .14         .03
1929        -.51         .24
1930         .22         .21
1931        1.15         .33
1932         .07         .69
1933         .73         .67
1934        1.30         .49
1935         .10         .47
1936         .26         .50
1937        -.06         .43
1938         .93         .43
1939         .91         .51
1940         .10         .55
1941         .67         .41
1942         .15         .27
1943         .22         .25
1944         .20         .27
1945         .02         .27
1946         .76         .21
1947         .14         .22
1948        -.05         .16
1949         .22        -.07
1950        -.26        -.02
1951        -.38         .18
1952         .37         .31
1953         .95         .36
1954         .86         .50
1955        -.01         .46
1956         .31         .29
1957         .18         .16
1958         .11         .12
1959         .21         .06
1960        -.20         .03
1961         .02         .05
1962         .00        -.01
1963         .20         .00
1964        -.07        -.05
1965        -.12        -.07
1966        -.25        -.17
1967        -.11        -.20
1968        -.28        -.20
1969        -.24        -.18
1970        -.14        -.23
1971        -.11        -.13
1972        -.38        -.06
1973         .22        -.08
1974         .12        -.11
1975        -.23         .03
1976        -.28        -.13
1977         .31        -.28
1978        -.57        -.21
1979        -.64        -.04
1980         .15        -.19
1981         .58        -.09
1982        -.44         .02
1983        -.09        -.11
1984        -.09        -.11
1985        -.53         .12
1986         .61         .18
1987         .71         .13
1988         .18         .38
1989        -.33         .36
1990         .72         .24
1991         .52         .08
1992         .13         .21
1993        -.62         .10
1994         .28        -.08
1995         .17        -.14
1996        -.37         .20
1997        -.14         .28
1998        1.05           *
1999         .71           *
---------------------------------

And the Graph in the GISS Gif from this dataset for 1999 comes from Figure 6 here in this GISS paper, GISS analysis of surface temperature change J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
57 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I didn't use a data set Doug, the bottom Gif shows two graphs GISS published one in 1999 and the other what GISS published in 2012, it shows how they have altered U.S. temperatures between 1999 and 2012. 

However, I'll show you where the 1999 data comes from. 

Just a superficial glance at your dataset vs. NOAA's current global one:  your dataset seems to show lower temps clear along the board.  Seems to be weighted in favor of western states.  I'll take a longer look at it when I get some more time.

It's NOT a GLOBAL dataset.  It is for the contiguous 48 states.  It has nothing to say about GLOBAL temps.  That alone could explain the difference you think you're seeing.  You are trying to extrapolate US temps into global ones.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
6 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Just a superficial glance at your dataset vs. NOAA's current global one:  your dataset seems to show lower temps clear along the board.  Seems to be weighted in favor of western states.  I'll take a longer look at it when I get some more time.

It's NOT a GLOBAL dataset.  It is for the contiguous 48 states.  It has nothing to say about GLOBAL temps.  That alone could explain the difference you think you're seeing.  You are trying to extrapolate US temps into global ones.

No I'm not in post #9 I clearly state these are U.S. Temps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
52 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No I'm not in post #9 I clearly state these are U.S. Temps. 

OK, then.  So which dataset are you using as your CURRENT US dataset?  There are minor differences in just about everybody's data.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
33 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

So which dataset are you using as your CURRENT US dataset?  There are minor differences in just about everybody's data.

The data in the Gif again comes from what ever GISS was using in 2012 after their adjustments altering the temperature record when they published the second graph in the Gif in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)

Here is the US temperature graph that GISS is currently showing, note the difference now between the year 2012 in the Gif we are talking about and the temperature for 2012 in the graph GISS is currently showing. Its been adjusted even higher than 1998 just in the last 6 years by + 0.55 C!!! 

5b7cb94b-260a-457c-9cbd-e7f1291b1744.thumb.png.ed3b9756f632a431163e06ee260fdc4a.png

 

1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

In this gif the second image alternating shows 2012 as the last year, note this shows 1998 being the hottest year, now 2012 in the current chart GISS is showing would be off the chart in this graph!!! After more GISS computer generated adjustments that always have the effect of Warming recent years and cooling past years. 

Also for reference 1934 has been adjusted down from +1.30 C to +1.20 C since 1999, also in 1999 the temperature given for 1998 was +1.07 C and has since been adjusted to +1.34 C. 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 8/15/2018 at 1:20 PM, lost_shaman said:

Sure if you at looking at the tampered Temperature data.

ushcn26.gif?w=640

 

1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

This graph shows the difference between the GISS 1999 US temperature graph, and the 2012 version. So once Schimdt and GISS have altered the U.S. temperature record to make all the latest years look like the warmest and they done this a couple of more times since 2012 (and you believe that these are true Temperatures), then of course your going to be able to sit here and say (with a straight face) the warming from the 2015 - 2016 El Nino were the hottest years on record during the very weak Solar Cycle 24. 

Just curious - is there anyone who has been following this thread, and saw these graphs *within a few hours of being initially posted* and noted the content?  In particular, did you see data points on the graph/s extending out to 2015?  If so, PM me.

To Lost Shaman, AGAIN I ask what is the source of the gif images, and are they the gifs that you posted originally?  Be careful with your answer - I sometimes ask questions to which I already know the answer......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Just curious - is there anyone who has been following this thread, and saw these graphs *within a few hours of being initially posted* and noted the content?  In particular, did you see data points on the graph/s extending out to 2015?  If so, PM me.

How could that possibly happen? If you are suggesting I did some changes that's not possible as UM only allows you 1 hour to edit a post after that you can not unless you get a Moderator or Saru to edit a post for you. 

 

18 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

To Lost Shaman, AGAIN I ask what is the source of the gif images, and are they the gifs that you posted originally?  Be careful with your answer - I sometimes ask questions to which I already know the answer......

I did not create the Gif images, but the source of the 1999 Graph in the Gif that shows the difference between what GISS published in 1999 and what GISS published in 2012 is Figure 6 in the 1999 paper quoted below. 

 

5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

GISS analysis of surface temperature change J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York

 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

How could that possibly happen? If you are suggesting I did some changes that's not possible as UM only allows you 1 hour to edit a post after that you can not unless you get a Moderator of Saru to edit a post for you. 

LS, please think before posting.  You directly linked to the images at another site.  If those images CHANGE at that site, then your post will show the new ones, and it is NOT an edit of your post.  For heaven's sake, you see this all the time when people delete images and the hosting sites show that "Image no longer available" message.

That's just one of the reasons why we politely ask that you CITE where you get images from at the time you post them, not later - that way we can check the source and source data, and there can't be any accusations of subterfuge.

It seems your approach is to not cite unless we yell at you at least twice.  You should perhaps consider, that doing that suggests you might not want your data to be checked...........

Anyway, in light of this and past events, I'm out and I'll not bother you further unless someone quotes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

LS, please think before posting.  You directly linked to the images at another site.  If those images CHANGE at that site, then your post will show the new ones, and it is NOT an edit of your post.  For heaven's sake, you see this all the time when people delete images and the hosting sites show that "Image no longer available" message.

That's just one of the reasons why we politely ask that you CITE where you get images from at the time you post them, not later - that way we can check the source and source data, and there can't be any accusations of subterfuge.

 

I only ripped the Gif off Google images AFTER I already knew and verified the 1999 Graph in the Gif straight from NOAA's GISS site where it is published in the Paper I've cited. I did so to save myself the time of recreating a GIF that is already around. I know the site the GIF is hosted on can delete it but I took the chance that it wasn't going to happen in the next few days or even weeks, so it works just fine to make my point here. You know that as well, so what are you doing here other than nit picking at me for no true valid reason right?

This begs the question,... Are you accusing me of subterfuge in some way? 

As you can see above I'm showing that GISS is dramatically altering U.S. temperature records. They are mis representing 'our' US temperature records. If you want to cite US temperature records as Doug does, then it needs to be pointed out that these are being altered roughly every 20 months or so and every time these computer generated adjustment are run through GISSs computer code that one programmer likened to "Hell in a Steven King Novel" that "may have been relevant for a Commodore 64" the recent years are ALWAYS adjusted warmer and past years are ALWAYS adjusted cooler. 

If you don't like the GIF for some odd reason go see the 1999 version in Figure 6 of the Paper I did cite, and then go look at the Current Graph on the GISS webpage that I did download just today and in now on UM's servers for posterity and you can see the difference, but I could not find the 2012 version of this and the Gif shows it so it's relavent and GISS has adjusted 2012 Temps to be hotter just since 2012. 

If you want to dispute the Gif then DO IT, I've cited the 1999 graph and the current GISS graph is easy to find on the GISS website as of today. There you can see the same thing unless you ignore the Gif and then you won't see how 2012 was adjusted to be hotter than 1998. So if you have something to dispute of relevance then lets get busy and discuss! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socks Junior
1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Just curious - is there anyone who has been following this thread, and saw these graphs *within a few hours of being initially posted* and noted the content?  In particular, did you see data points on the graph/s extending out to 2015?  If so, PM me.

To Lost Shaman, AGAIN I ask what is the source of the gif images, and are they the gifs that you posted originally?  Be careful with your answer - I sometimes ask questions to which I already know the answer......

Those are the same images I've seen the whole time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.