Earth is Warming from Inside out NOT Outside in and that is Causing our Climate Change!

Ok, and the moral of this story is?

 

Denial is much easier than thinking. The heat flux from the Earth has changed very little over historic time. And yet atmospheric warming has suddenly accelerated in the 20th century, as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere.

 

Nope....no bad news for me Yehren.

The more food we produce the better. If we need to produce more foods with more iron, zinc and protein then we are able to do it.

Other options are fortifying flour with iron and folic acid which is globally recognized as an effective low-cost intervention.

Providing zinc supplements reduces the incidence of premature birth, decreases childhood diarrhea and respiratory infections, lowers the number of deaths from all causes, and increases growth and weight gain among infants and young children.

From the article you linked provided other solutions: bio-fortification of crops which is developing crop types that are enriched with nutrients like iron, zinc and protein.....In addition many vulnerable nations should think about ways to increase dietary diversity, so their populations consume a wider variety of foods that give them a stronger nutritional base.

I LOVE the headline of the link you provided which was an article from 6 years ago: Rising carbon dioxide levels may reduce the nutritional value of important foods!!

Here is a quote from the article:... it’s very difficult to anticipate how these environmental changes will ripple through ecological systems and ultimately impact our own health and well-being.”

Soooo no bad news for me......Thank you for your input though!!

Mary

 

Did you know there are 1,000 plus old trees being found under the Mendenhall Glacier as it is melting? Allegedly the glacier is melting due to man made global warming due to industrialization?

Wait a minute.....there were no Co2 spewing factories over 1,000 years ago to warm the globe....How can that be???

Keeping it real....Scientist Mary

 

1970’s Global Cooling Scare | Real Climate Science

 

One year does not a recovery make. And ozone levels are still well below 1970's levels.

Check this out: NASA Ozone Watch: Latest status of ozone

If you scroll down on the left side you'll see bar graphs showing the ozone hole area and min average ozone level for every year since 1979.

Note that min ozone dropped dramatically till the mid 90's when it stabalized. And the ozone hole grew till 2005 or so and then stabalized..

There has been minimal recovery since then...
Until last year. Note it is still well below 1979 levels!
I will be watching this years season with great interest.

I believe I said that if the ozone level recovers, stratospheric temps would increase followed by ocean temp decrease...

One year is certainly to early to call a turn when we're talking about 40 years of increased uvb exposure..

But I did note that stratosphere temps have risen,
and that sea surface temp anomolies have decreased by about .2 C so far this year. (You can follow them here: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

It remains to be seen wether any of this will continue.

Peace!

 

So this is about global warming again? Got it.. You see its easy to deny politically driven fiction as "science". The whole thing was based on the fraudulent hockey stick graph to start with that came from the 2004 edition of the book 'Global Warming: The Complete Briefing'. The explanations given for the graph was word for word identical to that given for the graphs found in the first (1994) and second edition (1997) of the book that completely contradicts the hockey stick graph showing the middle ages to be much warmer than it is today. This little inconvenient fact was completely swept under the rug since it doesn't fit the narrative we are supposed to believe about our atmosphere.

 

Oi my spelling was terrible ^^^^

LOL

 

Ah yes, lets not forget that, before the global warming tripe, the white coated priest hood we call "scientists" were trying to hype everyone up claiming the earth was going to turn into an ice cube. They can't make up their damn minds, these guys you know.

 

Denial is much easier than thinking. The heat flux from the Earth has changed very little over historic time. And yet atmospheric warming has suddenly accelerated in the 20th century, as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere.

Sorry, that myth won't work. There's a reason that site has only news stories and magazine articles. You see, even in the 1970s, the great majority of climatologists already knew that rising carbon dioxide levels were going to cause warming:

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Thomas C. Peterson;

William M. Connolley;

John Fleck



Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. (2008) 89 (9): 1325–1338.

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.



THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS | Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society | American Meteorological Society

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

The current scientific consensus on climate change is that the Earth underwent global warming throughout the 20th century and continues to warm.
Global cooling - Wikipedia

That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

Claims that scientists flip-flopped on climate don't reflect the science.
The real booster of the cooling predictions was Reid Bryson, who later rejected anthropogenic warming even as global temperatures climbed. In 1975 and 1976 papers, Bryson concluded that aerosol cooling would dominate over CO2 warming—a fact he felt was demonstrated by recent temperatures. As one of his papers put it, “Since 1940, the effect of the rapid rise of atmospheric turbidity appears to have exceeded the effect of rising carbon dioxide, resulting in a rapid downward trend of temperature. There is no indication that these trends will be reversed, and there is some reason to believe that man-made pollution will have an increased effect in the future.”


But other studies in that same special volume of papers projected warming. One by climate modeling pioneer Syukuro Manabe projected a total of 0.8 degrees Celsius warming over the 20th century (for one estimate of the increase in CO2). Another by J. Murray Mitchell concluded, “Of the two forms of pollution, it appears that the carbon dioxide increase is more influential in raising planetary temperatures than the anthropogenic particle increase is in lowering planetary temperatures.”
That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
...
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth - CBS News

 

Hi Mary!

My hypothesis explains the cause of the cooling that caused that scrare..

If it is true, then if the ozone layer thickens and it starts getting to cold, then we'll know we just have to pump some chlorine into the stratosphere to warm it up again

Physics is kind if a hobby of mine, but Im to old and have to many kids to take care of yet to try and get any creds lol

Peace!

 

Thanks Yeheren....I can do this all day but I won't. The FACT is the earth has been VERY warm and VERY cold. Life has continued thru both with MOST people dying during the COLD periods. Right now we are probably going thru a warming period which MAY take us back to a time when trees were growing in the area the Mendenhall glacier is now......

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

 

If your model is right, we should be seeing cooling.

Well, let's take a look at the ozone levels over the past decades...


Hmm... they've been rising since 1997. And yet, temperatures continue to climb as carbon dioxide climbs. You'd think 23 years would make a difference.

However ocean temps continue to rise. Thermodynamics, you know. Since water has a much higher specific heat than rock and soil, the oceans take up most of the thermal energy from rising temperatures.

But most of the thermal energy is still ending up in the oceans, for the reason I mentioned:




So there is that.

I would think 23 years would certainly be time to find an effect in the data, if there was one.

 

Yehren,

Look at the level in the early 70's

That's 50 years of increased uvb exposure..

If I have a pot on the stove say at '3' and then crank it up to 5 and slowly turn it down to 4.8... Should i expect to see cooling or heating as I decrease it?

Peace!

 

Well, someone actually went back and read all the climatology papers and tested that belief. Here's the results:

As you see, the great majority of climatologists, even in 1975, were predicting warming, not cooling.

 

So you're now saying that rising ozone levels mean more warming? They've been rising since the 90s; if they matter, you should see cooler climate since the 90s. But it's much warmer. How do you explain that?

 

No, I'm saying that ozone levels have NOT risen significantly with respect to 1970's levels. Look at the chart man!

There has been very little warming since the mid 2000.

The recent elnino got all the 'warmest year ever' people excited as it managed to reach 1998 levels..

But i wonder what they'll claim on the next down oscillation...

 

Nope. As you learned, higher carbon dioxide levels reduce the nutritional value of crops.

For wealthy nations, yes. For subsistence farmers, no.

It's not controversial:

But there's a problem. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And while they're still testing what this means for coffee's quality, scientists have seen that other crops have lost some of their nutritional value under higher CO2 conditions.


One example is rice, a primary food source for more than 2 billion people.


Ziska recently teamed up with an international group of scientists to study whether high CO2 had an effect on the rice's nutrition. "Was it changing not just how the plant grew, but the quality of the plant?" he asked.


They tested how 18 different kinds of rice responded to CO2 levels that are projected by the end of the century, based on conservative estimates, Ziska says.


The technique they used, called free-air CO2 enrichment, allowed them to grow the rice and add CO2 to the air immediately surrounding the plants using a big hoop in the middle of a field, Ziska explains. They did this over multiple years in facilities in Japan and China.


And the effect was clear: Higher CO2 reduced multiple key measures of rice's nutritional value. Across the different types of rice, they observed average decreases of 10 percent in protein, 8 percent in iron and 5 percent in zinc. Four important B vitamins decreased between 13 and 30 percent. The research was recently published in Science Advances.


Higher carbon dioxide is not just affecting rice. There's evidence that the scope of this is much bigger. Harvard's Sam Myers, who studies the impact of climate change on nutrition, has tested CO2's impact on the protein, iron and zinc of a number of staple crops using the same free-air CO2 enrichment technique.


"Most of the food crops that we consume showed these nutrient reductions," Myers says.
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Rise, Major Crops Are Losing Nutrients


For plants, a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide actually boosts productivity by stimulating photosynthesis. They make more carbohydrate and grow larger — seemingly a good thing. But because other nutrients don’t increase and can’t keep pace with the augmented carbohydrate, this potential boon to our food supply isn’t all that it seems: plants end up having a higher carbohydrate to protein ratio, and relatively lower concentrations of minerals.


Put simply: atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a sort of fertilizer to grow bigger, leafier plants, but those larger broccolis and lettuces actually contain less nutritional value per portion than their predecessors grown in the preindustrial, pre-fossil fuel world.


And that could be a problem for the world’s already malnourished people, for bees seeking protein-rich pollen so they can safely overwinter, and for ecosystems that could be thrown out of balance by changes in plant nutrition.


The human implications of these ongoing changes to our food supply came under the spotlight in April when the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) published a major report on the impact of climate change on human health. One of its key findings was that rising carbon dioxide will reduce the nutritional quality of food.
Rising CO2 is reducing nutritional value of food, impacting ecosystems

Nature volume 510, pages139–142(2014)

• Published: 07 May 2014

Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition
Abstract
Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually2,3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.

 

A 10% increase seems like a significant amount, and the trend line is upward.

Well, let's take a look...


Sure looks like it has. Let's go to the NASA database and see the numbers...
Temperature anomaly for each year:
2005 68
2006 64
2007 66
2008 54
2009 66
2010 76
2011 61
2012 65
2013 69
2014 75
2015 90
2016 102
2017 91
2018 85
2019 98

So far, 2020 is higher than any previous year. I'd be pleased to graph this and show you the trend line,if you like. But I'm pretty sure you can see the fact that the trend is ongoing warming.

The anomaly for 1998 was 61. Only 4 years this century were that cold.

Deniers love to cherry-pick, so they'll do the same thing as last time. But notice each "down oscillation" is followed by even greater warming.

 

No, that's wrong. It was based on a model by James Hansen of NASA,who accurately predicted the rise in global temperatures about 30 years in advance, using only carbon dioxide concentrations, (depending on three different possible rates of rise) and one major volcanic eruption (which would cool the atmosphere). He got it right.

That's wrong, too:
Of course, the severity of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, was not a deep freeze like the long ice ages of the ancient past. After all, human civilization thrived and expanded during the Little Ice Age, as several civilizations sent ships to explore, colonize, and exploit new lands.
...
Although the Little Ice Age was not a formal ice age, one could certainly argue that it was a significant phenomenon associated with a variety of climatic changes affecting many disparate parts of the world. Earth’s climate changes often through time, so this cool 450-year slice of Earth’s history was not the only one of its kind. There have been warm intervals too. One example is the recent warming (caused by a mix of natural factors and human activities) that began after the Little Ice Age ended and continues to this day. Another example is the highly controversial medieval warm period—another time of relative warmth—which, according to some scientists, lasted from 900 to 1300 CE. Unlike the Little Ice Age and the recent period of warming, however, there is a great deal of disagreement with respect to the reach of the medieval warm period or whether it even happened at all.
What Was the Little Ice Age?

As you see, the medieval period was not quite what you were told.

But the rather sudden rise in global temperatures, mediated by rising carbon dioxide concentrations, is an observed phenomenon.