Cambio climático

[lucia]

Lo que decíamos de elegir las referencias que te interesan para vender un relato y sacar pasta metiendo miedo a la gente: la cincuentena de referencia fue el peor medio siglo de los últimos 500 años para la humanidad.

The period from 1850-1900 is defined as "pre-industrial" when the global temperature was unforced by CO2 emissions.

1.5°C above 1850-1900 is considered catastrophic for Earth's climate by scientists

Except 1850-1900 was the absolute worst half-century in the past 500 years for humanity in terms of climate.

The optimal climate for humanity thriving obviously can't be 1850-1900.

So what is the optimal, best climate for 8 billion + humans alive today?

It's got to be right now.

[lucia]

@Iliria, igual te interesa el documental.

Durkin’s “Climate the movie" is out. Here are some links to the science behind it (at least the stuff that I and my close colleagues worked on).

Link to the movie: https://vimeo.com/924719370

a) The sun has a large effect on climate. There are many studies showing this (all the way from Sir William Herschel’s work in the late 18th century). Here are two examples that *quantify* this link and show that more than an order of magnitude larger than changes in the solar irradiance (which is the only component the IPCC is willing to admit that exists):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 07JA012989
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 14JA020732
These by themselves don’t indicate that the link is through cosmic ray flux variations. The fact that it is through cosmic ray flux variations is totally irrelevant to understand 20th century climate change. The only thing relevant is that the sun is important, yet it is ignored by the "mainstream" community.

Nonetheless, we believe that the link is through cosmic rays because of the following:
b) We discovered microphysical processes (theoretically and in the lab) which link the atmospheric ionization to the production condensation nuclei and their growth to become cloud condensation nuclei, e.g.,
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A ... P/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018E ... S/abstract

c) We see empirically that changes in the cosmic ray flux following Forbush decreases translate into changes in the atmospheric aerosols and other cloud parameters, e.g.,
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016J ... S/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022E ... M/abstract

d) We see that changes in the cosmic ray flux on geological time scales (of millions of years) translates into changes in the climate:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003N ... S/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012M ... S/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014N ... S/abstract
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.co ... nyas.14920

Yet the IPCC ignores all of these, because it would imply that the story is little more complicated and significantly less catastrophic…

Para evitar los enlaces cortados, este es el mensaje original en Twitter https://x.com/nshaviv/status/1771269753274781862?s=20

[Iliria]

Muchas gracias, @lucia

[lucia]

7,000 years ago the sea levels were 7 m higher than present in northern Norway (Arctic). They've fallen ~0.8 m per 1,000 years since.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 2/jqs.3604

Los niveles del mar estaban 7m más altos que ahora en el Ártico hace 7000 años.

Pero ya sabéis, vamos a morir todos de hambre, frío y calor para evitar que suba ahora 10 cm… y probablemente no lo evitemos, porque no somos dioses.

[lucia]

Vaya sorpresa Que como los datos reales no muestran el calentamiento anunciado los están “corrigiendo”, Nasa incluida. La de abajo, la serie de datos antes de las correcciones.