Yes. The climate is a choatic system that is changed by everything. BUT, the changes are small and not really measurable.
This illustrates my inherent problem with "climate change", by which they mean human-induced climate change. Of course it is happening. The system is chaotic and anything we do is going to have an impact. BUT, that impact can go from too small to measure to very large. It can go from beneficial to detrimental.
What gets lost in all of the catch-phrases is any real understanding of science.
In the pharma industry, we understnad that EVERY drug will have some effect, BOTH positive and negative. If we have a drug to lower cholesterol, we can show very ineffective drugs lower cholesterol. Simply increase our sample size to such a point that we can see miniscule changes. But lowering your cholesterol by 2 points is NOT clinically significant, even if it is statistically significant. To show efficacy, we need to show BOTH clinical and statistical significance.
BUT, in the climate change field, they are making a LOT of claims and pulishing a LOT of articles. They handle things entirely differently.
For most claims (like increase in hurricane intensity, decrease in crop production, Increase in tornado intensity, increase in droughts, etc.), they imply that ANY change at all is significant to man, thereby avoiding clinical significance altogether. Further, they do not have statistical significance. They make all of their claims on trends. TRENDS that show differently based upon the study. Why? Because they are not statistically significant and there is LARGE variability.
Here is MY frustration. I am a scientist. Scientists do NOT make claims of certainty without CERTAINTY. We just don't do it. Trends are not enough.
Now are trends enough to act??? MAYBE, but it depends on the actions. Personally, I want to see more than trends in SOME studies, to justify multi-trillion dollar expenditures. BUT, you want to make some changes like a concerted move to nuclear that would be beneficial no matter, then sure.. justify that with trends. BUT CALL IT WHAT IT IS!!! It not hair pulling running around like chicken littles, screaming that the world is on fire. They are trends that could very well mean nothing and just a result of the variability of the climate.
No, not to any significant degree. Since they're of insufficient energy to ionize the air, the most that they can do is warm it. If everyone on Earth had a cell phone you might collectively have 10 billion watts of power being transmitted. Even if most of that were absorbed in the atmosphere you could compare that to the power of incoming sunlight, which is on the order of 10^17 watts, or ten million times bigger. It actually took some drastic assumptions to even get that close.'
You could do the same calculation for all the other transmitters, but I guarantee you it will turn out the same way.
Directed energy could locally have effects (there are plausible ideas about affecting individual supercell thunderstorms with microwaves), but nothing on a planetary scale.
EDIT: You can certainly make changes in a small volume, but not enough to have any real effect on weather. The energies are too small.
For once I agree with pegminer. The answer to your question is no, for all practical purposes. You've got to keep in mind how much it takes to heat the planet everyday. It would take more than 200 years of electrical power production WORLDWIDE to produce enough power to heat the planet for A SINGLE DAY.
That's a fact, see the details of the calculation here: https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
-----------------------
Yes
Hasn't been proven yet. I am glad that they can't. Can you immagine Al Gore at the controls. I can just see him saying, "Pay up suckers or it will get rough!"
an extremely small effect, just like butterflies change the weather
