Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

If global warming an environmental concern?

  • Yes -humans caused it

    Votes: 38 46.9%

  • No- it is a natural cause

    Votes: 26 32.1%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 17 21.0%
  • Total voters
    81
something else I have been wondering about look at all the new roads and parking lots around they trap heat don't they??? I could be way off here lol
 
As an Astronomy buff, I want to offer my own 2 cents. Their is one part of the solar driving theory that hardly anyone has ever addressed, both in the scientific community and beyond which I feel amounts to a crucial proof.

If global warming is caused by increased solar activity, then the effects of increased solar activity should be felt throughout the solar system.

Think more carefully of the broader implication of a solar powered global warming trend. If it's true, their will be evidence elsewhere in the solar system. So, where is the question. The most obvious subjects are first the inner planets. At a glance, Mercury is not a candidate for such a study. It's close orbit to the sun, as well as the fact that one side of it is forever locked into the sun's glare would suggest their would be significant difference in it's temperature. Venus locks in all of it's solar input, and I would not think it would be prone to temperature variations. Indeed, Pioneer Venus, Mariner 10, and Magellan didn't find any that I am aware of. That leaves Earth, and Mars. Earth's data is well know. Mars peaks my interest. It's been undergoung global warming at a substantial rates ever since we have had probes constantly observing it, starting in the 1990's. The martian ice caps are melting off, and according to the best data from JPL, they contained almost NO CO2 to contribue to the martian atmosphere. This leaves the water vapor of the ice caps and solar activity alone as the only plausible explanation for this warming. If true, then it would mean Martian and Earthly global warming could be directly related. I would be very interested in seeing if Martian and Earthly global warming trends dirrectly correlate.

The Jovian outer planets all produce their own heat, so the influence of the sun is greatly deminished. Reports of global warming on Pluto have been made, but we do not have direct sattilite observations at this time. Now, we're down to Asteroids and Comets. Long term Comets like Halley come by only so often. It is the short-term comets which reside within the orbit of Mars which we should focus on. Comets are entirely reliant on the sun for their brilliant tails, which would mean that as solar activity increases, they should have more spectacular tails. This would be detctable as an increase in the magnetude (that is the absolute brightness) of the comet. Furthermore, if the comets magnetude increased compared to when it was the same distance from the sun from year to year, you would have a good case for increased solar input effecting comets.
 
PhiloNysh said:
I have often heard of people worrying about Global warming. But others (specifically Geologists) have told me that it is of no concern, as the world has been hotter.

But is that the case? Has not people had any influence in changing the world's temperature, due to the increase of Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide?

Give your opinion here, and a reason.
Click to expand...
I think that you are right but there is one thing that i would say is wrong about how you said that geologists have said that global warming is not a threat, now really it is the southern hemisphere won't be affected by global warming because the seas absorb more sunlight than land does so the entire nothern hemisphere would be affected so the people living there would have to flee to the southern hemisphere and it would be crouded something has to be done
:(
 
And when you say that the world has become hotter but that is because of greenhouse gasses as you have just stated
 
Edufer said:
1) Warming is happenig, of course (0.6º C since 1850)

2) That increase is well into the natural warming expected from a rebound from the Little Ice Age (1450-1860). <b>Man has nothing to do with it.</b>

3) The Medieval Warm period of 800 AD - 1300 AD was 2.0º C warmer than today. This period was known by climatologists as the <b>"Little Climatic Optimum"</b>, becasue that seems to be the best temperature on Earth for living creatures (vegetal or animal). That alone should discredit the "catastrophic" view pushed by the IPCC and other "Apocalyptics".

4) CO2 concentratrions during the Cretaceus period were in the range of 2,600 to 6,000 ppm (now we are at 370 ppm) but according to proxy studies temperatures were just 1.5º C higher than present.

4) That gives the clue for scientists to say CO2 is a poor "greenhouse gas", contributing to the "greenhouse effect" with <b>barely 3,5%.</b>

5) The main "greenhouse gas" is <b>water vapor</b>, taking into account for about 95% of the "greenhouse effect".

6) The famous "runaway greenhouse" in Venus, is due not to CO2 concentration, but to the <b>density of its atmosphere</b>, having 90 times more pressure than Earth's atomsphere, and its being <b>much closer to the Sun</b>. Earth is just lucky to have been formed at its present distance from the Sun. A mere 5% difference - on either side - would have made us into another Venus or another Mars.

7) Earth`s climate is <v>driven by the Sun's energy output</b>, nothing else. As the solar cycles varies, so does the climate. When sunspots are high (as now) energy output is high, and temperature on Earth increases.

8) When sunspots are low (as during the <b>double Maunder and Spoerer Minima</b> in the 1500s) temperature goes down abruptly (the <b>Little Ice Age</b>).

9) By the year 2030 there will be another double minimum: the <b>double Gleissberg Minimum</b>, that will bring Earth's temperature down to those exerienced in the 16th Century. We'll freeze!

10) The 20th Century was not the warmest in the last 1000 years as the IPCC wants us to believe. Their "global wamring" theory is just hot air. Please see the facts:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm

See the study here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

And why not?, go here and have fun: http://www.john-daly.com/

More facts on subsequent posts -- if you are still interested.
Click to expand...
I think that man had everything to do with it because of the greenhouse gasses that we have created
 
I do not believe that human activity is the culprit. The key point is in the end that absolutely NOTHING which a human emissions global warming model predicts cannot be accounted for by other phenomenon. All of the "facts" of the case depend on who you ask, and it's not an issue of oil company geologiests versus climatoligists, the climatology community doesn't seem to have a concensus. Besides, climatologists alone should not be ones soul source since everything from geologists, to biologists, to physicists and astronomers all have a part to play a part in the explanation of how the atmosphere on this little planet works.

What troubles me the most is how one element of one field (the climatoligists) seem to be consulted the most, when a system as diverse as this goes across so many fields of study, has so many variables that no one branch could possibly study it alone.
 
"I think that man had everything to do with it because of the greenhouse gasses that we have created"

Profound -- are there any GHG's that man hasn't created? Do you know the percentage of man-made vs. naturally occuring GHG's?
 
i think there are alot more natutally occuring GHG's then man made but i doubt you could ever get any hard percentages on either, it might be possible but i just don't see it
 
Climatology said:
Profound -- are there any GHG's that man hasn't created? Do you know the percentage of man-made vs. naturally occuring GHG's?
Click to expand...

What about water vapor? It accounts for more than 70% or so of the Greenhouse effect. Methane is much better GHG than CO2, but it is much more scarce and it has been decreasing both emissions and total amount.

CO2 is also slowing its increase, and not it is barely reaching the 0,4% anually. A natural phenomenon scientists have been observing.

Relax, enjoy life!
 
I'm welcoming global warming. It's fucking cold down here during the winter, and I'm tired of it.
 
Well, I hope global warming helps for you. As far as we can see now the actual warming is confined to limited spots like currently North East Canada and Central Siberia but that may change every few years. Moreover all the natural cycles may reinfrce each other to start a new cooling period. Who knows.

BTW It's true that changes in methane concentrations have a higher effect than changes in CO2 but this is only due to the very small amounts. Greenhouse gas effect is roughly logaritmic and hence the increase in effect is measured with doubling of concentration. Doubling the very small amounts (~1 ppm) of CH4 is more realistic than talking about the much higher CO2 concentration (377 ppm). In absolute effect CO2 is much stronger if you compare the effect at equal concentrations.
 
just a thought but how much would a orbital wobble effect climate like the one that happened when the major quake hit last december?
 
As far as logical physics dictate, no single event within a closed system can alter it's momentum hence it's orbit, just as you cannot lift yourself off the ground. (action - reaction). So I wonder where this allegation came from. Rearranging the spinning period would be possible by changing the angular inertia due to mass changes but the effect would be infinitesimal small.

Orbital wobbles (Milankovitch cycles) are thought to have some effects on the climate but this is on millenium scale, unfit to influence the current heated debates.
 
We have 45 years before it begins to become an actual problem. 45 years only before sea levels begin to irreversibly rise.
 
Of course there is people out there (lots of it!) that think they can make a fast buck exploiting humane ignorance (also lots of it!). Go here and see what these guys are planning: changing Earth's orbit by making everybody jump in the world at the same time!

http://www.worldjumpday.org/
 
Red Devil said:
We have 45 years before it begins to become an actual problem. 45 years only before sea levels begin to irreversibly rise.
Click to expand...

You seem to be pretty sure of that. I wish I were. But who told you that, and which were the facts provided? If it was the IPCC and its cohort then don't bother to answer. :D
 
I don't think that the start momentum of a problem is only when the consequences show themselves, but it is then when it becomes inevitable.
Thus, if it is 45 years and then it happens, then the problem is now and everything to lessen its' consequences should be done.

As for me, I won't buy land property lower than 100m above sea level.
And no, I don't think that the end of the world is near, it's just that I always like to be prepared for a worst case scenario.

p.s. I like the jump idea. :D
 
Avatar said:
I don't think that the start momentum of a problem is only when the consequences show themselves, but it is then when it becomes inevitable.
Thus, if it is 45 years and then it happens, then the problem is now and everything to lessen its' consequences should be done.

As for me, I won't buy land property lower than 100m above sea level.
And no, I don't think that the end of the world is near, it's just that I always like to be prepared for a worst case scenario.

p.s. I like the jump idea. :D
Click to expand...

Some Scientist on Sky TV News, about 2 or 3 months ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top