It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
it does not matter about debating whether true or false, amn cannot and will not do anything to change course, whether responsible or not.

the avergae man on street only gets effected when something happens that disrupost there lifestyle. americans do not care, even though they are responsible for 25% of co2 emissions.

we will be back here again in a few years, debating the next journal whenever they are to meet again, and saying the same stuff we say here.

the sun is the most responsible for climate, not co2 emissions from man. man cannot do anything about the sun that is why, people will not do anything to drastic about emissions, so we should just stop arguing and talk about other things, because man, is not going to change this, for the time being at least.

even though this group did this report do you think that they are going to cut down on plane travel in europe or america, which represent the biggest emissions of co2 into the upper atmosphere, no way. people are going to look afer no1 like they always will. and no debating on this forum will not change anything either, because man knows deep down that the populationm of the earth is not at the right moment of history that it can band together, fullstop, end of argument.




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Can we stop global warming?

Who cares
I want the UK to have the climate of the south of France and I will be dead before the main event. The only problem I see is I will have to go up a couple of factors with my Sunscreen lotion. Bring it on!!!

Anyway I think nature is self regulating. Several volcano events over the years changed the climate and nature got it back. Whether mankind survives is another thing but really who cares about mankind?



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
On the horizon there is China
they use fossil fuels for their industries, the growing middle class will want their Chinese Dream of cars, jaccuzzies & all the energy consuming things that make up the American Dream.

There's the world's most populous democratic nation, India
they use fossil fuels for their industries, a growing middle class will want
their India Dream of cars, jaccuzzies & all the energy consuming things
that make up the American Dream.

There's the industrial base that has moved from the rust-belt USA to the nations of SE Asia & Oceania...they use energy from fossil fuels to power the plants that make cheap goods for the wealthier peoples in the world.


the inefficient & pollution generating infrastructures are in place already,
and making profits.
No bodies going to as a nation, give up their dream of a better life for some long term advantageous theory, besides the rich & elites will figure a way to profit unreasonably from the belt tightening by the vast majority of the middle, lower & poorest class of people to bring about this reversal of global warming theory.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I've forgotten what I started fighting for.

Maybe we can't stop global warming - but can delay it.
Induce Climatic change

Everyone get your Evians and head for the north Atlantic. LOL

Seriously though, anything that humans can do to this planet, the planet itself can reverse over time. We won't be around to see it, but the Earth will survive. And, its never to late to do things the right way.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
it does not matter about debating whether true or false, amn cannot and will not do anything to change course, whether responsible or not.


No debating will not directly do anything about global warming. However by speaking about global warming we can at least convince people to actually give a *%#$ about the environment, or at least think about what they are doing to it.


Originally posted by andy1033
the avergae man on street only gets effected when something happens that disrupost there lifestyle. americans do not care, even though they are responsible for 25% of co2 emissions.


You think that the 'avergae man (sic)' isn't going to care that more famines, hurricanes, floods etc ravage America and the world? And climate change will 'effect (sic) the 'average guy' indirectly like:
1. Rising CO2, Methane etc emmisions enter atmosphere
2. More sunlight is trapped in the atmosphere.
3. Said sunlight raises temperatres, UV levels etc.
4. As temperatures worldwide increase grain harvests decrease
5. Due to decrease in grain availability bread prices go up
Also many Americans do care, however most of said Americans aren't politicians, officials etc and so cannot change U.S policy.


Originally posted by andy1033
we will be back here again in a few years, debating the next journal whenever they are to meet again, and saying the same stuff we say here.


Yes we will. Except more people will care, more projects will be put into place to 'cap' global emissions and more disasters will ravage the Earth.


Originally posted by andy1033
the sun is the most responsible for climate, not co2 emissions from man. man cannot do anything about the sun that is why, people will not do anything to drastic about emissions, so we should just stop arguing and talk about other things, because man, is not going to change this, for the time being at least.


The Sun. One of the favourite scapegoats of the 'anti-global warming' club. Yes the Sun is partly responsible for global warming. But the only thing it is doing is sending sunlight to Earth. The Sun isn't increasing emissions of CO2 and Methane, the Sun isn't cutting down forests for farms etc.


Originally posted by andy1033
even though this group did this report do you think that they are going to cut down on plane travel in europe or america, which represent the biggest emissions of co2 into the upper atmosphere, no way. people are going to look afer no1 like they always will. and no debating on this forum will not change anything either, because man knows deep down that the populationm of the earth is not at the right moment of history that it can band together, fullstop, end of argument.


Yes I agree with you. The irony of supposed 'green' celebrities is that they say they want to 'do their part to cut down global warming' yet still travel by air, SUV, limosuine etc. I also agree with your view that the general population won't do anything, but maybe that's because they can't d anything?



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Hockey stick smockey stick, that debatable bs doesn't dismiss the multitudes of other data. As for now saying it's out of control, that's what happens when the numerical models were too conservative to begin with.
.................


Yep, that's it, the Regenmacher destroyed the tons of other data which contradicts the claim that mankind is the cause for global warming.

Even the borehole data shows that the warming seems to have started from the Earth's core outwards, it must be all those damn mole people down there, with their cars and factories releasing tons and tons of greenhouse gases from the center of the Earth, and maybe they probably started a experiment of their own and began running to one side of their underground world to the other, and that's the cause for the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, and the increase in the solar output...yeah...that's it... or maybe they all have a pandemic and have been releasing methane like never before... yep, that must be it... Maybe those same mole people sent their astronauts all over the solar system and they are the cause for the mayhem happening as we speak in every planet with an atmosphere in the solar system...yeah, mankind is at fault for all of that...

So let's continue to blame mankind, spending billions and billions of dollars trying to blame each other, or better yet, let's blame every coporation, after all they can stop the wold from spinning and they have the power to make the sun slow down it's solar flux... and meanwhile the changes are still coming... we have to blame ainkind....after all the mole people are part of mankind, and believe me, we can stop nature and the solar system...after all, mankind is the master of the Universe, didn't you know?... Everything starts and ends with us...

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
That's what I'm saying. The sun activity is increasing


Well you are right and wrong on that...yes the sun is brighter but there is less light reaching the surface and there is some question as to why. Some scientists think that the hydrocarbons that capture heat instead of it being released back into space are also blocking more radiation from getting in.... I will try and find the report on that.

Muaddib, outraged, rails about the so-called liberal and environmental agenda. He is forgetting he has his own agenda to push as well and as a result has no credibility; since he cherry picks his reference material, as much as he claims those he opposes do.

One thing he forgets is that there are a lot of mutually contridictory studies out there BUT just because one study counters something that you do not like doesn't mean that it is any more accurate than the one you object to.

Part of science is to sort out the various claims and studies and come to some sort of working consensus. Something that has yet to be done, so to say that this study reputes another one is disingenious at best and obscures the only question that is important:

DOES HUMAN ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND IF SO TO WHAT DEGREE, AND IF SO WHAT CAN OR SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?

THAT is the only question is important...everything else is a distraction from dealing with that one question.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

DOES HUMAN ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND IF SO TO WHAT DEGREE, AND IF SO WHAT CAN OR SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?

THAT is the only question is important...everything else is a distraction from dealing with that one question.



Excellent point as even I fall victim to my beliefs on the issue vs the verified facts. As more and more scientists around the world agree on this however, the more weight I lend to that viewpoint.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Did I misread the UN report or did it not say that mankind was five times more likely to be the cause of global warming than nature? Further, did it not say there was very little we could do about it at this stage? By that last question, I mean in the way of stopping it by reducing greenhouse emissions.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Astronomer70]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Maybe those same mole people sent their astronauts all over the solar system and they are the cause for the mayhem happening as we speak in every planet with an atmosphere in the solar system...yeah, mankind is at fault for all of that..


Global numerical weather models have nothing to do with your fictional comic book universe. So go post your own long term forecast and we shall see how accurate your climate rantings are in comparison to the NOAA, NWS, and WMO.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I used this metaphor on the "Global Warming Debate Turns Ugly" thread, and I think it bears repeating:

["...I personally have been recently diagnosed with COPD which I am not exactly thrilled with but I have to live with it, its what I get for smoking like a fish for years (8 years as a non smoker now)...

COPD is Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema)

You can have one or the other seperately but to have them together in chronic form is COPD.... think those old men pulling around tanks of oxygen.

What I did to my lungs... we do to the earth... we have so transformed the chemical structure of the atmosphere that it doesn't work like it supposed to. Now if we don't do anything about it, it would be like me continuing to smoke 1 1/2 packs a day and a bag or two of pot a week after my diagnoses... it would be suicide. Unfortunately it isn't so simple with the earth but the end results are the same.

The reason I use it as a metaphor is that I cannot process what oxygen my lungs take in properly anymore, or for that matter exhale properly anymore so the CO2 builds up in my lungs further restricting my breathing. At worst if I had a bout and did not have it treated, I could aphexiate to death. It happens.

Just so, we have dumped all this crap into the atmosphere that the mechanism that cleans it all out has broken down and it builds up and effects everything else including how the earth discharges excess heat.

Like all healthy systems, the earth or yours or my body we do cleanse ourselves of all the toxins that get dumped into it.... up to a point and that is the whole issue in a nutshell.... the advocates of global warming say that the earth's atmosphere can no longer cleanse itself properly so that it can function properly.

The forces, political and corporate who benefit from the muddying of the waters on this issue are in the long run the short sighted and ignorant ones... but they are banking on the debate will continue so that they don't have to do anything "unpleasant" that would require them to either make hard policy decisions or anything that will cut into their profit margins... in short criminally negligent behavior, especially considering their obstructionism effects all of us.

I still say even if global warming were proven to be wrong, it would still be prudent to change how we consume."]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Global numerical weather models have nothing to do with your fictional comic book universe. So go post your own long term forecast and we shall see how accurate your climate rantings are in comparison to the NOAA, NWS, and WMO.



Rantings huh?....

I give more data and names of scientists who say mankind is not the cause for global warming, and in response you give a website which claims that those people who are objecting to the hockey stick data, and say mankind is not the cause for global warming "are just amateurs posting their opinions which is not based in fact", not in those same words but that's what they are claming in that website.

Then the owner of that same website tries to claim the hockey stick graph is correct despite the fact that it has been debunked and showed to be rigged?.... and you think that is the proof to debunk the data and links i gave?....

Let me ask you this, and anyone else who keeps thinking it is mankind's release of CO2 and other gases that brought us global warming, btw I am not disputing that those gases are bad and have affected the environment. Climate change does change and affects the environment, but the environment does not affect Climate Change globally.

The question is, if it is mankind who is to blame for global warming because of the CO2 being released by mankind in the atmosphere and the chemicals released in the oceans, why did the increase in temperatures began deep under the Earth's crust first?

Anybody care to anwser that question?

Again, here is the borehole data showing when the increase in temperature began deep in the Earth's crust, and what it has done since then.



and here is the main data which the IPCC and other scientists have been using to claim mankind is the cause for global warming, notice the time period when the increase in temperatures rose sharply on the earth's surface and the atmosphere.



Can anyone tell me why is it that temperatures began to increase first deep under the Earth, over three hundred years before the changes began to happen in the Earth's surface?

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
.............
Muaddib, outraged, rails about the so-called liberal and environmental agenda. He is forgetting he has his own agenda to push as well and as a result has no credibility; since he cherry picks his reference material, as much as he claims those he opposes do.


Can you tell me why is it that you, and others like you, don't discuss the data, and instead you attack the messenger?...

My only agenda is to show that there is a lot of data and scientists out there who disagree and can prove mankind is not the cause for global warming...

People don't have to be "paid off by Exxon or any other company to have a difference of opinion".... more so when there is data to refute the whole claim that mankind is responsible for global warming...

I can't even believe that noone in here is even asking why is it that the IPCC used and accepted data which has been proven to be rigged to show those results and they never came clean....


Originally posted by grover
One thing he forgets is that there are a lot of mutually contridictory studies out there BUT just because one study counters something that you do not like doesn't mean that it is any more accurate than the one you object to.


The main data being used to proclaim that manking is responsible for global warming is the Hockey Stick graph, the IPCC has used that graph to continue to claim that mankind is responsible for global warming. Yet it is known that the data which was used to made that graph was rigged so it wouldn't show the Medieval warming period, or the little Ice age that came after. Who knows what else was rigged in that graph?...


Originally posted by grover
Part of science is to sort out the various claims and studies and come to some sort of working consensus.


Science has become these days a political tool, just like almost everything else.

Is that is not true, why is it that the IPCC hasn't come clean about the hockey stick graph?

If scientists would have corroborated the data that was used to make the Hockey Stick graph, how come it does not show two events which have been corroborated in thousands of other research?



Originally posted by grover
Something that has yet to be done, so to say that this study reputes another one is disingenious at best and obscures the only question that is important:

DOES HUMAN ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND IF SO TO WHAT DEGREE, AND IF SO WHAT CAN OR SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?

THAT is the only question is important...everything else is a distraction from dealing with that one question.


Well, the main concensus was that "mankind is at fault and we can stop it", and that was the stance for 5-110 years, and now the "main concensus" is that "mankind is still at fault but we can't stop global warming...



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
You keep presenting different data that is true Muaddib but there is no consistancy... you now claim that the rise in temp. comes within the earth... previously you have claimed that it was solar activity or the effect of stellar space clouds and that the whole solar system was warming, based on about 40 years of data, and God knows what else....so Muaddib, since you know everything and the rest of us who disagree with you are idiots who don't know what we are talking about, which is it?

BTW what little right wing fairy told you that changes in the environment does not have effects on a global scale?

BTW haven't you ever realized that you use science as a political tool? You constantly cherry pick the data you want... ain't no difference... you have no credibility, you are just another hack.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
You keep presenting different data that is true Muaddib but there is no consistancy... you now claim that the rise in temp. comes within the earth... previously you have claimed that it was solar activity or the effect of stellar space clouds and that the whole solar system was warming, based on about 40 years of data, and God knows what else....so Muaddib, since you know everything and the rest of us who disagree with you are idiots who don't know what we are talking about, which is it?


Grover, first of all, i don't know everything. Second of all, did it ever occur to you that the changes within the Earth are probably caused by the sun or some other outside influence? You know, the Earth's magnetic field is weakening more than it has for 800,000 years...temperatures deep in the Earth's crust have been increasing even before the temperatures in the atmosphere and the Earth's surface began increasing... The Sun is going Beserk and it's own magnetic field did not flip entirely like it should... Every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere is undergoing changes which have not been observed for over 300 years... Jupiter has been observed for over 400 years and noone has seen the changes like the ones that are happening there now in all this time, granted we have better technology, but the changes we have been seen these few years would have been seen 400 years ago also.


Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear

By Sarah Yang, Media Relations | 21 April 2004

BERKELEY – If a University of California, Berkeley, physicist's vision of Jupiter is correct, the giant planet will be in for a major global temperature shift over the next decade as most of its large vortices disappear.

www.berkeley.edu...


pril 22, 2003: Three years ago, something weird happened to the Sun.

Normally, our star, like Earth itself, has a north and a south magnetic pole. But for nearly a month beginning in March 2000, the Sun's south magnetic pole faded, and a north pole emerged to take its place. The Sun had two north poles.

"It sounds impossible, but it's true," says space physicist Pete Riley of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in San Diego. "In fact, it's a fairly normal side-effect of the solar cycle." Every 11 years around solar maximum, the Sun's magnetic field goes haywire as the Sun's underlying magnetic dynamo reorganizes itself. The March 2000 event was simply a part of that upheaval.

Using a supercomputer named Blue Horizon and data from spacecraft (especially NASA's ACE and ESA-NASA's Ulysses) Riley and colleagues are studying how these complex changes can affect our planet. "The Sun's magnetic field permeates the entire solar system," explains Riley. "It interacts with Earth and is the primary driver of space weather."

science.nasa.gov...


The Sun Goes Haywire

Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?


November 12, 2003: Imagine you're in California. It's July, the middle of summer. The sun rises early; bright rays warm the ground. It's a great day to be outside. Then, suddenly, it begins to snow--not just a little flurry, but a swirling blizzard that doesn't stop for two weeks.

That's what forecasters call unseasonal weather.

It sounds incredible, but "something like that just happened on the sun," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

Only a few weeks ago solar activity was low. The face of the sun was nearly blank--"very few sunspots," says Hathaway--and space weather near Earth was mild. "Mild is just what we expect at this point in the 11-year solar cycle," he explains. "The most recent maximum was in 2001, and solar activity has been declining ever since."

Then, suddenly, in late October the sun began to behave strangely. Three giant sunspots appeared, each one larger than the planet Jupiter. In California where smoke from wildfires dimmed the sun enough to look straight at it, casual sky watchers were startled by the huge blotches on the sun. One of them, named "sunspot 486," was the biggest in 13 years.

science.nasa.gov...

Since it is not only the Earth, but every planet with an atmosphere in the solar system that is undergoing such changes, it is only logical that these Galactic Changes are being brought either by the Sun, or something else. The fact is, that they are happening and the EArth is not the only planet going through these changes.


Originally posted by grover
BTW what little right wing fairy told you that changes in the environment does not have effects on a global scale?

BTW haven't you ever realized that you use science as a political tool? You constantly cherry pick the data you want... ain't no difference... you have no credibility, you are just another hack.


Ang again, instead of discussing the data you keep trying to attack me... wow grover, who would have thought?...

The fact is grover, i am just trying to show that not only is mankind not responsible for global warming, but as the IPCC now is saying, we can't stop global warming.

I am not trying to claim that the gases and chemicals released into the oceans and atmosphere are good, i actually do believe that we have to be concious about what we do to the environment, but for the right causes...not trying to blame mankind for something we didn't cause and has been happening for millenia.

What I am tyring to prove is that since we can't do anything to stop global warming, we should accept the fact that these Climate changes are coming, and should be preparing for them instead of getting into fights as if we were still in high school.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I know about the magnetic field...both ours and the sun's flip every 500,000 years or so, but so far I know of no data that asserts it is heating the planet as a result....as for the other planets to claim that we 300 or 400 years of observations is disingenious... yes we have been looking at it through telescopes for that long but accumulating data on it... hardly.... only 40 or 50 years have we had instruments sensitive enough to actually measure what is going on, on the other planets so that hardly counts as conclusive proof.

As for the sun you had no comment I see on the study that shows that actually less light has been reaching the surface of the earth in the past decade of so and it is suspected that the very same hydrocarbons that hold heat in preventing its escape into space, have also been reflecting more light back out into space... If that is true then those hydrocarbons are a double edged sword... yes they are contributing to the warming of the planet but they are preventing it from getting much worse.

I have yet to read a study that says mankind is the sole cause of global warming... every one of them use the word contribute.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

What I am tyring to prove is that since we can't do anything to stop global warming, we should accept the fact that these Climate changes are coming, and should be preparing for them instead of getting into fights as if we were still in high school.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Muaddib]


If that is so Muaddib... then why do YOU so often go on the attack against those who disagree with you?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Please stay on topic and cease the personal comments.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
If all those said are true... Global warming is in fact unstoppable and the damaged would be too great for human's survival... I think man kind's existence is put at stake. Can you imagine if this kind of freak weather to continue for just even 100 years?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I know about the magnetic field...both ours and the sun's flip every 500,000 years or so, but so far I know of no data that asserts it is heating the planet as a result....


Actually the earth's magnetic field supposedly flips every 200,000 years, and it hasn't flipped in almost 800,000 years. We are well overdue.


Our planet's magnetic field reverses about once every 200,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is highly variable. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was 780,000 years ago, according to the geologic record of Earth's polarity.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

The sun reverses it's magnetic field every 11 years, the next time the Sun's magnetic field is supposed to flip is in 2012.


Every 11 years the Sun's magnetic field flips, but scientists don't know what triggers it. A new study shows that big eruptions of superheated gas, called coronal mass ejections, may play an important role.

www.space.com...

The Earth's magnetic field shields Earth from the sun's flux, and our atmosphere attenuates sunlight, which only delivers 1,370 watts per square meter because of this attenuation.

Now, the following is an interesting discovery made by NASA in 1998.


Solar wind blows some of Earth's atmosphere into space
Polar spacecraft measures "auroral fountain" flowing out as solar wind flows in

............................
In the early 1980s, scientists at NASA/Marshall, using an instrument aboard the Dynamics Explorer-1 (DE-1) satellite, discovered that the upper ionosphere is heated by electrical currents to form a "polar plasma fountain" of oxygen and hydrogen ions.
.............................
The energy can be calculated from the intensity of the light from the aurora borealis. On Sept. 24, a modest amount of power - roughly 80 gigawatts - flowed in during several smaller substorms preceding the main event which pumped 200 GW.
...........
A major pipeline fire in the USSR in the 1990s may have been caused by galvanic erosion from solar storms.

science.nasa.gov...

Now, the above was about an event which occurred in 1998, in which there were substorms, before the large flare, which were pumping into the Earth 80 GW of power, and the large flare itself pumped 200 GW.

The following is an infrared image of what happened to the Earth's atmosphere when this event occurred.



The above image is from the other link i gave above.

Solar flares do affect our weather, and the climate of the Earth.

We all know that 1998 was one of the hottest years, but supposedly 2005 was the hottest year.

Do you know what happened in 2005?

The largest solar flare to hit Earth in 500 years, hit us.


The Sun emitted the most intense burst of solar radiation towards Earth for five decades when it produced a large solar flare on 20 January 2005. The swarm of energised particles also reached Earth in record time, scientists say.

Charged protons from most coronal mass ejections - the giant clouds of plasma which accompany solar flares - usually take at least two hours to reach their peak around Earth. But this flare peaked after a mere 15 minutes.

space.newscientist.com...

But we have been lucky, because in 2004 an X48 flare erupted from the Sun, the largest ever on record, but didn't hit Earth, it just gave us a glancing blow. We were lucky that time.


They tell Geophysical Research Letters the X45 class event was more than twice as big as the previous record flare.

Fortunately, the Earth did not take a direct hit from this immense blast of radiation and matter.
.......
The New Zealanders say their calculations show the flare's X-ray radiation bombarding the atmosphere was equivalent to that of 5,000 suns, though none of it reached the Earth's surface, they stress.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Now, that and the fact that the Earth's magnetic field started to weaken from 1845, and as of now is 10% weaker than it has been for 800,000 years, should give you an idea that we are in fact recieving more flux from the sun than we have in a very long time.



Originally posted by grover
as for the other planets to claim that we 300 or 400 years of observations is disingenious... yes we have been looking at it through telescopes for that long but accumulating data on it... hardly.... only 40 or 50 years have we had instruments sensitive enough to actually measure what is going on, on the other planets so that hardly counts as conclusive proof.


Galileo Galilei in the early 1600s observed Jupiter, he discovered the 4 brightest moons of Jupiter, and made many other observations about other celestial bodies. In 1664 Robert Hook discovered the Red Spot in Jupiter. Another spot appeared recently on Jupiter, one of the changes we have seen lately there. Such a change has not been seen before in the 400 years of observing Jupiter.

Other planets in the solar system are undergoing similar changes, and those which have an atmosphere, including some moons, have been reported by scientists to be going through a Global Warming of their own.



Originally posted by grover
As for the sun you had no comment I see on the study that shows that actually less light has been reaching the surface of the earth in the past decade of so and it is suspected that the very same hydrocarbons that hold heat in preventing its escape into space, have also been reflecting more light back out into space... If that is true then global warming is a double edged sword... yes it is contributing to the warming of the planet but it is preventing it from getting much worse.


Not according to the excerpts and links that i just gave. There are other cosmological events which do affect the Earth's Climate. One of those events are galactic clouds, and it seems to be a coincidence that we have entered recently, the past 5-10 years (can't remember the exact time right now) which density has been increasing over the years. By the year 2013 we will reach the densest part of this cloud. I have written threads about this previously.

The composition of this cloud will determine whether we get more excited plasma particles, which will affect greatly Earth's Climate by heating it up, or less plasma particles but more dust (matter) which would do the oposite.

Here is a link to wikipedia that explains a little bit about the differences found in interstellar clouds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is an article from 2005 about Ice Ages on Earth being possibly linked to intergallactic clouds. There are several threads in these forums, including some of my own back from 2004, where this topic is discussed.


Ice ages linked to galactic position
Study finds Earth may be cooled by movement through Milky Way's stellar clouds

It might sound preposterous, like astrology, to suggest that galactic events help determine when North America is or isn't buried under immense sheets of ice taller than skyscrapers. But new research suggests the coming and going of major ice ages might result partly from our solar system's passage through immense, snakelike clouds of exploding stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2005/07/25/MNGCIDSL4R1.DTL

I do find it funny that they claim such climatic changes on Earth "might result partly because of such galactic events"...

Articles as the one above try to diminish the power of the Universe and apparently give more power to mankind than the entire Universe has....

Anyways, scholarly articles tell a different story, as the following.


Now a team of astrophysicists, atmosphere
and space physicists has found galactic
involvement for the repeated development
of ice ages on earth. According to their
postulate, whenever the solar system while
orbiting around the centre of our Milky
Way galaxy, once in 250 million years,
encounters giant molecular clouds (GMC),
dramatic changes in climate could be triggered
on earth.
Several thousands of such
cloud masses, mostly made up of atomic
and molecular hydrogen and dusty carbonaceous
particles and silicates are known to
lie in its path (Figure 1). They can effectively
shut-off solar radiation, enhance
water vapour content of the middle atmosphere
with attendant drop in temperature,
form dense mesospheric ice-clouds and
finally precipitate runaway ice-albedo feedback
leading to global cooling8. A mere 5
to 10% reduction in the solar luminosity
by the dust could decrease the amount of
heat reaching earth and initiate sufficient
cooling for the polar ice to spread slowly
to low latitudes and even up to the equator.

www.ias.ac.in...

Now, notice that "a mere 5-10 % decrease in solar luminosity could decrease the amount of heat reaching Earth". So that means that a 10% decrease in the Earth's magnetic field, plus the fact that solar flares blow up chunks of the Earth's atmosphere will do the oposite, they will heat up the Earth.


Originally posted by grover
I have yet to read a study that says mankind is the sole cause of global warming... every one of them use the word contribute.


Pretty much every paper from the IPCC, and those scientists which claim mankind is at fault, have proclaimed that mankind's activity is the main cause for Global Warming and every other natural event are just "minor causes"..

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join