well.. since other areas will become deserts and people will have to move from there perhaps there will be new construction as well... not to mention all the people having to move from the coastal areas...
I vote for 'just a cycle that has already occurred over and over before'.
I mean, Mother Earth has every right to freely avail herself of healing.
(On a side note that I hope doesn't get this thread moved down to the D word basement...If such things are perceived as normal cycles for the good of the planets/universe, then the bible makes just too much sense when it talks about the 'end times'. )
Global warming is real and undeniable. However what is causing it is not completely understood or is misrepresented for political reasons.
We have scientists and who say it is man-made greenhouse gasses. Other scientists say it is increased sun spot activity. Some say the combination of the two along with other things , (which seems more reasonable and likely to me.)
In any case, I doubt that the survival of the humans race is at stake. We will adapt as we have over the millenia.
Folks get all sentimental about the survival of species like seals and polar bears and other species that are not really relevant to mankinds existence. I think we should be more concerned with things like the ocean's phytoplankton. It is the source of 1/3 to 1/2 of the earth's oxygen supply. It absorbs much of the earth's carbon dioxide. Without it, we are in peril. According to Nasa Phytoplankton itself can affect global temperature and climate changes.
We gotta look at all posible angles if we are gonna realy understand this global warming, how it will affect us , and what measures we can or should undertake.
I am in a pretty dry area right now here in Central Texas. This araa becoming a rain forest wouldn't bother me a bit.
Nicely done Goey! Let me add a little more since I am pretty involved that science side of that community. First of all Goey is spot on about the phytoplanton. You can use ocean color from visible space-borne radiometers to determine relative amount, and hence, relative health of the phytoplankton from their chlorphyll signature they leave in the water. Follow the links to the right of Goeys link to Phytoplankton labelled SeaWiFS and Terra. That's how you get the data.
Why is phytoplanton important? Besides Oxygen/CO2 regeneration? Too little OR too much kills the food chain. Too little is obvious - nothing for the rest of the chain to eat. Too much (let's from phosphate pollution) causes an overpopulation. When they die, like all carbon based life, they oxydize in the water. Simply put they rot and as they do the consume oxygen. Guess what else needs oxygen...fish. It is a condition known as hypoxia.
Now Goey I'm gonna add a little on global warming. Besides it is as controversial as some of the posts on GSC :) It is true that there is distinct evidence of global warming and it is also true that it is unclear how much of the cycle is natural and how much humans have contrbuted too. Humans love to hate each other. However a couple of points to remember. There plenty of evidence for "ice ages" where polar ice sheets ran all the way down into the continental U.S. After a few thousand years the globe warmed... and you have a nice sweet temporate zone in the northern hemispher that is hospitable to us warm-blooded crunchy things. You pick :)
Second issue which is still out is the cloud physics. Global warming will, theoretically produce larger quantites of greenhouse gases. They are called that, possibly erroneuosly, because originally it was, and still is in many circles, thought that those gases will result in increased, perhaps global cloud cover. The clouds hold the heat, the self feeding cycle gets worse.
But WAIT THERE'S - a pack of Ginzu knives - oops wrong channel - let's go back the the clouds again. Every cloud physicist has this great dilemma. Where do we GET our heat in the first place? Well some is internal but almost every bit of it is from solar energy. Clouds are white - well mostly - but we wont go there. If they are white and they are global then they REFLECT SUNLIGHT...which means less energey getting under the cloud layers and less terrestrial heating.
And hears the kicker - the best cloud physicist in the world can't tell you which way it would really go. All of the models and simulations suffer in that the slightests tweaks will make a model pick the other choice.
My last thought. I am not a tree hugger. But it does make sense not to crap in your dishwasher... so we might be only a tiny fraction of the warming issue but it's still a good idea to recycle, find alternatives to some the chemicals that were in common use that are known to alter atmospheric chemistry...
If they are white and they are global then they REFLECT SUNLIGHT...which means less energey getting under the cloud layers and less terrestrial heating.
Explain Venus then. It is covered with clouds, which go a LONG way of trapping the heat in -- to the tune of over 900 degrees F. Hot enough to melt lead.
Explain Venus then. It is covered with clouds, which go a LONG way of trapping the heat in -- to the tune of over 900 degrees F. Hot enough to melt lead.
:huh:
Garth that is why the Venus Express was built - which BTW approaches orbit burn pretty soon - like sometime this week I think. However there are also some rather obvious differences. Orbit radius, atmospheric chemistry, etc.
What I am telling you is that we simply do not understand the physics well enough yet to make hard decisions about all of the processes. That fact is, and honest scientist admits when they don not have all of the answers while still being forward to enough to post trends. I posted trends in the field of science I work in.
No honest scientist is leaving any stone unturned - including Venus. However if we have all of the correct answers on global warming please explain to me we spent a boatload of money to spend a spaceprobe to get more info?!
If the Caps are melting than a higher rate than the norm, due to Sun and the clouds which filter heat, then our waters would be saltier,right, because thats how our waters get salted from the Caps..so we have an excess of Sodium in the Oceans?
also, the caps melting is how we get the Gulf Stream that circulates around most continents, correct?
And if the Void period in Genesis is the occurance of the Earth being frozen solid, then the melting caused by light and Sun caused lakes and continents..
Then are we saying something is causing God's works are being undone and it is by human error?
Back in high school -- global cooling was taught, NOT global warming.
Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
Not so, likeaneagle. If the polar ice melts the water will be less salty. Ice is only frozen water - there is no salt in the water. The water freezes leaving very dense very salty water under it. The salty water is heavier than the rest so it sinks to the bottom. Water at the bottom has to move out of it's way to make room so it slides away - - toward the equator. A current is established whereby cold water moves from poles to equator (in both hemispheres) and warm water moves from the equator to the poles.
Because of the earth's rotation and the shapes of the various land masses, a host of other currents are born. One of them, the Gulf Stream is important to the weather systems which visit the East Coast. Storms near the continent get caught in this current and travel along it all the way to Europe (England). If polar ice melts entirely, the salt concentration at the poles will be uniform, no sinking heavy layers....and the giant oceanic currents - all of them - stop.
The greatest fishing grounds are found where the cold water upwells to the surface. Stop the currents and these fishing grounds disappear. The whole dynamic oceanic systems will change drastically.
The sun also powers the wind in the atmosphere. Global warming, regardless of it's source (and I don't believe there is a single source) will produce more storms of all kinds. More heat means more evaporation which means more water vapor in the air. More heat also means faster wind speeds. Put it all together and there are more storms in all regions and they are also of greater intensity.
A number of scientific studies have linked climate change with volcanic activity. In particular, particles thrown into upper atmospheric levels bounce energy back out into space so "rapid" cooling occurs over 2 - 5 years until these particles fall back down. They have also pointed to these times as times of large numbers of species going extinct.
Good job Krysilis explaining density differences and global circulation. Take a look at some of Bob Gray's work on supercanes and hypercanes. He was the red headed step-child for years until his stats got better than the NHC's.
What's your line of work if you don't mind me asking? Eveer tossed a CTD or Seci disk over the side?
well.. since other areas will become deserts and people will have to move from there perhaps there will be new construction as well... not to mention all the people having to move from the coastal areas...
Well if the Ice Age preserved prehistoric animals because they were frozen and the amount of salt in the Ice aided in thier preservation...I have heard that the prehistoric animals are a result of the Earth (form & void)being frozen from the first heaven and earth.
Another thing to ponder is everything liquid has a ph factor. There is a layer of saline (salt) under the derma layer which is the top layer of our skin. It constantly is there to help our skin heal faster and to maintain ph balance also regulates heat and cools us.
I guess im comparing anatomy to enviromental systems.
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
In other words, everyone's perceptions are colored by their beliefs, even scientists. If you think there's global warming, you'll tend to interpret data to support your belief. It's not supposed to happen with the rigors of science, but it does.
Beliefs get reinforced by repeated exposure without question. The media keep repeating "global warming" so often that people accept it as fact regardless of the data. (It's nothing new, though. Newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst started a war with Spain by publishing overembellished stories about the USS Maine being blown up in Havana harbor, Goebbels manipulated the Nazi media to paint Jews as evil, etc.) The rule of thumb with ANY type of rising hysteria is: look at who stands to profit if the dire predictions are true. There's almost ALWAYS a political agenda behind any hype.
Who stands to gain from fanning the flames of global warming? Penn & Teller did an episode of their Bulls**t! series on environmental hysteria that exposed a lot of the hypocrisy and non-existent science behind the various Earth-first movements in the name of furthering a political anti-corporation agenda. Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" also goes into depth about the inconclusiveness of all the climactic data being hidden by political activist groups.
In other words, if you're REALLY nervous about something you've heard in the news, step back for a moment and ask yourself if you're being manipulated. Yes, terrorism is a problem, but unless you live in one of the largest cities the odds you'll be caught in a terrorist act are less than your getting killed in a car crash. Yes, pollution is a problem, but a single volcano spews more crap into the atmosphere over the course of one eruption than all of the aerosol cans ever produced in all of history. Yet, the left wants you to believe the Earth is goingto be incinerated by corporate greed, while the right wants you to believe there's a bloodthirsty terrorist hiding in everyone's backyard.
One more thing--part of the climate trends are based on temperature data over the past hundred years. In 1903, Coca-Cola still had cocaine in it. Thermometers were red alcohol in hand-blown glass, yet supposedly they were accurate enough to support doomsday theories based on trends of a degree or two up or down in global temperature?
The jury's still out on a lot of things, folks. Don't panic just yet, ok? :)
Very cool and I'm very impressed with the wealth of knowledge on here. Not surprised at all, but it's amazing how many experts in so many areas we have around and I think it's awesome that you take the time to share what you know with us.
Dittos Tom Strange!!!! I've referred my daughter here to post some of her thoughts/questions regarding her mythology class. Told her she'd get quite a plethora of ideas!
I do not feel I have knowledge enough to intelligently comment on all this stuff....but I love intelligently reading about it!!!
Bringthis to the top - - - -Because I saw a Nova program that's quite new. A balance between factors affecting global warming and global cooling was examined as carefully as I think possible for us science lovers but not really experts. We had evidence for both cooling and warming and we had no way to put them together.
I saw a NOVA program which was very helpful in combining the effects of each in a way I could understand. It was called "Dimming Sun"
Global Warming is for real, you can take that for gospel or stick it in your pipe and smoke it, its real.
However it happened, our climate is changing and we to whatever extent contributed to that change.
I saw a show that suggested we can eventually mitigate these changes by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.I think it had something to do with reforestation and using hte trees to absorb co2 from the atmosphere. I dunno but it looked interesting ;)
Yes! Global warming IS real. All the models and the measurements etc definately demonstrate that. However there is also evidence consistent with global cooling. This is not made up - not manufactured, not a untested idea. There are many verifyable indications of that as well.
There is warming.....let's say the warming does +5.
There is cooling.......let's say the cooling is -2
That means the overall warming is +3
However...there are things which can and do tip the scales. Planting trees to use up carbon dioxide will do some good, but there is more CO2 than would be absorbed. And other gases are also involved. There is a demonstration near the end of this hour special which shows how even airplane contrails have an effect.
Do yourself a favor and look for this, set your VCR (or whatever) and watch it at your convenience. I believe the science in it is sound. I don't see any hanky panky. I don't believe what's shown is all that's known. It is a one hour show....so they're not gonna get it all.
BUT if you watch it, you will get a grip on where the truth lies...and you will know it for yourself.
Do they mention the poles merely shifting around on the Earth as part of the seeming paradox? I remember reading about that somewhere....ya know, that the north and south poles are shifting so that's why it's colder than normal in some places and hotter than normal in other places.....
Belle I think what you're talking about is called precession. For some reason, the earth's axis wobbles a little causing the poles to effective shift. The cycle was calculated to be one complete cycle every 22 thousand years.
That's about all that's left in my memory, but it does correlate with sun spot activity - - one doesn't have any bearing on the other....except the period of time....it's periodicity......
Belle I think what you're talking about is called precession. For some reason, the earth's axis wobbles a little causing the poles to effective shift. The cycle was calculated to be one complete cycle every 22 thousand years.
That's about all that's left in my memory, but it does correlate with sun spot activity - - one doesn't have any bearing on the other....except the period of time....it's periodicity......
Right Krysilis - there is also a secondary motion called nutation. If you think of the axis of rotation as a solid line the wobble draws a circle. Nutation is a secondary "wobble" that would make that circle look fluted; a circle with regular sinusiodal waves embedded in it. All of this motion makes for a certain amount of climate change. The earthquake in Jakarta that cause the tsunamis was strong enough to actually make a measurable change in the precession as well as nutation of the earth.
Recommended Posts
Tom Strange
well.. since other areas will become deserts and people will have to move from there perhaps there will be new construction as well... not to mention all the people having to move from the coastal areas...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
I vote for 'just a cycle that has already occurred over and over before'.
I mean, Mother Earth has every right to freely avail herself of healing.
(On a side note that I hope doesn't get this thread moved down to the D word basement...If such things are perceived as normal cycles for the good of the planets/universe, then the bible makes just too much sense when it talks about the 'end times'.
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnionEater
The only differance now is that we have cities in the low tidal zones. And instead of animals becoming extinct it could be us.
Edited by OnionEaterLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Global warming is real and undeniable. However what is causing it is not completely understood or is misrepresented for political reasons.
We have scientists and who say it is man-made greenhouse gasses. Other scientists say it is increased sun spot activity. Some say the combination of the two along with other things , (which seems more reasonable and likely to me.)
Sun Spot Link
In any case, I doubt that the survival of the humans race is at stake. We will adapt as we have over the millenia.
Folks get all sentimental about the survival of species like seals and polar bears and other species that are not really relevant to mankinds existence. I think we should be more concerned with things like the ocean's phytoplankton. It is the source of 1/3 to 1/2 of the earth's oxygen supply. It absorbs much of the earth's carbon dioxide. Without it, we are in peril. According to Nasa Phytoplankton itself can affect global temperature and climate changes.
Phytoplankton
We gotta look at all posible angles if we are gonna realy understand this global warming, how it will affect us , and what measures we can or should undertake.
I am in a pretty dry area right now here in Central Texas. This araa becoming a rain forest wouldn't bother me a bit.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Nicely done Goey! Let me add a little more since I am pretty involved that science side of that community. First of all Goey is spot on about the phytoplanton. You can use ocean color from visible space-borne radiometers to determine relative amount, and hence, relative health of the phytoplankton from their chlorphyll signature they leave in the water. Follow the links to the right of Goeys link to Phytoplankton labelled SeaWiFS and Terra. That's how you get the data.
Why is phytoplanton important? Besides Oxygen/CO2 regeneration? Too little OR too much kills the food chain. Too little is obvious - nothing for the rest of the chain to eat. Too much (let's from phosphate pollution) causes an overpopulation. When they die, like all carbon based life, they oxydize in the water. Simply put they rot and as they do the consume oxygen. Guess what else needs oxygen...fish. It is a condition known as hypoxia.
Now Goey I'm gonna add a little on global warming. Besides it is as controversial as some of the posts on GSC :) It is true that there is distinct evidence of global warming and it is also true that it is unclear how much of the cycle is natural and how much humans have contrbuted too. Humans love to hate each other. However a couple of points to remember. There plenty of evidence for "ice ages" where polar ice sheets ran all the way down into the continental U.S. After a few thousand years the globe warmed... and you have a nice sweet temporate zone in the northern hemispher that is hospitable to us warm-blooded crunchy things. You pick :)
Second issue which is still out is the cloud physics. Global warming will, theoretically produce larger quantites of greenhouse gases. They are called that, possibly erroneuosly, because originally it was, and still is in many circles, thought that those gases will result in increased, perhaps global cloud cover. The clouds hold the heat, the self feeding cycle gets worse.
But WAIT THERE'S - a pack of Ginzu knives - oops wrong channel - let's go back the the clouds again. Every cloud physicist has this great dilemma. Where do we GET our heat in the first place? Well some is internal but almost every bit of it is from solar energy. Clouds are white - well mostly - but we wont go there. If they are white and they are global then they REFLECT SUNLIGHT...which means less energey getting under the cloud layers and less terrestrial heating.
And hears the kicker - the best cloud physicist in the world can't tell you which way it would really go. All of the models and simulations suffer in that the slightests tweaks will make a model pick the other choice.
My last thought. I am not a tree hugger. But it does make sense not to crap in your dishwasher... so we might be only a tiny fraction of the warming issue but it's still a good idea to recycle, find alternatives to some the chemicals that were in common use that are known to alter atmospheric chemistry...
Ya know - just don't crap in your dishwasher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Explain Venus then. It is covered with clouds, which go a LONG way of trapping the heat in -- to the tune of over 900 degrees F. Hot enough to melt lead.
:huh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Garth that is why the Venus Express was built - which BTW approaches orbit burn pretty soon - like sometime this week I think. However there are also some rather obvious differences. Orbit radius, atmospheric chemistry, etc.
What I am telling you is that we simply do not understand the physics well enough yet to make hard decisions about all of the processes. That fact is, and honest scientist admits when they don not have all of the answers while still being forward to enough to post trends. I posted trends in the field of science I work in.
No honest scientist is leaving any stone unturned - including Venus. However if we have all of the correct answers on global warming please explain to me we spent a boatload of money to spend a spaceprobe to get more info?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
If the Caps are melting than a higher rate than the norm, due to Sun and the clouds which filter heat, then our waters would be saltier,right, because thats how our waters get salted from the Caps..so we have an excess of Sodium in the Oceans?
also, the caps melting is how we get the Gulf Stream that circulates around most continents, correct?
And if the Void period in Genesis is the occurance of the Earth being frozen solid, then the melting caused by light and Sun caused lakes and continents..
Then are we saying something is causing God's works are being undone and it is by human error?
just pondering..
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
A question --- if I may. :)
Back in high school -- global cooling was taught, NOT global warming.
(The above, was quoted from THIS SITE).
Now -- My question is this -- why did it switch from Global cooling, to Global warming???
Global cooling was *gospel* back then, just as global warming is now.
Not trying to be fractious, or argumentative here at all, but ---
since there was *proof* offered by scientists back then,
and *proof* offered by scientists nowdays to the contrary ---
Are either of the arguements valid???
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Not so, likeaneagle. If the polar ice melts the water will be less salty. Ice is only frozen water - there is no salt in the water. The water freezes leaving very dense very salty water under it. The salty water is heavier than the rest so it sinks to the bottom. Water at the bottom has to move out of it's way to make room so it slides away - - toward the equator. A current is established whereby cold water moves from poles to equator (in both hemispheres) and warm water moves from the equator to the poles.
Because of the earth's rotation and the shapes of the various land masses, a host of other currents are born. One of them, the Gulf Stream is important to the weather systems which visit the East Coast. Storms near the continent get caught in this current and travel along it all the way to Europe (England). If polar ice melts entirely, the salt concentration at the poles will be uniform, no sinking heavy layers....and the giant oceanic currents - all of them - stop.
The greatest fishing grounds are found where the cold water upwells to the surface. Stop the currents and these fishing grounds disappear. The whole dynamic oceanic systems will change drastically.
The sun also powers the wind in the atmosphere. Global warming, regardless of it's source (and I don't believe there is a single source) will produce more storms of all kinds. More heat means more evaporation which means more water vapor in the air. More heat also means faster wind speeds. Put it all together and there are more storms in all regions and they are also of greater intensity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of scientific studies have linked climate change with volcanic activity. In particular, particles thrown into upper atmospheric levels bounce energy back out into space so "rapid" cooling occurs over 2 - 5 years until these particles fall back down. They have also pointed to these times as times of large numbers of species going extinct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Good job Krysilis explaining density differences and global circulation. Take a look at some of Bob Gray's work on supercanes and hypercanes. He was the red headed step-child for years until his stats got better than the NHC's.
What's your line of work if you don't mind me asking? Eveer tossed a CTD or Seci disk over the side?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
who says you never learn anything new here at the Greasespot Cafe?
Thanks folks. More! More!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
more construction?
i bet haliburton gets the contracts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Well if the Ice Age preserved prehistoric animals because they were frozen and the amount of salt in the Ice aided in thier preservation...I have heard that the prehistoric animals are a result of the Earth (form & void)being frozen from the first heaven and earth.
Another thing to ponder is everything liquid has a ph factor. There is a layer of saline (salt) under the derma layer which is the top layer of our skin. It constantly is there to help our skin heal faster and to maintain ph balance also regulates heat and cools us.
I guess im comparing anatomy to enviromental systems.
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
In other words, everyone's perceptions are colored by their beliefs, even scientists. If you think there's global warming, you'll tend to interpret data to support your belief. It's not supposed to happen with the rigors of science, but it does.
Beliefs get reinforced by repeated exposure without question. The media keep repeating "global warming" so often that people accept it as fact regardless of the data. (It's nothing new, though. Newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst started a war with Spain by publishing overembellished stories about the USS Maine being blown up in Havana harbor, Goebbels manipulated the Nazi media to paint Jews as evil, etc.) The rule of thumb with ANY type of rising hysteria is: look at who stands to profit if the dire predictions are true. There's almost ALWAYS a political agenda behind any hype.
Who stands to gain from fanning the flames of global warming? Penn & Teller did an episode of their Bulls**t! series on environmental hysteria that exposed a lot of the hypocrisy and non-existent science behind the various Earth-first movements in the name of furthering a political anti-corporation agenda. Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" also goes into depth about the inconclusiveness of all the climactic data being hidden by political activist groups.
In other words, if you're REALLY nervous about something you've heard in the news, step back for a moment and ask yourself if you're being manipulated. Yes, terrorism is a problem, but unless you live in one of the largest cities the odds you'll be caught in a terrorist act are less than your getting killed in a car crash. Yes, pollution is a problem, but a single volcano spews more crap into the atmosphere over the course of one eruption than all of the aerosol cans ever produced in all of history. Yet, the left wants you to believe the Earth is goingto be incinerated by corporate greed, while the right wants you to believe there's a bloodthirsty terrorist hiding in everyone's backyard.
One more thing--part of the climate trends are based on temperature data over the past hundred years. In 1903, Coca-Cola still had cocaine in it. Thermometers were red alcohol in hand-blown glass, yet supposedly they were accurate enough to support doomsday theories based on trends of a degree or two up or down in global temperature?
The jury's still out on a lot of things, folks. Don't panic just yet, ok? :)
God bless,
Zix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Ahhh......tis so sweet to have your input again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm all ears and eyes!! Thanks y'all!!
Very cool and I'm very impressed with the wealth of knowledge on here. Not surprised at all, but it's amazing how many experts in so many areas we have around and I think it's awesome that you take the time to share what you know with us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
I Love Bagpipes
Dittos Tom Strange!!!! I've referred my daughter here to post some of her thoughts/questions regarding her mythology class. Told her she'd get quite a plethora of ideas!
I do not feel I have knowledge enough to intelligently comment on all this stuff....but I love intelligently reading about it!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Bringthis to the top - - - -Because I saw a Nova program that's quite new. A balance between factors affecting global warming and global cooling was examined as carefully as I think possible for us science lovers but not really experts. We had evidence for both cooling and warming and we had no way to put them together.
I saw a NOVA program which was very helpful in combining the effects of each in a way I could understand. It was called "Dimming Sun"
Here is the schedule for other airings:
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNETDT3 Apr 21 09:00am
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNETDT3 Apr 21 03:00pm
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNETDT3 Apr 22 07:00am
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNETDT3 Apr 22 01:00pm
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNET Apr 22 05:00pm
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNETDT3 Apr 22 07:00pm
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WNETDT Apr 23 02:00pm
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WLIW Apr 24 04:00am
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WLIWDT2 Apr 24 04:00am
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WLIW Apr 25 01:00pm
· Nova - Dimming Sun, WLIWDT2 Apr 25 01:00pm
·
I believe the program # was 3310.
Edited by krysilisLink to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
Global Warming is for real, you can take that for gospel or stick it in your pipe and smoke it, its real.
However it happened, our climate is changing and we to whatever extent contributed to that change.
I saw a show that suggested we can eventually mitigate these changes by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.I think it had something to do with reforestation and using hte trees to absorb co2 from the atmosphere. I dunno but it looked interesting ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Yes! Global warming IS real. All the models and the measurements etc definately demonstrate that. However there is also evidence consistent with global cooling. This is not made up - not manufactured, not a untested idea. There are many verifyable indications of that as well.
There is warming.....let's say the warming does +5.
There is cooling.......let's say the cooling is -2
That means the overall warming is +3
However...there are things which can and do tip the scales. Planting trees to use up carbon dioxide will do some good, but there is more CO2 than would be absorbed. And other gases are also involved. There is a demonstration near the end of this hour special which shows how even airplane contrails have an effect.
Do yourself a favor and look for this, set your VCR (or whatever) and watch it at your convenience. I believe the science in it is sound. I don't see any hanky panky. I don't believe what's shown is all that's known. It is a one hour show....so they're not gonna get it all.
BUT if you watch it, you will get a grip on where the truth lies...and you will know it for yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, Krys. I definitely plan to check it out.
Do they mention the poles merely shifting around on the Earth as part of the seeming paradox? I remember reading about that somewhere....ya know, that the north and south poles are shifting so that's why it's colder than normal in some places and hotter than normal in other places.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Belle I think what you're talking about is called precession. For some reason, the earth's axis wobbles a little causing the poles to effective shift. The cycle was calculated to be one complete cycle every 22 thousand years.
That's about all that's left in my memory, but it does correlate with sun spot activity - - one doesn't have any bearing on the other....except the period of time....it's periodicity......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Right Krysilis - there is also a secondary motion called nutation. If you think of the axis of rotation as a solid line the wobble draws a circle. Nutation is a secondary "wobble" that would make that circle look fluted; a circle with regular sinusiodal waves embedded in it. All of this motion makes for a certain amount of climate change. The earthquake in Jakarta that cause the tsunamis was strong enough to actually make a measurable change in the precession as well as nutation of the earth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.