Coffeehouse Thread

31 posts

Sun Warming!

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    raymond

    Brightening Sun is Warming Earth

    http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html


    Blame sun for global warming: Science proving that industry is off the hook for Mother Nature's woes

    http://bruderheim-rea.fathersforlife.org/warming13.htm


    Sun's direct role in global warming may be underestimated, Duke physicists report

    http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

    Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm


    Is Global Warming Always Bad?

    http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-04.html

    Changing Sun, Changing Climate?

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

    Well is it man or is it the sun?

    Cool

  • User profile image
    Kevin Daly

    It's man.

    That's the longstanding and well-supported scientific consensus...but of course you only have access to that in places where science is not censored and scientific advice is not edited to fit the conclusions desired by special interests and their pet politicians.
    So it's lucky we live in the free world, isn't it?Smiley

    But that won't stop the propaganda (sorry, sponsored research) from the morons who are happy to drive the rest of us to extinction while they treat our environment as their personal kitty litter.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
    ~ H.L. Mencken
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken

  • User profile image
    Charles

    Yellow G-Class stars, like our sun, get warmer as they age... This is nothing surprising.

    Keep in mind that the Earth's mean temperature has remained relatively constant over geologic time even though the sun has increased the amount of energy it releases in our general direction by over 25% since the advent of living systems on Earth.

    Life, the aggregation of the physical and chemical processes directly associated with the business of living on planet Earth, specifically, is chiefly responsible for maintaining a habitable global mean temperature in the face of solar-based perturbation (as well as many others that come from Earth itself on a regular, ceaseless basis).

    When external perturbation exceeds the homeostatic capabilities of our planet's biological regulatory systems, when negative feedback loops become amplification systems (adding fuel to the fire instead of water...), the Earth will begin a steady march to becoming a planet like Venus...

    Yes. The sun gets hotter as it ages. This fact should always be a part of any model that attempts to predict planetary climate variation and evolution. Fact is, we are building a very reliable gas shield that will trap heat on the surface which will amplify the warming of Earth's surface to the extent that we may very well all die . The sun will only add fuel to the fire.

    Things look pretty grim, theoretically. Don't fool yourselves. Global Warming is real and you can't blame it on the sun. If we do not act immediately and on an unprecidented global scale, then we are doomed.

    C

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    I find this EPA graph interesting:

    Figure 1. This graph shows fluctuations in temperature and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the past 400,000 years as inferred from Antarctic ice-core records. Temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations vary roughly in tandem over the period, with corresponding peaks and troughs. At the end of the period there is a very sharp increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, representing the rapid increase over the past two centuries.

    Figure 1: Fluctuations in temperature (blue) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (red) over the past 400,000 years as inferred from Antarctic ice-core records. The vertical red bar is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past two centuries and before 2006. From A. V. Fedorov et al. Science 312, 1485 (2006)17. Exit EPA Disclaimer18. Reprinted with permission of AAAS19* Exit EPA Disclaimer18.


    Hmm...  looks periodic.

    I'm not saying there's not a warming trend right now.  There does appear to be one.  However, we can't get any conclusive evidence that it's caused by human factors (because no one was around 200-300 thousand years ago to make temperature measurements).  As far as anyone can tell, we could be in a natural warming trend.  It's happened several times before.

    What happens if we act on an "unprecedented global scale" and do something drastic to defeat global warming?  What if it doesn't work?  What would be the economic, social, and ecological impact of a failed attempt, even if the climate change is caused by humans?  What if global warming is a natural phenomenon?  Could our attempt to reverse a natural phenomenon have adverse consequences on the world's climate?

  • User profile image
    raymond
  • User profile image
    Jung

    could be worse, we could be in a fricken ice age...

    not saying global warming is fine, but it could be worse. besides you can see extreme co2 and temperature fluctuations in that graph hundreds of thousands of years before man, although we have exagerated it to the most extremist extent.

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    raymond wrote:
    
    Read Michael Crichton's  State of Fear

    A book from a self-admitted global warming enemy. No bias involved, rly.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    I'm looking at this also very sceptical. Until 1850 it was a lot cooler, they had snow here in june. Which is not normal. What is normal, btw... The current warming looks also very periodical to me - although humans are also contributing their part to it Wink

  • User profile image
    Minh

    CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
    


    Hmm...  looks periodic....However, we can't get any conclusive evidence that it's caused by human factors...

    So, um... according to wikipedia...

    wikipedia wrote:
    The latest data, as of March 2006, shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) — 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.


    So CO2 atmospheric level is 1/3 higher than any point in 400,000 years -- and we don't think it's man made?

    It seems pretty clear from the graph that temperature follows CO2 level, but it's not clear from scale how quickly it response. Do you want to take the chance that temperatures will rise sharply 50 years from now?

    raymond wrote:

    Read Michael Crichton

    Hey, I love the Jurasic Park movies. Have him write some more of them.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    Minh wrote:
    

    raymond wrote:
    Read Michael Crichton

    Hey, I love the Jurasic Park movies. Have him write some more of them.


    Watch E.R.

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    ZippyV wrote:
    

    Watch E.R.


    ER is the only really good thing Crichton has done (write about what you know, Crichton was a doctor I believe).  Jurasic Park was a good film becuase Speilberg took Crichtons book and made a good story out of it.
    I read Prey and ended up feeling that he took a great idea and then made it very mundane.  He also has a tendency to make assumptive leaps and make them sound logical; should be a politician.

    I think it's funny that Crichton criticises the piloticisation (sp?) of science and then peddles his own opinions on science in his books.


    Herbie

  • User profile image
    KosherCoder

    Much science is now pointing to manmade gases actually slowing global warming by preventing solar radiation from reaching the surface.

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    So, why that picture isn't quite right:

    Amount of CO2 isn't measured with 100% accuracy. It's VERY possible, what amount in the peaks even greater than in 2006. CO2 doesn't leavs alot of footprints and can be reduced dramatically by water.

    Yes, chages ARE periodic, it's not our fault. Our Sun is "very slow pulsar" and have own heartbeat. We are investigating space and stars only last 50 years (except movement)! How we can know anything about stars? We ARE stupid children in space knowledge.

    But, YES! WE ARE TURNED OUR ATMOSPHERE INTO CRAP. Thank you England and "industrial revolution"! Thank you, steam engines, converting tonns of charcoal into tons of black dust!

    Our precursors and previous civilizations were much clever and lived WITH planet, rather than AGAINST. We are virus on planet's body and deserved to be removed from planet's surface (may be even from universe because of our nature of destroyers).

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ping

    Well, any solutions then? at least human can do something to reduce the effect. why burning fossil fuels? any other fuels we can use?
     
    e.g. solar cell (well, not efficiency i agree)

     what about fuel cell?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
    At least some countries are making it as far as I know, I hope they can make a car that uses fuel cell, but at that time there will be a car revolution cos those non fuel cell car will be knocked out.Smiley

    and solid methanehttp://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_methane.htm

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
    I find this EPA graph interesting:

    Figure 1. This graph shows fluctuations in temperature and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the past 400,000 years as inferred from Antarctic ice-core records. Temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations vary roughly in tandem over the period, with corresponding peaks and troughs. At the end of the period there is a very sharp increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, representing the rapid increase over the past two centuries.

    Figure 1: Fluctuations in temperature (blue) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (red) over the past 400,000 years as inferred from Antarctic ice-core records. The vertical red bar is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past two centuries and before 2006. From A. V. Fedorov et al. Science 312, 1485 (2006)17. Exit EPA Disclaimer18. Reprinted with permission of AAAS19* Exit EPA Disclaimer18.


    Hmm...  looks periodic.

    <snip>


    Here:  I made it a bit more obvious:


  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    I am capable of reading.  I see the CO2 spike.

    Interestingly, I don't see a corresponding spike in temperature.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
    I am capable of reading.  I see the CO2 spike.

    Interestingly, I don't see a corresponding spike in temperature.


    There are a number of possible reasons, but by looking at the graph, itself, it appears that the temperature deltas lag behind the CO2 deltas. 

    Let's just hope that there isn't a similar temperature spike.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.