backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by Pedro Blanco.. on Aug 27 at 8:05 AM

The entire solar system appears to be warming up lately. What's the root cause?

As an update to my story earlier this month on the discovery of global warming on Mars, I thought it appropriate to survey the rest of the solar system. Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees.

The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun, which is in the middle of an extremely active period at present. The last time it was so active was during the Medieval Warm Period of 700 years ago, a period where the Earth was warmer than it is today. Interestingly enough, the period in which it was least active (the Maunder Minimum) corresponds with the Little Ice Age the earth experienced in the 17th century.

Such correlations are causing many scientists to consider the Sun the primary cause of terrestrial climate change. The initial problem with this theory was that the changes in solar flux didn't appear to be enough to account for the warming.

However the research of scientist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute has provided the missing link. Increased solar activity not only warms the earth directly, it increases the strength of the solar winds. This reduces the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth, which directly reduces the formation rate of clouds. Less clouds = more warming.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv reconstructed 550 million years of Earth's climate change history. He found that 2/3 of the temperature variance could be explained by changes in cosmic flux alone, without even considering the direct influence of solar heating.

This has always been a weak point of CO2-based models, which have never been able to succesfully explain these warming and cooling trends in our past.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/19/2007 9:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Science Channel is syndicating a 2007 series called "Understanding Time." The episodes are not clearly labeled, but the first episode deals with deep time; time over millions of years.

One topic in the deep time episode deals with the fluctuations of the Earth's rotation, tilt, wobble, etc. Although I have not researched a lot of this personally, the evidence from the program seems to indicate that cosmic changes have incredible impacts on local climate change.

For example, one point made in the program is that during one of the last major ice ages, the ice records on the top of the Himalayas did not line up with the ones from the poles -- a differential that was created by the 41,000 year wobble of the Earth.




RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By Enoch2001 on 3/19/2007 9:47:37 AM , Rating: 1
It doesn't take much to understand how dramatic an effect the Earth's wobble has on the climate. After all, it's the Earth's tilt that causes its seasons. Wobble it one way and you can blur the lines (if not remove them altogether) between seasons.

Yikes!

That said, it's sad that this will detract from the real problem of CO2 emissions and the burning of fossil fuels. Can't wait to see where this thread goes...


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By porkpie on 3/19/2007 10:10:10 AM , Rating: 3
If this story is right, then there isn't a 'real problem' of co2 emissions to detract from.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By dever on 3/19/2007 1:37:53 PM , Rating: 3
This is obviously due to alien SUV CO2 emissions.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By JDub02 on 3/19/2007 1:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is obviously due to alien SUV CO2 emissions.


No, it's clearly George Bush's fault. The Republican party has secretly been burning fossil fuels on distant planets.


By dever on 3/19/2007 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmm... little smokies cooked on a martian grill... tasty!


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By exanimas on 3/20/2007 1:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, so Al Gore is wrong!?!?!?


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By uberfu on 3/20/2007 9:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
Al Gore Wrong ??

Nah - come on now_ Al Gore couldn't possibly be wrong_


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 9:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
But I'm super serial!!!


By Chadder007 on 3/21/2007 3:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
MANBEARPIG!!! :run:


By caqde on 3/21/2007 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily remember most things don't have one cause. This could be a major cause of warming, but I highly doubt that it is the only cause. Life would be so easy if there was one answer to everything, but then again it would also be boring.


By jmunjr on 3/19/2007 10:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't sad that it may detract from the real problem of man-induced global warming propaganda.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By arazok on 3/19/2007 11:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it would seem that this indicates that the real problem has less to do with C02 and more with solar activity. What's sad is that after reading this, you completely tossed the information aside, and declared that the 'real problem' is C02 emissions.

It's okay, ignoring evidence that is contrary to a conclusion the cool thing to do these days.

What amazes me is that studies like this get zero attention in the media. Meanwhile some UN bureaucrat can report that C02 causes pigs to grow wings, and everyone runs for the hills. Environmentalists have been looking for proof that we are going to destroy the earth since the 60's. Now they have everyone going along for the ride, and we're going to trash our economies in the process.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 5
What this information "indicates" is that our ecosystem is more complicated than we know and that the problem of global warming is a multi-faceted one. Studies similar to this one have indeed been given attention for a long time, studies which scientists, politicians and big business have been using to counter-act claims of carbon dioxide induced global warming.

What exactly does anyone have to gain by claiming that CO2 has caused global warming? Is Al Gore financing his world domination conspiracy with his lecture circuit paycheck? Are the "Environmentalists" raking in millions in "The End is Neigh!" t-shirt sales?

While Big Oil has everything to gain by deny global warming. Its taken 20 years for scientists to even acknowledge that global warming is even taking place. Why do you think that is?

Because global warming doesnt make anybody rich.

Give me a break pal.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By arazok on 3/19/2007 1:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
What exactly does anyone have to gain by claiming that CO2 has caused global warming? Is Al Gore financing his world domination conspiracy with his lecture circuit paycheck? Are the "Environmentalists" raking in millions in "The End is Neigh!" t-shirt sales?

Absolutely nothing. 1980's - What does anybody have to gain by telling us that Acid Rain will kill everything green? 1970's - Population growth will cause mass starvation. Deforestation? Mass Extinction? Pesticides?

What did anybody have to gain by ringing alarm bells about all of these past enviro-trendy issues? Nothing. They were all fears blown all out of proportion by environmentalists, and happily lapped up by a gullible public who can't do anything but read headlines. There is no vested interest here, just humans natural tendency to fear, and spread that fear to anyone who will listen.

And Al Gore is a politician, everything he does is about vested interests. Give me a break pal.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 1:27:39 PM , Rating: 1
Al Gore is a politician. Good job.

If you think we are not experiencing mass starvation, mass extinction, than you are incredibly naive. People rang the alarm bells and you are absolutely right, they didnt gain a damn thing because no one listened.
And now we are in the middle of exactly what we were warned against. They said we would have mass extinction, they said we would have global warming, they said we would have mass starvation. We do.

If you want to claim that global warming and the enviornmental problems we are facing is just fear mongering, then you are in for an unpleasant wake up call. "Pal"


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By dever on 3/19/2007 1:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
brandon... how about some citations? I shouldn't even respond to such, but really... mass starvation? The only things keeping people of the earth starving are corrupt governments, and environmental policies that discourage poor countries from using the same technologies that allow the rest of us to live in magnificent wealth.

Most things said by politicians are said for thier own political gain. Socialists, and other power-mongers, gain immense power when the public fears for their lives. When people are afraid, they are more willing to give up their own liberties and turn to government for help, whether or not the fear is valid.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By fk49 on 3/19/2007 4:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't have said it better myself. More people need to read Crichton's State of Fear. I wouldn't vouch for the scientific accuracy of the novel but he brings up good points on the motivations behind environmentalists.

Fear is what keeps people in line and causes them to unite under a leader against a perceived enemy (usually wars). We call it patriotism but too often its just a tool for power =(


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By Eris23007 on 3/20/2007 7:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
You make the (unfortunately extremely common) mistake of equating income (I.E., profit) with evil.

Profit is not evil. Profit = sustainable business. Sustainable business = jobs. Jobs = wealth for all. Wealth for all = fewer starving people, less civil strife, and many, many other benefits I'm not going to bother to list.

Why is this concept so frighteningly difficult for so many people to understand?


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/20/2007 8:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
I can think of one big example of how Profit in this case (oil companies) does equal evil... has anyone heard of the Iraq war? These profitable oil companies use their political influence to start a war to secure more profit for their business...

...Boy, the weapons manufacturers sure are turning a brilliant profit off of it. The oil companies have control over a market and eliminated their largest competitor, lots of profit there. Yet you and I are in the midst of a recession, social dissent from the war, a foriegn policy nightmare, let alone the fear of retaliation our children will now have to face on a daily bases. We wont even talk about the Iraqi people and the hell they are living in.

Profit is a wonderful boon, but there is no system in existance that doesnt contain a flip side an opposite reaction. One man gains only when another loses. Its the most basic of logic and when you apply it to a global scale, you start to realize that all our tremendous leaps forward have had their price and the difference doesnt just materialize out of thin air. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it. One day there will be nothing left to capitalize on if we dont start profiting RESPONSIBLY.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By eman 7613 on 3/20/2007 9:47:09 PM , Rating: 1
Congress is the only thing that can declare war, thats not the oil companies fault, thats the voters fault. ALL of us are to blame for the Iraq war. (and if you believe for one second that their current conditions are hell compared to what they went through under Saddam go jump off a bridge now)

An example of evil from the man made global warming bananza. the UN and numerous European countries and organizations have placed huge political pressure on developing African nations NOT to touch their coal or oil (which they have an abundance of both), but instead use solar and wind power. Consequently, we have the poorest and most underdeveloped nations in the world being forced to use the most expensive, inefficient, and unreliable power sources we have availably just short of harvesting energy from radio waves. Seems kinda cruel dont it?


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By porkpie on 3/21/2007 6:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
ABCNEWS just ran a report that most Iraqis polled say their life is better off now than before the war. This is a news agency that has been very critical of the Iraq War, so please don't embarrass yourself by calling the article biased:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAm...


By doctor sam adams on 3/21/2007 1:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
dude, that poll was from 3004...


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/21/2007 3:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate your concern... I'll try not to embarrass myself too much.

Now lets check some recent polls

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-18...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=1

I was able to find one that validates your point though...

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/world.cfm?story=2004%...

Here are some fairly recent statistics for you...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_con...

You make the call.


By eman7613 on 3/22/2007 10:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
A. thats 2005 - 2006, we invaded BEFORE that. basicaly just muted your own point.
B. I notice you didn't respond to what political Greenpeace initiatives have done to Africa's technological development.
C. Yes, much of funding for those runing for president comes from businesses, otherwise it would be nearly impossible to get your word & name out.
D. Saddam gassed his own capital, has been using chemical weapons since the 70s, and tortured & exicuted people daily for disagreeing with him. Life was worse under Saddam


By biohazard420420 on 3/22/2007 8:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
First let me address your statement about those "evil" corporations. First of all in all the talk about huge profits Exxon Mobil in particular one very important fact is left out or not addressed and that is the profit margin that they make. While the billions they made in profit may sound like they are screwing us the consumer if you look at their profit margin the amount they make on the product they sell is actually quite low in the 8 to 10% profit margin range. Which is far less than what th US govt makes from gas taxes. Aside from the fact that the majority of the profit gets reinvested in the company. This article actually lend creedence to a point I have had for years and that is that the models used to predict global warming are leaving out some very important natural factors that contribute to the warming.


By biohazard420420 on 3/22/2007 9:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
First let me address your statement about those "evil" corporations. First of all in all the talk about huge profits Exxon Mobil in particular one very important fact is left out or not addressed and that is the profit margin that they make. While the billions they made in profit may sound like they are screwing us the consumer if you look at their profit margin the amount they make on the product they sell is actually quite low in the 8 to 10% profit margin range. Which is far less than what th US govt makes from gas taxes. Aside from the fact that the majority of the profit gets reinvested in the company. This article actually lend creedence to a point I have had for years and that is that the models used to predict global warming are leaving out some very important natural factors that contribute to the warming.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By porkpie on 3/19/2007 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are the "Environmentalists" raking in millions...?"

Billions, actually. One environmental group alone (Greenpeace) gets several hundred million dollars each year in contributions. Enough for its leaders to draw fat salaries and fly around the world in private jets.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between billions and millions.
And lets continue to ignore Big Oil, since they are such good friends.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By porkpie on 3/19/2007 6:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, billions is bigger. And Billions is how much environmental groups and environmental political parties like the Greens rake in.

And no one is ignoring oil companies. But they pass 99.9% of their profits on to their shareholders. Environmental groups use all their profits to influence politicians and the public.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 6:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oil companies dont do that? Wow. I like the nice world you live in.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 6:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
What really cracks me up is how everyone on this forum seems to think environmental groups have this great agenda, when Big Oils agenda to keep us dependant on oil and bring us into wars to secure more product for them goes completely ignored. What are you people thinking? What agenda are the evil greenpeace people pushing? Dependancy on hummis and pita bread? Rampant pot smoking? Does greenpeace make a hybrid vehicle I'm not aware of? What product are they offering to us that politicians are going to force us to use?
They dont have Half the motive that big business has, or half the corrupting influence. Please someone sane respond!


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By porkpie on 3/19/2007 8:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What really cracks me up is how everyone on this forum seems to think environmental groups have this great agenda...
Of course they have an agenda. They admit it. Its their reason for existence. And most of them will say exactly what some people on this thread do...that they really don't care if global warming is true or not, they still support it for "other reasons".

US environmental groups are bad enough, but the ones in Europe are even worse. When the Communist Party of Holland, for instance, disbanded, the reason they gave was that they could "more effectively work through the environmental movement". No lie. So they merged into the GreenLeft party, and continued their anti-capitalist agenda.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 10:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
And once again you ignore the point.


By Clienthes on 3/21/2007 12:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
Was your point that oil companies make more money, and are therefore more evil that environmentalist groups?

Because that's what I'm getting out of it. That, and you are confused about the Iraq war.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 10:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Take the quote in context then respond please.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By SoCalBoomer on 3/20/2007 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
Looked to me like he did.


By brandonmichael on 3/20/2007 2:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
in the context of the sentance he did not.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By eman 7613 on 3/20/2007 9:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
A. Global Warming is indead, a problem that must be adressed i agree.
A2. Global Warming is not a cause of CO2 emissions! That is majority's politically and financially oriented.

B. Why People hype up global warming
- research money, the US alone gives out BILLIONS (i believe four billion alone in the previous year) for people doing research in man made global warming.
-Politcal, Margaret Thatcher is inpart to blame for this recent love of global warming. She didn't trust the miners who were on strike at the time, or middle easterners, and was constantly pushing nuclear power. Nuclear power has no co2 emissions, so that was one of her selling points. IRONICLY they through out water vapor like crazy which is far worse of a greenhouse gas then co2.
-It kept Algore influential, heck people even forgot that he claimed to invent the internet, which was just a flat out lie.

While it is in a companies vested interest to keep you using their product, you forget that many of these oil companies are co funding hydrogen, ehtonal, and vegtible oil powered vehicals.

Also, just a little FYI. When Global production of CO2 started to really kick up to large levels, around the time of WW2, global temperature began to decline for more then a decade, fluctuate for a while, and only begin to rise during the mid 70s


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By eman 7613 on 3/20/2007 9:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
wups, cant believe i forgot (darn, no edit button). One of the co founders of Greenpeace left the organization b/c of man made global warming, he knew it was wrong and did not agree with what they wanted to do & promote.


By trowbridge on 3/21/2007 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
You mean Patrick Moore. He founded Greenpeace, but left it when it changed from being a force for environmental good, to a quasi-socialistic political organization.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By Micronite on 3/19/2007 3:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
While I subscribe to the natural climate change theory, I truly believe that Al Gore thinks man-made global warming is a problem. From this perspective, it's easy to see why he promotes reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions. Besides any political motivations he may have, he thinks he can help save the world. I don't blame him for that (I blame him for his outrageous energy consumption). Again, just because Al Gore believes in man-made global warming does not mean it is true.

On this issue, we're faced with two ideas:
1) Global warming is caused by man. We need to change the way we operate in order to reduce CO2 emissions.
2) Global warming is caused by nature. If the earth wants to warm, the earth is going to warm.

I love how the man-made camp likes to cite numerous scientists and that it is "scientifically accepted". An enormous amount of these scientists are biologists who study small pieces of our ecosystem. They see how the warming trend has affected what they are studying and immediately jump on anything that provides hope for change. Most rarely specialize in the science that surrounds the warming trend.

In the mean time, feel free to turn your Air Conditioning down to help reduce emissions. I will keep mine at full, knowing that the earth will warm, but I will cool.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By fk49 on 3/19/2007 4:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
I recently attended a free showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" along with a seminar on helping the environment. Afterwards, I walked outside and couldn't help but chuckle at the irony of tens if not over a few hundred huge SUVs that had been driven miles to come.

In the end, it's a bunch of high-minded elites on soapboxes spouting their philosophies while remaining quite ignorant of the world around them


By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 6:04:23 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps they simply couldnt afford one of those fancy new hybrids? Used SUV's are going awfully cheap these days.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By kattanna on 3/20/2007 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(I blame him for his outrageous energy consumption)


hmmm..someone fell for that lame story i see. they compared his usage to the "national average" usage. the national average home is what a 2-3 bedroom home without a heated swimming pool. yeah..thats fair to compare against a 10+ bedroom home, heated swimming pool, and lighted gardens.

now im NOT an al gore fanboy..but you have to be highly suspicious about that announcement since it came out the DAY after his appearance and getting an oscar for his little documentary. with the whole joke about him announcing something big at the show. it was nothing more then a bad attempt to make him look bad..incase he DID announce something big..like him running for president again.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By Micronite on 3/20/2007 11:23:03 AM , Rating: 2
I can see how he used that much energy. That's no secret. No big deal really for anyone to use that much energy if they have the money and the need.

My problem is that he touts the virtues of an environmentalist yet doesn't quite live up to the standards of such. That is generally referred to as hypocrisy. He's set him self up as a leader in the fight against global warming but has failed to set the example... therefore a poor leader.

Politically motivated though the story may have been, it was founded in truth. I don't blindly disregard fact because it is politically motivated, I examine it.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By kattanna on 3/20/2007 1:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
it was also stated in another article by someone who took the time to actualoly look into it that he has been for some time already buying his power from a local renewable energy company..which means paying more then the standard local utility..and was already in the process of adding a bunch of solar panels to the house to help offset his usage.

now i ask you..are YOU doing any of those things?


By porkpie on 3/20/2007 1:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
Gore has been buying his electricity from a "local renewable energy company" only since late last year, after a reporter looked into the public records and found he wasn't doing this. Gore switched after the scandal, which is more proof he doesn't believe his own spiel.

And that of course doesn't include his $1000/month natural gas bill at his main house or the emissions from his other two homes. Or the biggest source of all-- his incessant round-the-world travel.


By Micronite on 3/20/2007 5:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
No. Why would I waste money doing something I don't believe in?


By SoCalBoomer on 3/20/2007 11:59:40 AM , Rating: 3
Why not make that comparison? It's entirely valid.

I don't have a swimming pool, live in a 2-3 bedroom home (2.5, actually, as listed). Lighted gardens? Why?

It's the measure of hypocrisy to preach one thing and yet act in another. Gore has been preaching that we MUST be responsible and yet. . . 10 bedrooms - does he really have 9 kids living at home? 8? 7 even? 5 even???

It wasn't a bad attempt - it was a very good one.


By HueyD on 3/20/2007 8:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if aliens are eligable for carbon credits???

Hey, I know...just buy all the carbon credits that are available, wha-la! No more polution, problem solved.


By TSS on 3/20/2007 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because global warming doesnt make anybody rich.


the new dutch goverment has instituted another enviroment tax which will make airline tickets across the board about 24 euro's (30 bucks) more expensive. all to improve the enviroment.

the only reason why your goverment isn't getting that rich is because taxes in america are nothing compared to europe.

there are people getting very rich off the enviroment vibe. its something everybody is willing to protect, and most people are willing to donate money to.

besides that, money isn't everything. enviromentalists have a strong grip on goverments of today, and that equals power. and to most people, power's worth a lot of money.


RE: Science Channel "Understanding Time"
By Hawkido on 3/20/2007 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
What is there to gain?

1. Al Gore goes on the Talk Circuit, gets a pay check for touting the sub-one-percent cause of global warming. (Yes CO2 Emmisions cause global warming just as having everyone pee facing West makes the Earth spin faster, it's just not enought to matter.)

2. Al Gore owns a "Non-Profit" Organization, where you can PAY to offset your carbon footprint. They calculate how much CO2 you produce, then you can PAY them to offset your production so you don't have to change your lifestyle. Where does that money go? well they plant a tree or two, then the rest is invested in companies that develop technologies to reduce carbon emmisions. Sounds nice doesn't it? Who's name is written on the shares? Who owns these companies? Al Gore and Friends of course! Oh, the Organization's name is on the shares but Al Gore and Friends(tm) are on the Board at this Organization (TerraPass). So basically you are funding the construction of Companies owned by Al Gore. How indeed can spamming the Tripe about Global Warming being Soley Caused by Carbon DiOxide earn a buck? Well Al Gore Invented the Internet surely he devised this too.


By Pedro Blanco on 8/27/2013 8:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
Many years later, I reply to your comment for the good of science: everyone peeing to the west would make the Earth spin faster only if one could fly by pulling from one's bootstraps.


By dever on 3/19/2007 2:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's sad that this will detract from the real problem
Yes, it's quite sad that the lowly peasants have the freedom to know these details. We here on capital hill know best. Let's not inconvenience everyone with truth.


By brandonmichael on 3/22/2007 6:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
Here we go again...
By oTAL on 3/19/2007 1:55:08 PM , Rating: 4
So... you keep posting these news about alternative explanations to global warming, which I think is cool! Nice possibilities and no real way to know which one is real or if maybe there's a combination of reasons for that....

What I want to know is where you want to go with this... Reducing pollution and CO2 emissions is advertised a means to stop global warming. Yet, at the end of the day, even if alarmist scientists got it wrong and the green-houses gases relation is bullshit we still have a cleaner earth... Ain't that a win-win scenario? On the other hand, if do nothing to reduce pollution, there are two possibilities... greenhouse gases theory is bullshit but you still live in a dirty planet, or the relation exists and, in the worst case scenario, hundreds of millions die and the global economy suffers in a way which hasn't been seen for over 60 years.

Cleaning up and wanting less pollution may not be the best means to the end of stopping global warming (I got my doubts on that) , but it should be a means and end by itself...
What do you have to say about that?




RE: Here we go again...
By dever on 3/19/2007 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
oTAL... that is a common belief... that there is "nothing to lose" by reducing pollution and CO2 emissions. However, millions are already dying becuase they do not live in developed countries. Of course, what you are essentially advocating is covering up knowledge! Wow, wow, wow. Don't tell the individual... they can't handle the facts. Decisions must be made by beaurocrats.

Let's continue looking at your reasoning... the electricity we derive from CO2-unfriendly sources, has allowed the mortality rate of developed countries to drop incredibly. It has allowed productivity to grow by orders of magnitude. It has allowed every convenience that you enjoy today.
quote:
Win-Win scenario?
There is nothing glamorous about living in a mud hud, getting diseases and parasites from dirty water, cooking indoors with cow dung, getting lung disease from smoke inhalation, burying your 4 month old daughter, bathing in sewage infested water, working 12 hours every day just to eat, being forced to stop your education in elementary school so you can work for the family, having no access to information so you can make informed choices for you and your family, travelling for days to go to an under-supplied market, having little choice of occupation, suffering at the hands of a witch-doctor for an otherwise easily treatable malody...

... this list could continue for days. But you are completely unaware of the great privilege you live in or the profound impact of denying others the same privileges.


RE: Here we go again...
By oTAL on 3/19/2007 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 4
Dude, go easy on the drama ;)
Respecting Kyoto or enforcing more efficient industrial filters, tighter waste controls or better mileages does mean money spent but it dos not mean a slowing economy, much less the one you're describing. The truth is that, sometimes, new regulations force industries out of long slumbers and reinvigorate competition, development and economy. I see brutal wastes in many places that could be tamed with a conscient effort towards reducing pollution and energy waste.
As far as many people might not want it to be true, if you would tax gas hogs more and green cars less that would incentivate (not force) the industry into that path. If you created a "green tax" on fossil fuels and trash and used it to create infrastructures and develop recycling paths to reduce our impact on the environment it would incentivate people to be greener.
There are many ways to do it which could either hurt or help the economy.... one way or the other, most of these measures would do so marginally... life would go on as we have it now, but we would live in a cleaner place, with LESS diseases, LESS allergies, and LESS ecological nightmares like the oil spills, rain forest burning, and the like.
Turn environmentalism into an industry and it will grow! Turn "green" into an asset and it will make the world richer.

If a company can have a 1% higher profit margin than his competition by being dirtier, but within the law, they usually do it, forcing the competition towards the same path.
Whose fault is that? The companies'? No! It's the legislators fault! They should be incentivating companies and individuals to go green, like California does, instead of blocking every little step taken in that direction like the current US administration does....

As for your scenario, believe it or not MANY people die from pollution related illness....


RE: Here we go again...
By brandonmichael on 3/19/2007 5:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you otal... you nailed it.


RE: Here we go again...
By SoCalBoomer on 3/20/2007 12:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, using California as an example isn't very good as businesses have been fleeing from Cali's regulations for years, our power distribution and production is way under capacity, and our taxes do not go for what we voted them to be earmarked for.

That being said - I agree with your point. It doesn't hurt to be responsible with our environment. I'd rather see fish in our streams; I'd rather see blue sky in LA rather than brown; you get the idea.

And I'd rather see us not dependent on countries which dislike/hate us for our power needs.


RE: Here we go again...
By porkpie on 3/20/2007 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is the CO2 shell game clouds the real issue of pollution. For instance, ultra-efficient diesels generate less CO2 per mile than gas cars. But even the cleanest diesels generate slightly more particulates, NOx and other air pollutants. So people buying them to "save the planet" are not helping those skies in LA, they're hurting them.


RE: Here we go again...
By dever on 3/20/2007 2:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that there are many ways to "incentivate" as you said. But you mainly suggest penalties in the form of taxes. You understate the degree to which fuels and energy is tied into our economy and productivity. Everything we consume is intricately tied to energy prices through multiple levels of distribution and ever increasing taxes at each level isn't a viable solution.

Any tax on energy, along with it's original cost, already gives incentive to use less. You imply that there is no incentive to be efficient. There is... it's called cost. This is the beauty of free markets. Over time, yes it takes time, costs mold effeciency through competition. But tinkering with the market through taxes and incentives that favor one industry over another, usually end up producing inefficiencies in at least one of the industries... in the long term, these inefficiencies hurt everyone, including the environment.


RE: Here we go again...
By brandonmichael on 3/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Here we go again...
By Eris23007 on 3/20/2007 8:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
How about my girlfriend who just flew to Mali (in sub-saharan western Africa) last night? She is there working on her PhD thesis, studying malaria on American funding. There happens to be a population there that has significant natural resistance to the plasmodium parasite (the cause of malaria), and they're studying why.

The point is, our society is wealthy enough to fund enormous amounts of such medical studies, whether on Malaria, AIDS, or other diseases that affect the developing world, because of our economic system that generates our privilege. America is, by far, the greatest source of philanthropic donations to the developing world.

Our country, our businesses, and our citiznes share an enormous amount of their resources with our underprivileged neighbors. In 2004, individual American citizens gave $47 Billion to developing countries. The total amount of private giving in 2004 alone is estimated at $71.2 Billion, and that's in addition to $19.7 Billion in Official Developmental Assistance (ODA), which is direct aid from the U.S. Federal Government. That's a total of nearly $91 BILLION in philanthropic contributions by Americans to the developing world .

http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhi...

See table 1, Page 15

The argument Dever makes is that by reducing governmental regulation to the bare minimum, it frees the individual actors to make individual decisions, which has repeatedly shown throughout history to be the most economically efficient way of allocating scare resources. I agree that our current society has some issues with short-sighted choices that trade short-term gain for longer-term challenges, but the so-called fixes that are currently proposed cause far more harm than good.

Most economists estimate that reducing CO2 output by enough of a margin to have a noticeable effect on global warming would reduce global GDP by 5-20%, based on the current models that are used to estimate the effect of CO2 on global warming, which pretty much everyone agrees are flawed due to the pervasive nonlinearities present in the earth's weather system. That doesn't sound like much until you consider that global GDP is estimated at $61 Trillion for 2006, and even a 5% reduction means losing $3.05 Trillion PER YEAR.

Your argument is about fixing a problem that isn't proven to conclusively exist, and forcing the world to forgo an enormous amount of economic development (which means jobs, income, etc. and therefore the ability to purchase food, clean water, etc.) to do so.

If you really want to fix a problem, how about we spend 0.01% of global GDP on AIDS, which kills on the order of 3 million people a year, or spend 0.5% of global GDP on building clean water systems or better food distribution networks for the developing world? You'll save many thousands of times more lives, while costing far less. Not only that, such solutions will help spur economic development - and self-sufficiency - by establishing conditions conducive to long-term economic success (note for all you nay-sayers out there: I'm aware that the corruption problems must be solved first, before the desired effects can be achieved).

Brandonmichael your argument is all about your fear that global warming is going to cause devastating damage to the world, and that we as humans actually have the power to do something to change the situation. Fear is a powerful motivator in humans. Unfortunately it usually elicits anything but the best response to the problem.

I feel sorry for all of our children with such fear-motivated people in this world, who will sacrifice lives to the altar of what may or may not be fixable by humans.


RE: Here we go again...
By brandonmichael on 3/21/2007 2:21:20 AM , Rating: 1
Eris, I hardly know where to start with so much misdirection to wade through. First of all, I am once again astounded that I am speaking to yet another person on this forum who claims that global warming is not yet a confirmed problem... I thought we had passed that.

Lets not bullshit with economic figures. Will it hurt the economy to stop polluting our atmosphere? Yes, initially, all change takes time, thats a basic premise.
Your argument Eris seems to be "stay the course" why fix it if it aint broke? I am telling you that it is broke Eris. You people can tell me till youre blue in the face, but it takes little to understand INDUSTRIAL WASTE IS NOT GOOD FOR HUMANS!! If our vehicle emissions are no different than those of nature, I suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe for a few minuets... Contrast that with some decaying leaves and tell me which is worse. Why is it so easy to kill oneself by inhaling exhaust fumes if the byproducts of our automobiles are so harmless? Its common sense that needs no statistic. Multiply that by every car in the world running constantly for years, add all of the industrial atmospheric byproduct, toxic, noxious and tell me why I shouldnt ask for alittle reform, even if it is expensive and someone like you has to get off his ass and take a bus every now and then?

Fear is a powerful motivator. Fear of change. Fear of the unknown. That and sloth seem to be able to turn intelligent people into mindless cattle that insist no change is necessary when the faults in the system are glaring.
You spend so much energy maintaining that nothing is wrong... Try alittle harder.

As for me being a fearful person... My fear motivated actions consist of riding a bike instead of driving a car and wasting my time on insanely conservative tech forums. You want an end to AIDS? Dont be redundant. Who doesnt? Because I represent the opposite opinion you assume I want more governmental controls... Incorrect.

The kind of world I want is similar to yours Eris, I just want to be able to see the sky and maybe some trees.


RE: Here we go again...
By Eris23007 on 3/21/2007 10:22:28 PM , Rating: 3
Your response is a strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Nowhere did I state that there is no problem or that industrial waste is good for humans. If you would relax a little, and read carefully instead of emotionally, you might learn something. I also recommend you avoid personal attacks. You know nothing of me or my lifestyle and are making unwarranted assumptions, both about my energy consumption habits and my political leanings, neither of which are relevant in a fact-based debate. I will not respond to further ad hominem attacks.

Now then, on to the facts. I am not debating whether or not global warming is occurring. There is ample evidence that parts, at least, of the earth, are getting warmer. The major questions are:

1. How much warmer?
2. What will be the effects?
3. What is the cause?
4. Is it within the historic standard deviation for earth's temperature?
5. What can be done about it?

What you seem to be failing to observe is that the causes of global warming are still very much theoretical - and the scientific evidence that masher2 has presented shows a significant probability that global warming is not substantially caused by humans, but instead by natural variations in the heat output of the sun.

You also fail to note that the predicted effects vary widely - and seem to keep trending down towards the less severe as research progresses (e.g. the reduction from ~20 foot sea-level-rise predictions in the '90's to on the order of inches now, per the UN reports).

While you wish to throw out the fact-based economic figures and focus on the dramatic descriptions of gloom and doom, said economic figures are of critical importance when encountering a world with limited resources . One fundamental definition of economics is "the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."

There is only so much we can do - and every time we choose to do one thing, we are explicitly choosing not to do something else. Ergo, choosing to invest enormous amounts of world resources to "fix" global warming (if indeed that is possible at our present level of technological development) instead of choosing to invest those resources toward economic advancement for the disadvantaged, medical research to cure many horrible diseases, planting trees in the rainforest, or whatever else is the cause du jour. My principal argument with my Green Party-type friends (I don't use the word "environmentalist," as I consider myself that, but I certainly don't follow the Sierra Club line or any other party line for that mantter) is that they constantly ignore the fact of life that says every place you want to spend money means you aren't spending money somewhere else - and rest assured, any of the proposed fixes to global warming would be enormously expensive, particularly to the United States of America due to our disproportionate share of world economic production (and commensurate share of world CO2 outgassing).

I don't know what your educational background is, but I am an engineer by training and by temperament. I believe in the scientific method: hypothesis, followed by repeated and repeatable experiments to verify evidence that directly proves the hypothesis. At this time, based on my training and experience, I believe the present theories of global warming causes and effects are too widely varied and have insufficient evidence to warrant the presently proposed remedies.

I am perfectly fine with individuals choosing to buy lower gas-consumptive vehicles, and I encourage businesses to offer such products. Notice how well the free market is working. I also note that power companies are starting to offer individuals the ability to purchase "green" energy (e.g. from wind farms). Wonderful. Another example of the free market working. I myself would be an enthusiastic purchaser of nuclear energy, were I provided the option to select where my energy consumption originated, as I believe that nuclear energy is by far the best solution to our present set of energy problems.

What I'm not fine with is an attempt by the rest of the world to cow the US into crippling its economy by signing up for carbon emissions treaties that disproportionately harm the US while favoring China. I'm not fine with an attempt by sanctimonious "true-believer" politicians to scare the population with dramatic horror stories of what "might" happen while living a life of enormous energy consumption. I'm not fine with losing my job due to lousy market conditions because people are worried about what "might" happen if we don't invest our money elsewhere.

You know what else "might" happen? An enormous asteroid "might" smack into the earth at any time and cause far greater global devastation than anything the global warming crowd has dreamed up. In fact, strike that - sooner or later, the laws of probability say that *WILL* happen (granted, it may be millions of years before it does). That said, I'm not about to advocate spending 20% of global GDP to solve *that* problem either.

I could go on, but I can really no longer spare any time.


RE: Here we go again...
By brandonmichael on 3/21/2007 11:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
I'm going to quote you Eris...

"Nowhere did I state that there is no problem..."
"Your argument is about fixing a problem that isn't proven to conclusively exist..."

"I also recommend you avoid personal attacks..."
"I feel sorry for all of our children with such fear-motivated people in this world..."

"You know nothing of me or my lifestyle and are making unwarranted assumptions..."
"Brandonmichael your argument is all about your fear that global warming is going to cause devastating damage to the world"

And speaking of Straw Men...

"What I'm not fine with is an attempt by the rest of the world to cow the US into crippling its economy by signing up for carbon emissions treaties that disproportionately harm the US while favoring China. I'm not fine with an attempt by sanctimonious "true-believer" politicians to scare the population with dramatic horror stories of what "might" happen while living a life of enormous energy consumption. I'm not fine with losing my job due to lousy market conditions because people are worried about what "might" happen if we don't invest our money elsewhere."

I certainly dont remember suggesting anything like that.

As far as my viscous assumptions about your politcal leanings I think if you would read MY post alittle closer, you too could learn something.

Eris, you are arguing with yourself apparently. Leave me out of it.


RE: Here we go again...
By Eris23007 on 3/21/2007 10:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and incidentally, this tech forum is not "insanely conservative". It is populated by people who are interested in technology. People who are interested in technology tend to be unusually strong in the following areas:

- Intelligence
- Critical thinking (I.E. unwilling to just accept what someone tells them)
- Comfort with the scientific method

All of these tend to combine toward skepticism of hype. Global warming is just another example of said skepticism.


RE: Here we go again...
By brandonmichael on 3/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Here we go again...
By porkpie on 3/19/2007 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like a well known quote by famed environmentalist Stephen Schneider:
quote:
we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest...


RE: Here we go again...
By fk49 on 3/19/2007 4:38:37 PM , Rating: 3
Personally speaking, I think politicians have melded global warming and pollution/environmentalism into the same issue when they are entirely different problems. Cleaning up sewage and litter, saving baby seals doesn't cool down the planet. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also doesn't equate to a healthier, greener planet. However, environmentalists leverage the public image from one and apply to the other as a means to get more support.

Just my .02


RE: Here we go again...
By Senju on 3/20/2007 12:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
You almost made your point but not quite. We should not just sit around and do nothing. If it is true that the SUN is the cause, we need to find ways to slow it down! One way is in looking into GEO-engineering where we can physically block some of the sun by laying an extra layer over our atmosphere. Don't ask me how. :D We do need money in slowing climate change - whatever the reason is. I want to make one thing clear: We may not be able to stop it but we try to slow it down until us humans can create OFF-WORLD colonies and artificial livable environments. Even our ocean could be new place to live in the future. Anyway, I do wish for cleaner air.


RE: Here we go again...
By SoCalBoomer on 3/20/2007 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Senju

You're assuming it would be a permanent thing - but we'd have to remove that layer as soon as the sun cycled away from its peak.

This is the problem I have with most people preaching this kind of motivation - the earth moves in Cycles, the Sun moves in Cycles. Who is to say that solutions like yours (which would likely be non-reversable in any easy fashion) will not cause more harm at the other end of the Cycle?


RE: Here we go again...
By HueyD on 3/20/2007 8:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone here believes that pollution is a good thing. What bothers me is how the enviromentalists follow their "leaders" like its a religion, believe and do what ever their leaders say. "Polution is as Polution does", so how does buying carbon credits offset pollution? It doesn't. It's big money making scheme for the "leaders" of the environmentalist movement, their followers (sheep) get into a frenzy over some corporation, it doesn't matter which corporation as long as it's a rich one, then the leaders come in and say "If you buy carbon credits we will stop bothering you."

my 2 cents...


Less clouds = More warming?
By UNCjigga on 3/19/2007 3:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? What evidence is there to support that conclusion? Everything I'd been taught seemed to indicate the opposite--I thought cloud cover prevented some solar radiation (and heat) from escaping the atmosphere after reflecting off the Earth's surface. Or am I thinking of the ozone layer? I don't really keep up with the science behind all this.

Anyhoo, I think we're not doing enough to address the issue of global warming. Regardless of what the cause is, I think we should be doing more in the areas of disaster preparedness and protecting our coastal cities if sea levels are indeed rising. And "going green" is something we should probably be doing anyway, regardless of whether we're to blame for "global warming". We are certainly to blame for species extinction, resource exhaustion, etc.




RE: Less clouds = More warming?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/19/2007 3:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Think of it this way. If you were to drop a meteorite on this planet like say what happened to the Dinosaurs. It wasn't so much that it wiped out all life on the planet. It just kicked up so much dust and dirt into the atmosphere that we had tons and tons of cloud cover. That cloud cover reflects Solar Radiation and thus prevents it from making it to the planet's surface. The surface would be warm at first since it was warm to begin with, but without new radiation it would start cooling and eventually you end up with an ice age. Now that "eventually" is just a few weeks maybe 2-4 months tops before things start icing over.


RE: Less clouds = More warming?
By Korvon on 3/19/2007 4:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I used to live in North Battleford Saskatchewan Canada, if you dont know where that is... check maps.google.com. Anyway winters there, bloody cold, we are talking about -40 (C or F it doesnt matter its all the same when its that cold). My point is that the coldest days are the clear winter days, thats when the temp drops. If its going to be cloudy it usually wont get as cold. Clouds make a big difference.

Cheers.


RE: Less clouds = More warming?
By fk49 on 3/19/2007 4:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about that one because you're referencing single instances of cooler temps. The poster above you is talking about a long term effect because of more cloud cover in general.

Also, IIRC, the days are clear because of the cold fronts in the stratosphere. The air is much drier because of the low temperature and clouds can't form without the moisture. Thus, clouds are indicators of lower temperature, not necessarily the causers.


RE: Less clouds = More warming?
By kattanna on 3/19/2007 3:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
while it is true clouds help to reflect back to the ground radiation from the sun reflecting off the ground, but that amount reflected is little compared to what is lost by the tops of the clouds preventing/reflecting any new incoming radiation from the sun. so net result is lost heat.

such can be experienced first hand when a cloud gets in the way of the sun and you.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/20/2007 1:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
There is an interesting topic called Global Dimming. Given the right conditions (like, contrails from aircraft), solar energy gets reflected back into space.

There were a couple interesting studies given on 9/11 when all the aircraft were grounded that demonstrated more light was hitting the U.S.


Scientific Fact
By Malhavoc on 3/19/2007 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 4
A couple of studies/experiments here and there do not denote scientific fact. "Fact" is denoted when results have been reproduced ad infinitum and have been subjected to peer review.

It drives me nuts when media pick up on a single study that contradicts something that has been accepted (not using this case specifically as neither side has been proven unequivocally). Nutritional, diet and health studies/claims are notorious in this regard.

However both of these theories could be accepted, as something as grandiose as global warming may have multiple causes. So warming due to human action or warming due to solar activity could both be plausible explanations to current phenomenon.




RE: Scientific Fact
By dever on 3/19/2007 2:01:16 PM , Rating: 3
You may be confusing 'plausible' with 'possible'. Anything is possible (refer to Douglas Adam's improbability drive). Remember, man-made CO2 is dwarfed by natural CO2 output from things like decaying leaves and volcanoes. Current estimates put human CO2 output at less than 5% of the total produced by the earth's natural processes. Also, CO2 is a minor player in greenhouse gases. (It makes up less than 5% of greenhouse gases. The major player is water vapor, that makes up about 95%.) Put these two things together and you realize that man-made CO2 is less than 1 part in 400 of the total greenhouse gases.

I guess it's possible that's what is driving global warming, but I'd stop before I say plausble or likely. It would be more responsible to look closely at solar activity before crippling the world's economies and stifling the developing nations growth and leaving millions to die prematurely. All because it's 'possible' the warming trend we see now is due to humans, even though these warming trends have happened since the dawn of our earth's existance.


RE: Scientific Fact
By Malhavoc on 3/19/2007 2:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
I see nothing wrong with using 'plausible' as my word choice. Also, I'm not weighting credibility of either argument.


RE: Scientific Fact
By brandonmichael on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Scientific Fact
By SDA on 3/19/2007 3:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. This is the important thing, here. This is interesting data, something well worth looking at and considering, but people need to be careful about accepting or rejecting it outright. Cautious analysis of the data and study as well as more work in the same field will corroborate or falsify it. Science has advanced mankind precisely because the scientific method promotes rational skepticism and cautious analysis over either faith or inertia.

Also, in response to the other poster, "plausible" is not quite the same thing as "likely". I don't know about how you read it, but in the context of scientific debate, the meaning of "plausible" is used to mean something like "possible" a lot. I guess you could say it means "possible, and worthy of further cautious consideration", whereas likely means something more like "possible and probable".


"bow shock" solar wind front
By rtrski on 3/19/2007 7:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
When one of the Voyagers crossed the 'shock wave' or whatever of the solar wind hitting interstellar dust a few months (?) back or so...wasn't there a bit of surprise that the front seemed to be moving? Would help correlate with increasing solar wind, perhaps....but I guess we can measure the sun much more directly, and don't need the correlation (?)

Sorry, just random musings. Going to have to search for the articles I was thinking about (about the heliopause or summat??)




RE: "bow shock" solar wind front
By fk49 on 3/20/2007 5:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
The "bow shock" you reference is the impact energy of the solar wind colliding with Earth's magnetosphere. Imagine sticking you finger into water coming out of a faucet - the finger is the magnetosphere, the water is the radioactive solar wind's particles and when they hit, the water sort of froths around then flows around your finger.

When the force of solar wind increases, the magnetosphere is compressed and recedes slightly. Solar wind gets to very high velocities during solar storms and coronal mass ejections (solar flares) but what you mention is interesting. It would mean that the magnetosphere had seen a change, but no sun-observing satellites had recorded a solar storm, indicating that something else is accounting for changes in solar wind.


Conspiracy Theory??...
By cheetah2k on 3/19/2007 8:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
I often wonder sometimes, what the hell is really happening with global warming. Everyone is currently pointing at C02 emmissions, and this has been the flavour of the last 10-15 years. STOP emmissions, and everything will be alright. Everyone knows this isnt going to happen, so is CO2 emmissions going to be the scape-goat to even larger universal issues??

With this article in mind, I consider that either scientists know more than they are leading on, or they don't know what the frak is happening, so they try to BS their way relating to other issues.

I am sure there is a conspiracy theory to all of this. I am also very sure we aren't being told the whole story.

You have to consider... Is the Sun the cause of our global warming? Is there universal trouble on the horizon? Are we facing global change based on historical data? Did the US let Nth Korea test their nuclear weapons to adjust the earth's wobble?

I for one feel that the seasons are slipping later every year. A good example, in Australia last Christmas. Temperatures that rise as high as 35 degrees are usually experienced. But instead, they were some 11-12 degrees cooler than this usual trend. This was also reflected in Hong Kong as well. Christmas time is usually very cold with temperatures in the late teens to early twenties, starting from the beginning of December. However it was still hot, even when i returned after Christmas in Australia early January...

What does this all mean? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. However, I am raising my eyebrow with concerns that our planet is in trouble, and I don't think C02 emmissions are solely responsible.





RE: Conspiracy Theory??...
By kattanna on 3/20/2007 10:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
what the frak is happening,


LOL i love it how much the battlestar galactica show is introducing that phrase into usage.

yeah..i know about the original all those years ago..i have them on DVD. Heck even my fiance is using that phrase nowadays..too funny


Super Nova
By plowak on 3/20/2007 12:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ya'all just don't git it. Our dearly beloved sun is about to go nova and all this here "global warm'm" stuff is just a smokescreen to keep us common folk from completely loose'n it altogether. As fer me, I'm just buy'n all the 80+ sunscreen I kin git my hands on.




RE: Super Nova
By cheetah2k on 3/21/2007 11:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's time Hollywood made an action movie about the Sun going Super Nova.

Now that would scare the pants off everyone!


And just wondering..
By fk49 on 3/20/2007 5:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
I had been wondering for a while after reading this how exactly the phenomenon works. I read the original report and it seems like the increased particles of solar wind are colliding with and negating more cosmic radiation particles coming from elsewhere. Now, it seems like these very same cosmic radiation particles help make clouds when they enter the atmosphere.

Now here's my question: What differentiates solar radiation from other cosmic radiation? Why doesn't our own radiation also help make clouds and balance this out? Anyone care to explain?




RE: And just wondering..
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2007 6:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "What differentiates solar radiation from other cosmic radiation? Why doesn't our own radiation also help make clouds..."

A very good question. The solar wind is indeed technically cosmic radiation...but its composed of extremely low energy particles, a few KeV or less. These particles aren't nearly energetic enough to reach the earth's surface (or even the lower atmosphere); they're deflected almost entirely by the earth's magnetosphere.

They are, however, energetic enough to form a vast bubble in space stretching out past Pluto-- the heliosphere. And that heliosphere is responsible for deflecting a portion of the high-energy cosmic radiation from deep space, particles which are many orders of magnitude more energetic than those in the solar wind.

The effect is actually quite large. On the earth's suface, we've recorded changes of a few percent in cosmic flux, just based on the Sun's 11-year (Schwabe) activity cycle. But of course the Sun has much larger cycles (Maunder, etc), which cause a correspondingly larger variation in the flux.


The question?
By werepossum on 3/21/2007 10:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
<<Do you ever venture out of your mothers basement? Seems to me that the question was never about who provided the better value, Gore or Big Oil. What post are you responding to anyway? >>

I was not answering a question per se. I was attempting to make the immediate point that Al Gore is also making money, an activity you called evil when applied to "Big Oil". The larger points are: (1) That attributing evil to an activity engaged in by both sides of an issue is at best foolish and at worst dishonest. (2) That "Big Oil" is making billions because they are producing and marketing a product that people want and need because of its utility.

Since I essentially received "I know you are, but what am I?" in response, I will assume I am unable to make this point in a manner in which you can comprehend.

But I did try.




RE: The question?
By brandonmichael on 3/22/2007 2:09:10 AM , Rating: 1
Well, thank you werepossum! I for one, am very appreciative of your effort...

If I somehow have managed to confuse you into thinking my argument involves profit being evil, I apologize. I dont find Big Oil suspect for its profitability. I find it suspect for its suspect activity. I find it suspect for purchasing the support of our government officials. I find it suspect for its deceitful business practices reminiscent of Big Tobacco. I find it suspect that we are fighting a war to secure more product for Big Oil to distribute.

There. Is that easy enough for you to understand?


Lot of maybies but no facts.
By viperpa on 3/19/2007 6:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of maybies but no facts. About 30 years ago they were saying the earth was cooling and we will soon have our next ice age. Now they are saying the earth is warming and we are all going to burn up like a crisp. I remember in the early 80's they were saying there would be WW3, tv shows showing the destruction of mankind, it never happened.

The earth has been heating and cooling for centuries. It's all part of the natural order. There is nothing to say that CO2 emmisions is the sole cause of global warming like they want you to believe. The destruction of mankind will not happen by the year 2100 like they want you to believe.

If Al Gore believes in his heart about global warming, then why does he own 3 houses? Why does he continually fly in private jets? Which contribute more CO2 than a big airliner. Why did he collect royalties from mining on his property? A mine that was putting toxins into the water.




A MAD MAX FUTURE!!!
By wingless on 3/20/2007 9:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
I better buy a black Ford Falcon police interceptor with a supercharger, a sawed off shotgun, and a tanker of oil because we're in for a MAD MAX kinda future. Well at least in Australia.

These small changes in temperature cause huge changes in our environment. The Sahara Desert used to be a rain forest, remember? Our planet is prone to rapid changes and unfortunately for us, we may be around to see one.

Well, at least we wont have an ice age.




Relative Profit
By werepossum on 3/21/2007 7:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Brandon, Al Gore makes millions from speeches on global warming, he made (and is making) millions from his movie on global warming, and he founded, sits on the board of, and presumably owns at least part of the company from which he buys his dispensations. Err, carbon offsets. He may also parley that accrued power into a presidency. All for telling you to do things he personally would not dream of doing. Presumably he could stay at home, not fly around on private jets and be chauffeured in limousines, and tell you the same thing for free, with a great benefit for the environment. Jet exhaust is no healthier when it's toting his oversized butt around. And Al Gore is just one man making a damn good living from hyping man-made global warming.

Oil companies make billions, true. But in return you get gasoline for those times when you venture out of your mother's basement.

Seems to me oil companies are giving the better value. Which, come to think of it, is why they make so much money.




RE: Relative Profit
By brandonmichael on 3/21/07, Rating: 0
This is fantastic news!
By nombrecinq on 3/20/2007 12:34:11 PM , Rating: 1
And to celebrate I'm going to take a long drive in my truck, be back soon...




Like an Energizer Bunny
By Griswold on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles
Global Warming Detected On Mars
March 5, 2007, 11:11 AM
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki