Jump to content

Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?


metadigital

Recommended Posts

It is known as the Little Ice Age. Bitter winters blighted much of the northern hemisphere for decades in the second half of the 17th century. The French army used frozen rivers as thoroughfares to invade the Netherlands. New Yorkers walked from Manhattan to Staten Island across the frozen harbour. Sea ice surrounded Iceland for miles and the island's population halved. It wasn't the first time temperatures had plunged: a couple of hundred years earlier, between 1420 and 1570, a climatic downturn claimed the Viking colonies on Greenland, turning them from fertile farmlands into arctic wastelands.

 

Could the sun have been to blame? We now know that, curiously, both these mini ice ages coincided with prolonged lulls in the sun's activity - the sunspots and dramatic flares that are driven by its powerful magnetic field.

 

Now some astronomers are predicting that the sun is about to enter another quiet period. With climate scientists warning that global warming is approaching a tipping point, beyond which rapid and possibly irreversible damage to our environment will be unavoidable, a calm sun and a resultant cold snap might be exactly what we need to give us breathing space to agree and enact pollution controls. "It would certainly buy us some time," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London.

 

Global average temperatures have risen by about 0.6

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A growing number of scientists believe that there are clear links between the sun's activity and the temperature on Earth.

 

Amazing!

Edited by Oerwinde
The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about clutching at straws. Its just fact that even if we stopped all CO2 emmisions now, global warming would continue. We've passed the point of no return now, that the permafrost is melting in Siberia releasing huge pockets of methane (which is 20x more effective at heating up the planet than CO2).

 

Face facts, we're ****ed.

 

As a planet we can't even do the most basic things like group up and force the Brazillians to cease cutting the rain forest... but with an idiot texan on one side and a nation of mass executioners on the other that should be no suprise!

 

Atmosphereic C02 levels are at around 380ppm atm with 450 being critical (I use that word with great under exageration) and 500+ being cataclsymic. Levels go up by about 3ppm each year. You do the maths.

There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol.

 

Even I couldn't have done a better satyre of your typical rabid eco-ignorant nutjob. Because that's what you were doing... right?

 

Keep it up dude.

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of sunspots and solar magnetic activity in general normally wax and wane in cycles lasting around 11 years, but every 200 years or so, the sunspots all but disappear as solar activity slumps (see "Field feedback"). For the past 50 years, on the other hand, the sun has been particularly restless. "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," says Nigel Weiss, a solar physicist at the University of Cambridge.

...

Solar activity might also influence climate through its effect on cosmic rays.

...

While the sun is magnetically calm, its field extends around 12 billion kilometres into space, but the field puffs up to 15 billion kilometres when the sun is active. Cosmic rays - the high-energy particles from deep space that are constantly hurtling towards us - are deflected by the field, so at active times far fewer of them reach the Earth.

...

The sun's polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the early 1950s, and to Svalgaard, the latest figures indicate that the sun's activity will be weaker during the next decade than it has been for more than 100 years. "Sunspot numbers are well on the way down in the next decade," he predicts. He expects fewer than six new sunspots per month, less than half the average number seen over the past decade.

 

This is hardly the sunspot crash that observations from 1645 to 1715 suggest. Back then, the appearance of even a single sunspot was major astronomical news, sparking hurriedly penned communications from one observatory to another.

...

 

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about clutching at straws. Its just fact that even if we stopped all CO2 emmisions now, global warming would continue. We've passed the point of no return now, that the permafrost is melting in Siberia releasing huge pockets of methane (which is 20x more effective at heating up the planet than CO2).

in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. sorry dude, but that just ain't true.

 

Face facts, we're ****ed.

there ya go, senseless alarmism ala al gore.

 

Atmosphereic C02 levels are at around 380ppm atm with 450 being critical (I use that word with great under exageration) and 500+ being cataclsymic.

hate to tell ya bud but

1) "critical" CO2 levels are actually 6000 ppm. that's the point where it becomes toxic to humans.

2) the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere is logarithmic (this is simple science that even someone like you should try to understand). that is, even if ALL of the 0.6 C in the last century or so is due to CO2 (best TRUE estimates place it at most half of that), it would take nearly 90,000 ppm to double the current influence.

 

Levels go up by about 3ppm each year. You do the maths.

i have, apparently you haven't.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

teh sun will go boom. no more earth so global warming will no longer be an issue.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Actually our sun lacks the sufficient mass to cause a critical chain reaction that would cause a nova or super nova. As the sun ages it will burn the heavier elements which will cause it to swell in enormous size, enveloping all the inner planets, but once this fuel is gone the sun will eventually become a dwarf star.

Edited by Sand

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

global warming is just part of the cycle:

ICE AGE ----> GLOBAL WARMING ----> ICE AGE.

 

We are coming out of an ice age (we've been coming out of it for a loooong time) and, hence, global warming. Mankind may be speeding up the process but it is an inevitability.

 

Their are different theories as to what exactly happens when the Earth gets too hot, but all theories point to the same ultimate conclusion: a new Ice Age, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the end of human existence on this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While global warming is cause for caution and for regulation against pollutants the climates that Earth sported in the past ranged from hotter and quite colder than they are currently at. We are indeed passengers in this regard but even a passenger can influence the driver in the final destination.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about clutching at straws. Its just fact that even if we stopped all CO2 emmisions now, global warming would continue. We've passed the point of no return now, that the permafrost is melting in Siberia releasing huge pockets of methane (which is 20x more effective at heating up the planet than CO2).
in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. sorry dude, but that just ain't true.

That's your opinion as a non-scientist.

 

Fact is you're wrong: Taks is oh so Wrong

 

Face facts, we're ****ed.

there ya go, senseless alarmism ala al gore.

It is senseless because we really have passed the point of no return. I wish I was wrong on this one, believe me I have nothing to gain from making this up.

 

Atmosphereic C02 levels are at around 380ppm atm with 450 being critical (I use that word with great under exageration) and 500+ being cataclsymic.
hate to tell ya bud but

1) "critical" CO2 levels are actually 6000 ppm. that's the point where it becomes toxic to humans.

Thou art moron. You really have no clue about meteorology if you're standing here and saying we only have to worry when we literally sufficate to death. [i think this is a gross over-simplification.]

2) the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere is logarithmic (this is simple science that even someone like you should try to understand). that is, even if ALL of the 0.6 C in the last century or so is due to CO2 (best TRUE estimates place it at most half of that), it would take nearly 90,000 ppm to double the current influence.

Its gone up by 3ppm each year, every year, for the last 10 years. [i don't know what point you were making.]

Levels go up by about 3ppm each year. You do the maths.

i have, apparently you haven't.

taks

Way to embarass yourself. [i believe that] Only a complete[ly ignorant person] would deny global warming exists.

Edited by metadigital

There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

teh sun will go boom. no more earth so global warming will no longer be an issue.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Our Sun will not go Boom, it does not have enough mass. When it burns off enough mass it will expand into a red giant, and then later compress into a white dwarf. And when it expands, it's expected to expand out about 1 AU (the Earth's distance to the sun. However, in the 5 billion years when this happens, the Earth is suspected to be about 1.7 AU away from the Sun.

 

Our Sun would need to be 1.4 times the mass it is for it to explode (Chandrasekhar limit). And even then, we might as well do something in the mean time. To say that it won't be an issue is a bit premature.

 

 

Actually our sun lacks the sufficient mass to cause a critical chain reaction that would cause a nova or super nova. As the sun ages it will burn the heavier elements which will cause it to swell in enormous size, enveloping all the inner planets, but once this fuel is gone the sun will eventually become a dwarf star.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "burning the heavier elements" because the Sun is overwhelmingly made up of hydrogen. In fact, the sun will expand because it will have burned off enough mass through the fusion of hydrogen (the lightest element), and eventually when enough of the mass has been released via radiation, there will not be enough gravitational force to counteract the expansive force that the fusion reaction has. And by the time this happens, the only planets expected to be pooched are Mercury and Venus. But the sun's mass is about 71% hydrogen, and 21% helium (a byproduct of hydrogen fusion). While a spectrum analysis has shown other elements as well, none of them are believed to make up more than even 1% of the Sun's mass, though Oxygen is close.

 

 

That's your opinion as a non-scientist.

 

Fact is you're wrong: Taks is oh so Wrong

 

I think he was referring to it being the point of no return.

 

It is senseless because we really have passed the point of no return. I wish I was wrong on this one, believe me I have nothing to gain from making this up.

 

How exactly have we passed the point of no return, when the article you referenced comments about how the Peat Bogs of Siberia didn't exist 11,000 years ago. Prior to that, the methane gas would have still been released into the atmosphere, and it probably still would have been wet so that it wouldn't oxidize.

 

 

Though at the same time, you're the exact same person that said people were essentially stupid simply because they were Muslim, so I'm thinking people should take your comments with an exceptional grain of salt. Especially when you toss out such gems as "You believe in God don't you. I can tell" in this thread, I'm not so sure you should be the one insulting people in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about clutching at straws. Its just fact that even if we stopped all CO2 emmisions now, global warming would continue. We've passed the point of no return now, that the permafrost is melting in Siberia releasing huge pockets of methane (which is 20x more effective at heating up the planet than CO2).
in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. sorry dude, but that just ain't true.

That's your opinion as a non-scientist.

 

Fact is you're wrong: Taks is oh so Wrong

Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We gotta get cracking on colonising the galaxy before that happens.

 

Amen, Brother! I'm with you. Let's pack the beers!

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion as a non-scientist.
hate to tell you, but i am a scientist. my specialty, btw, is studying signals (signal processing engineer) and how their statistics correlate with known effects. in particular, the methods of relating temperature and CO2 to human forces are based on something called Principal Component Analysis. i'm currently studying PCA's "parent" of sorts, called Independent Component Analysis.

 

Fact is you're wrong: Taks is oh so Wrong
so a NEWS article is proof i'm wrong? not only am i not wrong, you're a fool for thinking so. also, i'm curious how a peat bog is evidence of "global warming" and not just standard climate change that occurs regularly?

 

It is senseless because we really have passed the point of no return. I wish I was wrong on this one, believe me I have nothing to gain from making this up.

you're wrong. sorry dude.

 

Thou art moron. You really have no clue about meteorology if you're standing here and saying we only have to worry when we literally sufficate to death. [i think this is a gross over-simplification.]

there ya go, call me a moron and i must be wrong. you offered a statement about some extreme scenario without any proof. exactly what clue about meteorology do YOU have if you really think 380 ppm is any threat? we've had fairly recent ice ages over several thousand ppm. duh.

 

Its gone up by 3ppm each year, every year, for the last 10 years. [i don't know what point you were making.]
the point is that it does that all the time, even when humans were not around. the "logarithmic" statement regards the amount of heat CO2 can trap. it's like a window shade. there's only so much heat CO2 can trap. period. it effects a very specific region of the spectrum that reaches the earth from, mostly, the sun. we're already blocking most of that, btw. as you add CO2, you have to increase the amount to get the same effect. i.e. it is logarithmic. and i'm the moron?

 

this assessment, btw, does not even consider feedback effects that result from increased cloud coverage. that's another ball of wax that even the so-called "experts" have not figured out how to incorporate into their models.

 

Way to embarass yourself. [i believe that] Only a complete[ly ignorant person] would deny global warming exists.

or someone that actually understands, and studies, the science. try doing a little _research_ and realize how silly you sound.

 

taks

Edited by taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taks hits Moose for MASSIVE DAMAGE.

 

Moose: Death

Edited by Arkan

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

 

- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 

"I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...