It's well-known that average temperatures rise and fall over decades.
Our summer started before May and our spring started on Groundhogs Day, so it does seem to be a warmer year than normal. But if I remember correctly, last year was colder than normal.
Did someone disagree that this isn't happening?Originally Posted by Kim
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I'm not sure of the veracity of the idea that a large majority of people who call themselves scientists are believers in any meaningful sense in the popular versions of the current/previous decade's "Global warming" meme, my admittedly limited personal experience seems to contradict it.
The guy I've currently learned the most from wrt how the water cycle works is actually the famous skeptic Dr Roy Spencer, from his "Climate Confusion" book.
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
there is co2 in the air along with methane gas it has all gotten there from volcanoes n plankton so the way to fix it all is to destroy the whole world with a petaton wmd. i dont think nuclear winter would be an issue this way since the planet will turn into a puddle of peanutbutter and jelly.
i had difficulty voting this poll. while i think human caused climate change is most likely occurring, whether the effect will be that of "warming" is still under debate. some places are projected to actually get cooler.
video that shows the impact of rising water level on the local way of life and region's economy:
From what I understand the claim seems to be that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits more radiation from the sun than oxygen does; and this would heat the Earth. This has been used to explain the fact that the Earth is heating up much more rapidly than it has been before, suggesting recent global warming is an anomaly from natural climate change and a product of human production (CO2). However, I haven't seen any conclusive proof that shows the radiation absorption rate of carbon dioxide isn't negligible. So...probably, but I don't know what to believe?
Climate change is a major issue, I come from Beijing and it's literally getting swallowed up by the desert. It's also conjecture but before more ecological farming techniques took over the Middle East was turned into a desert due to the technique used in that region. Also as recently as the 1930's the Oklahoma dust bowl was certainly man made.
Global warming isn't really the appropriate term anymore, pretty much everyone uses climate change when discussing this topic seriously. I think climate change deniers have their head in the sand or their hand in someone's pocket. Most climate change deniers from what I have seen use some straw-mans to rationalize policies which ignore the effect of man on climate, when it's quite evident man can have a major effect on the environment.
As far as "man-made climate change" goes this is what I don't understand:
The deniers' logic consists of "Climate has changed in the past without human interference, and now it's changing again without human interference."
How does it prove anything about today's climate change if it's changed on its own in the past?
It doesn't mean that that's the only way it can change!
I'm not a scientist and I'm not that smart to figure it out, but people who are have done their research and experiments,
and have concluded that CO2 emission creates the greenhouse effect, trapping the sun's ray in the earth's atmosphere.
Unless I'm brilliant enough to do my own scientific research and experiments to disprove it, I'm not gonna be ignorant enough to argue.
Of course life's ecosystems will always continue, life has survived several mass extinctions and the resilience of DNA to push through a bottle-neck astounds.
Not the point, however. Its easy to be blasé about the loss of habitats and individual species when you are sitting pretty in some suburbia or urban home. You have no connection to the land. Your perspective is an engineered one. The extinction of a frog, or the loss of a forest ecosystem is brought to you by a news blip, sometimes a nature documentary streamed from a satellite. Oh well, nothing can be done, the human experiment marches forward.
You have never watched the decimation of millions of hectares of pine forest in a decade by the invasion of a beetle insect whose individuals are no larger then a grain of rice. This endemic quietly brought to British Columbia by warmer winters not seen in the history of this province stretching back to the ice age. You had no recollection of the land, like walking through the white pine in the heat of summer and smelling the pitch as it is heated in the mid-day sun. You have no idea the confusion and unfairness that is felt to watch your back yard in a couple of years turn grey as a billion trees die because of climate change. And not only the trees, but the hundreds of plant and animal species that lived within their canopies. You have no idea of the frustration and the confusion and shared sentiment of your peers both in your close circle and professionally that nothing can prevent this yet the cause was ultimately un-natural. It really all means nothing to you. For you its a thought bubble, a variable far removed from your first hand experience of the world. And so you are left only with the concept that all will eventually balance itself out because you've never felt it in your body, you have no idea what the loss truly means.
Which really is not all that unusual, you can count yourself in the majority. Humanity is largely responsible, yet the reason this is not a call to arms is not because one population grows at the expense of another. The reason this is not a call to arms is because truly the loss does not mean anything to people, perhaps at a visceral, immediate level. Its hard to feel desperate need to change when you are relatively comfortable in an urban apartment. Its easy to not care, in fact its basically natural to not care.
You argue that growth of one population mostly happens at the expense of another, yet that is a myopic interpretation of ecology. In actuality the balancing of species in a complex web of inter-cooperation is the method of long term survival of populations.
The irony here is that the very natural world that has allowed for your existence and intellectualism to flourish and thrive is itself becoming harmed beyond what is normal. It's only humanity's intellectualism that could consider selfish growth with annihilation of other living species normal.
Last edited by wacey; 08-25-2015 at 10:52 PM.
Hi, @Nyx.
The mechanism for planetary heating by CO2 is pretty simple, but I've never seen it explained in the popular press.
First, think of a red filter. Red light goes straight through it, but blue light is blocked, usually by being absorbed by compounds which have been mixed into the glass when it was molten. CO2 gas has the same kind of properties as those compounds, in that it lets visible light through, but blocks light that is in the Infrared part of the spectrum. If your eyes could see those wavelengths, the air would look as black as soot. There usually isn't a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the air at those wavelengths is merely really, really foggy and dark looking. Infrared cameras and imagers are designed to not look at those wavelengths, because there is nothing to see there. Everything is dark.
The temperature of the earth is a balance of the heat coming in from the sun, and the heat being radiated back into space. Space is cold, and like an icebox, if you have something at room temperature (like your face) and place it in front of an open icebox, the heat from your face will flow out into the cold and your face will get colder. You face is shining out heat in the infrared, just like a light bulb, just like the ground, and can lose heat that way.
Most of the heating energy from the sun arrives in the visible part of the spectrum, where the air is usually transparent. Sunlight streams straight down to the earth, and heats the ground.
As the ground heats up, it begins to radiate that heat back out into space in the form of infrared light, just like an iron heated by a fire begins to glow dull red (infrared), then red, then yellow, then white. The color of the heated rod depends on its temperature, and the "color" of the earth's dirt and water is infrared, because it is not that hot. The temperature of the earth results from the balance of the incoming sunlight and the outgoing thermal infrared light.
Unfortunately, adding more CO2 turns the air pitch black, and the heat (the infrared light) can't get through it to get back out into space. So, just like piling blankets onto a bed keeps your body heat in and keeps you warmer, the planet just warms up under the CO2 blanket and gets hotter and hotter.
The things that clear this CO2 from the air are its absorption into the oceans (like soda pop with fizzy CO2 dissolved in it, it dissolves your teeth and marine shells), the conversion of CO2 into plant material, and the weathering of rocks. But these processes are very, very slow to correct the damage CO2 does by heating the planet. Better to just not add more of it.
Planetary scientists can calculate the expected temperature of a planet, based on its size, distance from the sun, rotation rate, atmospheric composition, etc. If the earth didn't have its carbon-dioxide blanket at all, the average temperature would not be 58 degrees F, but would be slightly below freezing. Add a few more blankets, and it is not hard to figure out what will happen.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 08-25-2015 at 08:35 PM.
this is the thing you don't seem to understand william... for most animals to "adapt" they have to evolve biologically. biological evolution is a slow process for many organisms. they can't just get on the cretaceous climate page in 100-200 years. that is far too fast and abrupt. the ones that can't get on the cretaceous climate page will die, and those that rely on them will probably die too, and those that rely on them, etc.
of course it's not as simple as just the temperatures of the surface/air/ocean... there are other factors like ocean salinity, and organisms are often very sensitive to that too.
anyway, i don't know about others, but i don't want the jurassic or cretaceous climates back. hot, balmy weather and a glaring sun may be great for reptiles, but i like it a bit cooler. also, during the cretaceous, like half of my continent was under water because sea levels were so high.
i also like the life that lives on earth now. i don't want to squander it all to hell because some people are obsessed with oil profits. i'm okay if those people go back to the cretaceous and get eaten by dinosaurs though. please. by all means. >:-)
ps: i know i just said "animals" but i mean most organisms... microbes of course can evolve quite fast. they'll be fine.
This.
ha I was wondering for a moment who had chosen those weird poll options.
It is heating up that fast....
We are done here.
Per capita pollution in the US and west still is much greater than China, don't know about Russia. And a lot of the pollution in China comes from product Westerners are consuming as well. China will invest way more money and manpower into green energy than the US in the next 50 years and will make the neccessary advancements to fix many of their climate issues, many of which happened long before major industrialization such as desertification.
The Chinese are the largest generators of renewable energy in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The West will diddle and wag their fingers at China but it doesn't change the fact the Chinese give a damn about their long term sustainability, and they don't have their head stuck up some energy lobby's ass to be blind to realities, all you have to do is go out side to see how shitty the environment is due to industrialization.
i didn't dig up your post... you can't blame me for not noticing your last argument was over a year old when you didn't notice that i didn't revive the thread... (although i suspect you did notice that, but i'm pretending not to)
i did use hyperbole... but evidence is already in about how warming in particular has impacted organisms and ecosystems... it is already changing too fast.No kidding organisms can't adapt that fast to 'CLIMATE' changes. The point of the post you quoted that from was that THE EARTH IS NOT WARMING THAT FAST. It's no concern for like 3 feet of sea level water rising every 100 years, or whatever it was. I don't even feel like going back and looking at the numbers to respond to this post.
otherwise, i was referring to these points of yours:
you said basically that because the earth warms and cools over long periods of time, the current anthropogenic climate changes don't matter. my point was, in the case of warming, the rate at which it is warming matters for organisms. also despite my use of hyperbole (although not to say that scenario couldn't happen), even a 1 degree change can make a big difference for organisms, either making them more or less successful. if they are made more successful they can have their own abrupt impact on other organisms, and this can still undermine an ecosystem.
underlying this, is my objection to the indifferent attitude ("it's not a big deal").
once again, it's unreasonable to expect animals to adapt to our abrupt changes when those changes put their survival in jeopardy (as in their biology can't withstand the new conditions).
^your first argument, where because the earth used to be much warmer, it's fine for it to get really warm now (that's what my cretaceous period point was about... i personally don't want human civilization to remake the climate so it's like it was in the cretaceous. that would suck). but same argument of yours (the original) - the incredibly fast rate of the warming - isn't considered.People should know that global warming isn't a big deal, and that the world used to actually be MUCH warmer. My stepmother's brother-in-law used to work for the military who explained they have scientists digging at the South Pole for research. He said, surprisingly, buried underneath layers and layers of snow & ice, they found fossilized tropical plants. TROPICAL PLANTS. At the South Pole.
This clearly shows that temperatures were MUCH higher in the past, and that ice at both ends of our planet didn't always exist. This would also suggest water levels were once much higher, which I've always believed. Pretty much every major religion has a story of a major flood: Christians have Noah's Ark, Greeks have the Ogygian flood, etc., and scientists have also found evidence of higher water levels, finding rare seashells in mountaintops, etc.
so the point is that throughout the thread, you were saying it was a lot warmer in the past (and the earth's climate changes a lot over *long* periods of time), so it's not a problem to make it really warm now (all of a sudden, i would add). and as you said this, there wasn't thought to how rapidly anthropogenic climate change is occurring. that's why i brought up the rate.
my point: sudden climate changes, like the one we seem to be undergoing now, do result in mass extinction (history already tells us this). and by "sudden" i mean a couple hundred years (ish), which though that may be a long time to us mortals, it's nothing in terms of the geological time scale. it's only a fraction of a blink of an eye. biological evolution for many organisms can't move at that sort of light speed.
your focus was on how this will affect humans of course... but even for humans, having to relocate a whole city due to rising sea levels *is* a big deal, even if they have 10 years to do it.
also, i don't understand why undermining our ecosystems - the web of life we too depend on - would not be a big deal. i personally think humanity has a good chance of braving through its own destructive wiles... but i personally value the other lifeforms on earth too, and the overall web of life. so to me, it is a big deal on that basis alone.
he sunk the 'blame it all on china' part of your argument...That's good they are moving in the right direction then. I checked out your link too, and it looks promising. Hopefully many of these issues will come to an end in our generation.
eta: so, basically, i am saying that though i don't think mass hysteria or panic help anyone or really solve anything, i reject your apparent arguments that everything is ok. it's not okay, not in the least, and i just want to communicate that.
Last edited by marooned; 08-26-2015 at 01:50 AM.
We are in a naturally occurring Ice Age largely because of factors such as the part of the Milankovitch cycle we are in (geological, biological, atmospherical and certain environmental factors have also played significant roles):
Of course the earth has been warmer in the past: that burning coal in your freezer results in a lower temperature than if you were to burn it in a hot furnace is no mystery. The issue is that humans are emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from stocks that are not readily recoverable (as of yet), on top of the naturally occurring effect of global warming. Even during the Ice Age we are a part of, the huge increase in greenhouse gases has a hugely damaging impact on the environment, and is predicted to have an even greater, amplified impact in the next century and more. Shifting in and out of Ice Ages in short periods of time results in cataclysmic events as it is: knowingly enhancing the global warming effect through human action to the extent we are is clearly rather foolish.Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.
The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle.
Last edited by Not A Communist Shill; 07-07-2017 at 06:24 PM.
I asked "so what" to see why we should care as a whole. I personally care and don't want to witness the destruction of the planet or a large extinction. Human activity is still part of nature, which includes the modern lifestyle. However, it is unsustainable. At some point nature will correct for this imbalance. After this Anthropogenic Age we live in, new species will evolve and flourish. There are already signs that some species of coral thrive in warmer oceans, which suggests that coral already carry a gene that allows them to adapt to warmer climates.
I'm not advocating a continuation of what we are doing to accelerate climate change and the rate of extinction. I think we should decrease our energy consumption and consume less. I'm just saying that these changes are going to happen because we've already crossed the threshold. Life will carry on as it has since it first evolved because it will have to. It is that or life will cease to exist. However, one primordial cell has diversified countless survival mechanisms, so I think there is a good chance that it will survive.
Last edited by Skepsis; 08-26-2015 at 08:03 PM. Reason: grammar
Its not just youTjay, I say this kind if stuff in real life. Ive already washed my hands of it. I'm a cynic I think humanity if gievn the chance will squeeze every last drop of resource from mineral to water to oil to wood if given the chance.
Life will diversify that has been priven by the fossil records with the meteor amoung other exctinction events. The novel Orynx and Crake takes place in a dystopic future where the Earth is over crowed and covered in industrial pollution and after every human being dies from a virus, the natural world adapts and recovers. So if you want to take a wider perspective on climate change then no, life does not, if it could, have anything to fear.
Is that really what humanity should do about this? Just roll over and take it? I hope its possible to meet this industrial fuckfest with more ingenuity and less consumbtion. An energy evolution would be a good start. Do we really need to keep baking the planet by combusting every last shred of long dead carbon, is there not and could thier not be other ways? What happened to fushion? (Lol cue Elon Musk).
I think the saddest oart of all if this is that most people have no idea what is lost from a first hand experience because most people grew up sorrounded for the most part in an artificial man made world.
I'm going with "otter".
article-2030511-0D93B4E200000578-647_964x587.jpg
L@@k, @Kim, aren't they cute?
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Those who think global warming is just some kind of fad or myth, how do you explain away the mountains of research that seem to indicate it is happening? The "skeptics" who claim global warming is just some kind of unsupported belief, they're the ones that need to explain why the evidence is somehow wrong or misinterpreted.
Not sure about global, but in place where I live some warming is not a bad thing. Today we have normal weather from May to October only. Most part of our territory stays empty as it's too cold there: hard to live and expensive agriculture.
A somewhat relevant article:
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2015/08...alileo-gambit/
@William what that pretty picture of yours shows is that CO2 levels are obscenely high. i have a hard time believing it's not due to human activities, frankly (i'm not sure the scientifically minded "deniers" even deny that?). as for temperature and CO2, conceptually there is a tie between GHGs and global temperatures. look at Venus for example... that's the hot hellhouse you get with a shit ton of GHGs in the atmosphere.
that graph looks like a dance to me. CO2 is way up, and now it's time to say to temperature: your move. i'm a bit scared admittedly about what that "move" is going to be, considering the dramatic CO2 rise that's ongoing. we're being daredevils with earth's atmosphere. and we don't even know what the hell we're doing. that's what i call reckless and idiotic.
i won't pick articles for you; you can pick your own. but there are a lot of people more qualified than you (and i daresay more intelligent than you) on this problem... and they have a consensus. they also tell us that CO2 concentrations have a significant & causal link to global temperature. i don't think your pretty graph is the only reason.
here, i found you a link: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mperature.html
also, i'm rather flabbergasted at giving numbers for numbers of species going extinct each year because of our activities... maybe it's only 2,000 a year? well, i mean that's okay. the problem of species going extinct, of course, goes well beyond temperature changes. we humans are assaulting the natural world in every way we can think of... it almost looks like a willful attempt to destroy everything but ourselves... i mean, let's pollute like hell and chop down all the forests and fuck with all the ecosystems by introducing invasive species. (clever humans.)
Last edited by marooned; 08-28-2015 at 03:01 AM.
Yes, it's been estimated that between 15,000-18,000 new species are IDENTIFIED each year.
But all those species aren't necessarily new. What they are usually talking about is a combination of:
* paleontology finds (including recategorizing museum identities)
* correction names of species that have two different names
* correcting spelling errors
* naming yet unamed creatures (~86% of land species and 91% of marine species are waiting to receive names; it would take about 1,000 years to catalog them all)
* correcting taxonomic mistakes (DNA detection adjusts the previous/current identities. for example, two species that live relatively near each other and look exactly alike, through DNA testing, are now classified as 2 separate species.)
* moving a species from one family to another family
* etc
After those are accounted for, there's ~8,000/yr.
About half of which are insects and arachnids.
BUT, species are fast disappearing, too. Due to
* deforestation
* climate change
* over exploitation
* invasive species
* etc
There's about 20,000 extinctions/yr, and it's believed that this may be an underestimation.
(Info above gotten from:
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-animal-species
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/sc...ered.html?_r=1 )
However, from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth.../biodiversity/
Different articles give different estimates, but whatever the actual numbers being lost each year, that doesn't change that there is a strong correlation between human activity (such as habitat destruction and other environmental damages, over-exploitation, transporting invasive species, etc) and the significantly higher rates of extinction.Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we're facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis...
* The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.^
* These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.
* If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.
* But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true - that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet - then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.
(^Experts actually call this natural extinction rate the background extinction rate. This simply means the rate of species extinctions that would occur if we humans were not around.)
Which animals are highest at risk of going extinct?
Well, since genetic adaptation requires newer generations, a species cannot genetically adapt faster than it can reproduce. This means that larger animals with longer life spans, longer pregnancies, longer childhoods, and who produce fewer babies at a time are at higher risk of going extinct. These animals are also usually the more intelligent species.
While smaller animals like insects, arachnids, and rodents who breed quickly, prolifically, and breed many, are more likely to survive long enough to breed adaptations to the changing environment.
YOU may not be worried about the unnatural increase rate of extinction, unnatural loss of biodiversity, nor even which animals we're likely to lose.
But then, why concern yourself over something you'll be too dead to truly experience, right?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Were we looking at the same human activity as if at a cellular level, we'd be calling it cancer or a virus.
In the wild fermentation process, one type of bacteria starts breaking down the fruit/vegetable. It populates so fast that other bacteria die out cuz they can't compete with it. Unfortunately for them, their wastes make their environment more and more acidic until they start dying off and a different bacteria that prefers the more acidic environment starts to thrive. Then it too destroys its environment by even further acidifying it. Until another type kicks in that likes that environment. And a new balance is found in which little to nothing else can survive.
In this analogy, we are the first bacteria that destroys the natural balance of life and death, birth and rot. We'll destroy this planet, and destroy the planet's recovery systems. Eventually increased rodent and plague populations we've created will destroy us, and insects/arachnids will eventually destroy them. We will have ensured that our horror films of intelligent alien species traveling the galaxies comes true. And that will be the legacy of humanity's short time on the planet Earth.
But who cares, right? Each of us individuals only has a few more decades left to do our share of destruction, all so we individuals can live a more convenient life...
Or, we could work towards turning the tables and treat our planet and fellow residents 'humanely'.
I vote for the latter.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't believe in the sun and the moon
We damage the surface but then the sun is getting hotter and our eart's crust shifts, letting out greenhouse gases. Soon the oceans will truly be crystal clear for all thoa who have phobias to various life. It's a lose lose...get sunscrean
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
"why isn't it erupting now?" wow.
it's a bad question for someone who's supposed to be an educated adult. the moon doesn't have a molten core and has been cooled off for a long time. a lot of kids in elementary school know the answer to this question. no heat/molten core, no eruptions (there's nothing to erupt - the moon is cold and stone solid). bill nye i think realized the level of stupidity of the question and was trying to sufficiently dumb it down. it's hard to dumb it down, and also fox news has an agenda, so you have to worry about how they'll twist your words. (not that other news groups don't have agendas.)
eta: another way to say it, is that this is an elementary school science question, so bill nye was trying to go into his how to explain this to someone with the knowledge of your average 7 year old, in the awkward situation where he's talking to an adult (one who presumably has a college degree even).
also the fox news dude kind of doesn't even understand how long the moon has been cold for... he's like "a few years, a few million, whatever you want to call it..." i mean, he has to cater to many of fox news' viewers who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or something. it's this joyous pretend game we all have to play in the u.s. it offends a lot of people to accept scientific conclusions that fly in the face of the view of a 6,000 year old planet where humans began in a pretty garden with one man and one woman... so we have to tip toe around this because it upsets people. sigh.
i can't tell if your other post is sarcastic, btw.
eta2: aha http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...cientists.html
possible information update... it appears friction from orbiting the earth (that generates heat) may result in a little molten-ness in the moons core... still this won't be enough for active volcanoes. if not the friction, my next question would be the time. cores cool over time -- there's a gradual heat loss. the earth's core too is slowly cooling.
eta 3: anyway to think of this even more simply, just think about why volcanoes erupt on earth...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma
basically there's a lot of heat left from the formation of planets in the interior of these giant rocks (the earth being a giant rock). the moon is not nearly as big as the earth, and doesn't have an atmosphere to trap heat... being smaller, it cooled off more quickly... the friction from earth's orbit is insufficient to keep it hot under enough under the surface for volcanism (if you want an example of moons not like this, look at io that orbits very close to jupiter and is gradually spiraling into jupiter. the massive gravity from jupiter + the close orbit generate a huge amount of friction which heats io up considerably. so even though it's small, this situation creates active volcanoes on the surface.
eta 4: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...moon-volcanoes
it seems though that i'm behind on my information, so the question isn't quite as bad as i first thought. *although* it's still an elementary school question... in the sense of knowing there isn't active volcanism.
eta 5: i still don't really see the situation of the moon's core as really being relevant to *anthropogenic* climate change. i'd have to watch the video again, but i remember the fox news guy tried to turn it into a climate change discussion (for no reason?)... it's just that we're learning about the moon, gathering new data, and the implications to volcanism (and really, also quakes, which i didn't know there were moonquakes until this post just now...)
i mean, volcanism can cause climate change, sure. with enough ash in the atmosphere it can block the sun to some extent, which can result in cooling. but humans aren't causing volcanism as far as i know (i haven't looked into the joys of fracking much... to know if that vibration could somehow cause magma to move differently, or even affect plate tectonics, magically spurring on volcanoes - that sounds like a scifi original movie)
eta 6: http://news.sciencemag.org/space/201...eruptions-moon
well, although they aren't active now, they *were* active more recently than i would have thought. so i've adjusted my concepts of the moon as not being the totally dead body i thought it was prior to this post. it may be... in its long running death throes. if it's able to have eruptions again due to the increased cooling (which according to that other article would allow the magma to rise more easily), it will be kind of sad. it's like the final whispers, before the end - where you try to look like you're still alive and going, but are in fact well over the hill, and after will only fade more quickly than before.
and it's on the near side. yes. scifi original movie - deadly magma shooting from moon... i'm sure we could make it fly through space and hit the earth (still molten and hot) in fiction, of course.
Last edited by marooned; 08-30-2015 at 05:06 AM.
i felt like addressing this quote for fun.
i don't know about that. venus is an example of a runaway greenhouse effect, and it's interesting from that pov. but i doubt these "scientists" are thinking that we're perfect twins. there are similarities to heed, though. i mean, just off the top of my head, venus doesn't have the huge amounts of water that earth does. if you turned all of earth's liquid water into gas, that would be a way higher concentration in the atmosphere than venus has. i'm just saying that there are differences between venus and earth, and i'm sure people in the applicable fields are well more aware of this than i am.According to scientists, Venus is like our evil "twin". Venus, according to science, is exactly like us minus (for the moment) all the atmospheric catastrophes like no oxygen, no water, super hot, poisonous, intense gravity etc...(which I think is asinine at best).
really? when i took astronomy, mars was presented as the opposite of a runaway greenhouse effect. one idea was that there had been a massive asteroid impact that shot most of mars core out, so it no longer has a molten core. it grew increasingly cold. all potential for a more earth-like setting died because it could no longer retain heat to the extent needed. today its atmosphere is quite shallow compared to earths. it can't trap heat or regulate surface temperatures. when it's facing away from the sun, temperatures get really cold, and considering its distance from the sun, really the opposite happens when it's facing it - it's just that it's so far out that daytime temperatures aren't so bad for humans: like almost 70 degrees F. anyway if there's some idea of a runaway greenhouse effect on mars *before* it lost most of its atmosphere, i don't know about it. (another point about mars is that is "wields" less gravity than earth, and so it's more difficult for it to hold a thick atmosphere akin to earth's... and i don't know how much of an atmosphere it would have had with a heated core... venus, otoh, is larger and can hold much more atmosphere with its gravity.)The idea of us looking to Venus and/or Mars for climate change originated with David Grinspoon. To make a long story short, He, and other scientists believe that Venus and Mars experienced a "runaway greenhouse effect" as a result of the Sun heating up.
butttt there's not much water vapor in venus' atmosphere. i think the idea is that if a runaway greenhouse effect happened *on earth* water vapor would play a key role. venus' atmosphere is like 97% CO2. again, no runaway greenhouse effect on mars. mars doesn't have the atmosphere to support that. its atmosphere is really thin.Over time Venus' surface water evaporated into the atmosphere. Grinspoon said "“Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and it caused the planet to heat-up even more. This is turn caused more water to evaporate and led to a powerful positive feedback response known as the runaway greenhouse effect,” Grinspoon believes, just as the scientists who side with him, and are studying these things do, that as Earth warms in response to man-made pollution, it risks the same fate as Venus and Mars.
i wasn't laughing. i was crying.As you sit laughing at the Fox news host,
um... as far as i knew the moon *never* had an atmosphere. it's a chunk of rock. discussing "climate" on the moon is like picking some random asteroid and talking about its "climate." why are "volcanoes evidence of the climate problem"??? it makes little sense to me. bill nye said that the volcanism isn't related to the climate change question - he sputtered about in his answer, sure, but he obviously got the underlying concepts whereas fox news dude didn't appear to know *anything.* which is fine, but maybe he should try to educate himself, at least a little?his question makes not only perfect sense, but makes Bill Nye's answer the one you should be laughing at. The Fox News host was saying that if the volcanoes are evidence of the climate problem that happened on the moon, what relation does this have to man-made pollution affecting our planet?
venus is closer to the sun than earth and out of the "goldilocks zone" (lol). it also had a fortunate concentration of compounds, that the heating of them alone allowed for the runaway greenhouse effect. it's an *effect* that you can arrive at through multiple combinations of activity. i don't remember what i read before on it... but one essential piece of it is that CO2 gas traps heat. so for venus, the more CO2 gas that was created through heating by the sun, the more heat trapped on the surface, and thus even more conversion of materials on the surface to CO2 gas, etc. for earth, a runaway greenhouse effect would be more complex - one factor being how much water earth has as compared to venus. from what i remember the water would play a role later (supposedly), but at that point, the cycle is fairly irreversible... water will intensify it and accelerate it (not to say it's not supposedly irreversible earlier than that). i just don't want to run this experiment on earth to learn how to make earth more like venus... hopefully, you don't either.To wit, Venus' atmosphere was destroyed without anyone burning any fossil fuels. Nye's response was avoiding the question at hand. And the question is, aside from the possibility that we could accelerate the process, why are we looking to man-made pollution and regulation on the earth as the source of the global warming problem, yet using Venus as the test model, when no one was there to do what we are doing here on the earth to cause the same effect?
this user has a poor level of knowledge and poor conceptual understanding, and like fox news guy, maybe s/he should try to remedy it. take basic astronomy of the solar system at a community college: recommended.This certainly seems a logical question to me - but obviously not to the smarter among us like Bill and all the youtube geniuses. The Fox news host was asking this of the moon. If volcanoes indicate climate change on the moon, then why are man-made pollutions being cited as the problem on earth? Again, a reasonable question to be answered, and certainly not worthy of the silly answer that Nye gave. It's nearly sad that there are so many sights ridiculing Fox over this..."
Last edited by marooned; 08-30-2015 at 08:26 PM.
Interesting, but it still leaves me questions,
Since you seem pretty knowledgeable, out of curiosity, if we add co2 to the atmosphere in place of o2 at a constant rate, do we steadily get hotter, do we exponentially get hotter, or do we get hotter in smaller increments as we keep displacing o2 with co2? I'm only asking because a blanket only slows down the transfer of heat to a cold source by acting as a less reactive medium to transfer energy between the two, it doesn't block or stop it, but only slows it down; so as more blankets are added I'd imagine each blanket's added slow down effect becomes less and less effective at blocking heat transfer. Effectively, we become dependent upon the rate of heat transfer through that medium to begin with, regardless of how much we stack it, not to mention that as we heat up, heat will also transfer at a faster rate through that medium, suggesting an upper limit on how hot we can get, though maybe that upper limit is very hot.
good bye
Venus is a great example of planetary heating out of control caused by runaway green house gases.
You are talking about the CO2 blanketing the Earth and acting as a sort of opaque screen and thereby deflecting the solar radiation to begin with. The temperatures will rise incremental until they cause a feedback loop. At that point the level of Co2 will exponentially heat the planet's surface and oceans. At that point the heat will continue to rise even if the level of free Co2 is capped off. The oceans themselves will be absorbing the heat as the polar regions will no longer freeze over in the winter. Methane will be seeped out of the tundra adding to the gases causing the green house effect. The rise in temperatures will be steady until this exponential tipping point is reached.
Astronomers beleived the same thing happened to the planet venus. Where runaway green house gases have super heated the planets surface to several hundreds of degrees celsius. One might think that because the planet Venus is closer to the sun that it would stand to reason that this would explain why the temperature is so much warmer then Earth's, but this is no the case at all. Venus is far enough from the sun that its surface temperature should more closely resemble that of Earths, about 0 to 70 degrees celsius. The sole reason for the super heated temperatures found on Venus are caused by its thick, green house gas covered atmosphere.
The upper limit for Earth could potentially be very hot with a runaway green house effect. Think somewhere in the several hundreds. Water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level. So the air itself could be very, very hot. At those temperatures, the plant material on Earth would spontaneously combust. Although very little would survive up until that point anyway.
Carl Sagan......
There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the ocean liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incremental heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2 and there would be the possibility of a run-away greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus' proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.
The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2 into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possiblity of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful; Even a one- or two-degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. In the burning of coal and oil and gasoline, we are also putting sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Like Venus, our stratosphere even now has a substantial mist of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. Our major cities are polluted with noxious molecules. We do not understand the long-term effects of our course of action.
But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests and encouraging domestic animals to graze on and destroy grasslands. Slash-and-burn agriculture, industrial tropical deforestation and overgrazing are rampant today. But forests are darker than grasslands, and grasslands are darker than deserts. As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining, and by changes in the land use we are lowering the surface temperature of our planet. Might this cooling increase the size of the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect still more sunlight from the Earth, further cooling the planet, driving a runaway albedo effect?
Scientists agree, ill defer to them since they as a whole are more knowledgeable about science than I.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Yeah, I don't know. This sort of thing should be able to reproduce. Mythbusters did their own experiment and although CO2 seemed to increase the temperature, it wasn't a huge increase given that they had about 7% CO2 gas in the green house. And Earth's CO2 concentration isn't nearly that much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
I mean I don't doubt that CO2 increases the Earth's temperature, but it's questionable what the actual impact of CO2 really is; global warming could have many or multiple causes and if people believe CO2 has the impact they say it does, there should be a way to verify it. If you have conclusive evidence, I'd like to see it, but saying Venus has high temperatures because of CO2 is kind of hard to prove; it's a conjecture that weakly supports CO2 as a primary cause of global warming.
good bye
I dont have time to research that for you. But hey mythbuster did it in a glass box must be truth.
Last edited by wacey; 09-11-2015 at 04:50 AM.
yeah well, you can be condescending all you want, but it doesn't somehow make you right. peace,,,
good bye
Tone or no tone, the point still stands.
Reply With Quote
