Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
4. It’s not global warming it’s CLIMATE CHANGE. Part of a changing climate means more variable weather including colder temperatures in some areas.
Hmmm. I guess the Gulf Stream Amoc thing with ice melt changing ocean salinity could make England and a lot of Europe colder. My zip code would see the opposite.
This is something that I have been thinking about for a while. I don't know if there was a post about this in the past or not, so here we go....
Global warming, if it's real or not, with emissions from vehicles and other equipment can be a serious issue. I'm concerned about the health and well being with people and the Earth and its possible thinning of the ozone. Also I do support issues in place to combat global warming.
On the other hand, could it be that the sun is expanding? As we all learned in school science that some stars expand into super giants. Others implode. I've read articles supporting that the Sun will eventually expand, consuming Mercury, Venus and Earth. Even the summers seem to be getting hotter each year. But some winters seem to get colder as well. Which is good for my location!! A welcome time after brutally hot and humid days in Southwest Louisiana.
With that being said, I stand on the line between the two issues. Could the colder temperatures be a result of thinning atmosphere?
I'm not looking for argumentation or bashing each other, or me, for their beliefs on the matter. Just interested in thoughts about the subject. Have a great day!
Wouldn't expansion of that nature be indistinguishable in the span of a few human lifetimes which is when most of our global warming has accelerated?
A couple of billion years early for 'sun expansion', when the earth becomes a red giant. Of course, the oceans will have boiled away and earth will be a cinder (unless our orbit expands as the sun's mass changes). Either way, we'll be long gone.
I’m still trying to figure out what to believe, clearly there is warming but, there are some within the scientific community saying we have entered a “quiet sun” phase, meaning there are less observable spots on the sun and this will in turn cause global temperatures to decrease. There is said to be a correlation between sunspots and the earth’s weather temps and that ice ages have occurred during periods of quiet sun. I hope they are all wrong or at least that the warming cancels out the cooling…I don’t want to see an ice age.
Possibly. Solar Cycle 24 had the lowest smoothed sunspot number for maximum since the Dalton Minimum in Solar Cycle 4. Solar Cycle 25 is just starting. The Dalton Minimum lasted around 40 years, so around 3 cycles.
It should be interesting to see what happens. If as you suggest the temperatures were cooler than expected, once the minimum is over we may shoot up again.
A few points of actual science readers here may be interested in:
There is no "global" warming. Over the past many decades the tropics have not warmed at all, the temperate zones show unchanged day time temps, but warmer nights, and almost all of the warming is seen in the polar areas-- and that can be attributed to water vapor, not co2 (There's a reason deserts get hot during the day, but cold at night: few clouds to block the sun, and little water vapor to slow down cooling at night.)
An "active" sun sheds more energy onto the Earth, but the increased cosmic radiation causes more clouds-- a mixed bag as far as Earth surface temps go. Variable cosmic radiation coming from the galaxy has its effects on Earth's climate too....Earth's cyclically varying temps are more closely correlated with cloud cover than with co2 levels.
There are multiple cycles influencing Earth's climate: our elliptical orbit, it's precession about the Sun, the precession of the Earth's axis, and even our orbit about the galaxy. Then there's the decadal long oscillations of the oceans' upwelling of cold water. Don't forget plate tectonics moving continents nearer or farther from the equator and raising or lowering mountain ranges to disrupt prevailing wind patterns. All add together like a series of sine waves (remember your trig class?) to give a highly variable pattern of temperature history.
The role of co2 in the system is so small that it's actually lost among the random noise in the data.
The Earth's climate went thru many cycles of changes prior to The Industrial Age. What makes anyone think the temperature changes (there hasn't been any actual "climate" change- all the Earth's biomes are essentially the same now as they were 100 or 900 yrs ago) seen over the last 100 years must be due to Man-made influences?
while not technically a space "scientist", I can state with certainty that the sun might be entering the rapid expansion phase where things can go awry in just a few days or weeks. All it takes is a break in the crusty material to cause the molten sun lava to shoot out millions of miles and if pointed directly at the earth, well then, Katie bar the door!
another possibility however is that the earth is super heating from within due to the natural cooling characteristics failing. If that is the case, we won't even know it until it blows because who can measure the temperature down there anyway?
There is no "global" warming. Over the past many decades the tropics have not warmed at all, the temperate zones show unchanged day time temps, but warmer nights, and almost all of the warming is seen in the polar areas-- and that can be attributed to water vapor, not co2 (There's a reason deserts get hot during the day, but cold at night: few clouds to block the sun, and little water vapor to slow down cooling at night.)
I always like to say that climate change is not a weather forecast. Yes, "Global" means the overall effect, not just what's happening in the tropics. The local climate is always going to vary from the mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
The role of co2 in the system is so small that it's actually lost among the random noise in the data.
The net contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere's overall greenhouse effect is 55% of the total.
Hence, your assertion would appear to be incorrect. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are communicating?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
