Climate Change


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Climate Change

1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601786 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 13:49:56 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 13:52:03 UTC

This is intended to a be a serious discussion thread about Climate Change and Global Warming. Please take your politics and your frivolous jokes on the subject to the Politics thread. Your science is welcome here. Thanks.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601789 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 14:01:10 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 14:01:46 UTC

Polar bears send climate message

School children in Surrey are following the movements of polar bears in the Arctic as a way of learning about the effects of climate change.

South Bookham School, in Great Bookham, near Leatherhead, has signed up to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Canon polar bear tracker website.

The site examines the changing habitat of the bears around Svalbard and Franz Josef Land, to the north of Norway.

Children are taught how saving energy in their lives can help polar bears.

The school already invests in water conversation work and has a children's environment council.

Online blog

Head teacher Rosie Keedy said: "We have been very proactive in educating the pupils about the environment and sustainability.

"The children really enjoy using the website and now when you ask them about ways of saving the polar bear, they will say that they walk to school or that they turn off lights to save energy."

Learning materials on the website include downloadable school packs, online games and a blog from WWF researchers in the Arctic.

Canon UK's Lisa Attfield said: "The knowledge and enthusiasm of these pupils is really infectious and more schools should take the same approach as South Bookham in teaching children how to do their bit.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 5079
Credit: 74,107,250
RAC: 6,102
Australia
Message 601790 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 14:05:45 UTC - in response to Message 601786.

Not too long ago I saw a documentary on discovery channel relating to climate change (sorry if this is old, but I found it quite compelling). The general gist can be summarised by the following points:
- Scientists have been, and are currently studying ice core samples from around the world.
- From these Ice cores they have been able to plot things such as historical carbon level concentrations, global temperature changes and other factors.
- That most of current human history is in an unusually moderate stable climate.
- That Earth's climate usually goes through much more agressive changes, and we seem to be somewhat overdue for some of these.

There were also discussions of:
- Meterologists and climateologists 'in the field' have differing outlook to those 'in the lab' doing simulations.
- That the one factor having the most effect, The Sun, Is not under our control and that historically solar activity has been much more voltaile and we may not be able to expect our moderate climate to continue.

Anyone with newer, either supporting or conflicting, science than this?
____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601791 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 14:07:46 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 14:08:52 UTC

US grassroots tackle climate change

The US government may have refused to throw its weight behind efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but Americans are increasingly acting on their own initiative.

In the latest in a series on changing US attitudes to global warming, the BBC's Sam Wilson profiles three grassroots ventures in the state of California.

Solar Sebastopol

California's generous endowment of sunshine gives it a golden opportunity to exploit solar power, but the town of Sebastopol, north of San Francisco, has been particularly energised.

Its goal is to install one megawatt of solar power production across the town - equivalent to decking the roofs of 500 average-sized homes with solar panels.

It is over a third of the way there, with 380kW-worth of panels fitted so far on local government buildings, businesses and homes. One of the most eye-catching adorns the roof of the town's open-air swimming pool.

Sebastopol's Mayor Sam Pierce describes it as a "very aggressive effort, by both the city and the community", to tackle global warming.

His city council has also set itself a target of reducing its own emissions by 42% over a 10-year period - the most ambitious target in the US and far ahead of those demanded by the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Pierce - whose Green Party has held a majority in Sebastopol for six years - says the pressure for action is definitely bottom-up.

"Our community is very tuned in, very well informed on climate change, and wants to take action," he says.

"So, as a result, the policy-makers are very aggressive, and find ways to satisfy that demand in the public."

The 42% target comes from closely audited assessments, says the city manager, David Brennan, and should therefore be achievable.

The city is improving energy efficiency in heating and lighting in council buildings, and has bought five hybrid vehicles when replacing its fleet, including three police cars.

The officials are disappointed that President George W Bush has refused to set nationwide emissions reduction goals, but hopes Sebastopol's efforts will be replicated at the local level elsewhere.

"If there's any silver lining to what I would call the debacle of the Bush regime, it's that it demonstrated to local jurisdictions that it's essential that they find local solutions," Mr Pierce says.

"The nationals aren't going to do it. But we as a community are going to demonstrate to the rest of the country what can be done."

"You do what you can, then find a megaphone."

click here for the rest of the article

____________

flaming balloons

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601799 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 14:49:29 UTC - in response to Message 601790.

- That the one factor having the most effect, The Sun...


It’s true that scientists are have been looking at many things to try to understand Climate Change. Study of ice core sample was one of them, but I also recall a scientist who measured sunlight in Israel in the 1940’s. He was trying to maximise crop grown of something and took recordings of sunlight almost every. Years later he went back and took the same recordings in the same places, and found that the amount of sunlight was less. Scientists round the world came up with the same data about falling amount of sunlight. There was no change in solar activity, yet something was stopping the sunlight. The sun’s warmth was still coming through, but not as much of the sunlight.


____________

flaming balloons

Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 5079
Credit: 74,107,250
RAC: 6,102
Australia
Message 601804 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 15:08:37 UTC - in response to Message 601799.
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 15:22:28 UTC

. The sun’s warmth was still coming through, but not as much of the sunlight.


Now IMHO that's a more important observation that it at first sounds, as It throws more factors into the mix than just Carbon dioxide.

I would 'guess' that sulphur dioxide and maybe NOX & other compounds that influence reflectance of the atmosphere play a larger part there, And historically high volcanic activity has thrown up bulk loads of the stuff at varying intervals, contributing to the volatility of the climate. (as the ice cores show)

So do the man made contributions of those become insignificant relative to the natural activity of volcanoes and maybe space borne impacts?

Or is the cumulative effect going to be enough to tip things over the edge?

And do climate models allow for that sort of thing?

Or what about these knew Geo-Engineering options I'm Hearing about ( like dumping loads of prepared iron into the ocean to feed carbon-dioxide eating bacteria? )

[BTW: Thanks for those articles Longshanks, They are interesting to me as they demonstrate that world economy can benefit from these new emerging trends, as well as slowing down our damage to the planet ]



____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601966 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 20:22:54 UTC - in response to Message 601804.

[BTW: Thanks for those articles Longshanks, They are interesting to me as they demonstrate that world economy can benefit from these new emerging trends, as well as slowing down our damage to the planet ]


You are welcome. It is true that carrying out many of the recommendations will help us whether there is climate change/global warming or not; the benefits of using clean energy, being efficient, pumping out less pollutants, etc., are all worth doing anyway.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601970 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 20:27:00 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 20:27:33 UTC

'New thinking' needed on climate

By Mark Kinver
Science and Nature reporter, BBC News


The international climate debate needs to embrace a "new way of thinking" to tackle the problem, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has urged.

Too much time was being wasted arguing over "historical responsibilities" for past emissions, Mr Ban said.

He called for both industrialised and developing nations to focus on limiting future global greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Ban added that he would convene a climate summit to help reach consensus on a global climate action plan.

"It is time for new thinking," he told an audience at Chatham House, the international think-tank based in London, UK. "This is an agenda that really affects the whole of human kind.

"I promise that this challenge and what we do about it will define us," he said.



Breaking the deadlock

Recent attempts to reach a global agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, have ended in failure.

The global climate treaty requires industrialised nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels, but the US and Australia have refused to ratify it.

President Bush's administration called the scheme "fatally flawed", partly because it did not require developing countries, including China and India, to commit to emissions reductions.

The idea of making developing nations enforce emissions caps has also faced opposition.

In June, China published its first national plan to curb climate change but it stopped short of backing a limit.

Ma Kai, chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission, said: "We must reconcile the need for development with the need for environmental protection."

But he added that rich countries were responsible for most of the greenhouse gases produced over the past century, and had an "unshirkable responsibility" to do more to tackle the problem.

"The international community should respect the developing countries' right to develop," Mr Ma observed.

Mr Ban, in his first speech in the UK since becoming UN secretary general, warned that arguing over the legacy of past emissions only wasted time.

"I have been advised by many experts that if we act now - since we have the resources and heightened awareness - we can reverse it," he said.

"Then we can give a much more prosperous planet Earth to our great, great, grandchildren.

"What I would like to stress is rather than looking at past historical responsibilities, we need to look at historical responsibilities in the future.

"To build on the current momentum, I am going to convene a high-level UN General Assembly debate on 24 September."

He said that the outcomes from this meeting would feed into the UN climate negotiation process.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will hold its next meeting in Bali towards the end of the year.

"Business as usual is no longer an option - we must reach complete agreement," he told the audience in central London.


____________

flaming balloons

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601974 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 20:31:08 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 20:32:03 UTC

Show debut for plastic daffodils

Artificial daffodils "planted" on the shores of Windermere are to be exhibited at a major flower show to highlight climate change in the Lakes.

Dozens of silk and plastic daffodils were installed at Fallbarrow Park at Bowness, after the mildest winter since 1914 saw real daffodils bloom early.

Now South Lakeland Parks is to exhibit them at the Royal Horticultural Society's annual show in Cheshire.

It is hoped the move will highlight climate changes affecting the area.



'Superb environment'

The company has commissioned a garden called Paradise Found, which aims to show how subtle indicators of climate change are already under way in the Lake District.

Parts of the "climate change garden" are shaded by conifers and lead to a grassy bank and a stream which has all but dried up due to rising temperatures.

A spokesman for South Lakeland Parks said: "We are already seeing evidence of climate change in the Lake District.

"It is important to show what we are doing as a company to combat this and how visitors can contribute and help preserve the superb environment we have here."

____________

flaming balloons

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 601976 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 20:36:17 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 20:37:58 UTC

'No Sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent


A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.




It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1625
Credit: 937,481
RAC: 375
United States
Message 601999 - Posted: 11 Jul 2007, 21:08:05 UTC - in response to Message 601966.
Last modified: 11 Jul 2007, 21:12:42 UTC

[BTW: Thanks for those articles Longshanks, They are interesting to me as they demonstrate that world economy can benefit from these new emerging trends, as well as slowing down our damage to the planet ]


You are welcome. It is true that carrying out many of the recommendations will help us whether there is climate change/global warming or not; the benefits of using clean energy, being efficient, pumping out less pollutants, etc., are all worth doing anyway.


I totally agree, and have made this same point in posts here. I'm glad to see that I am not the only one that feels this way. Using renewable energy sources will lessen the dependence of our economy on non-renewable ones. Increased efficiency in energy use will make it so that the energy that we DO use goes further. Spewing less crap into the environment will lessen the damage that we do to the environment, and hopefully allow the environment to begin to 'heal' somewhat.

The issue of human-caused global warming/climate change is a contentious one. Some people say its definitely true. Others say it definitely isn't. Me, I say that while it is possible, we just don't know enough about it yet to say one way or the other.

Furthermore, I say that there are other, compelling reasons to take most, if not all, of the proposed actions to combat 'human-caused global warming/climate change'. Economic and Environmental reasons compelling enough to start doing these things now and not wait on the GW/CC issue to be settled. These reasons effectively render any debate on GW/CC meaningless. If, at some point in the future, human-caused GW/CC is conclusively proven to exist, well, we were already taking steps to help (but for other reasons). If human-caused GW/CC is shown to NOT be significant, well, we needed to do these thing ANYWAY (again, for other reasons).

I'm already doing what I can on these issues. I replaced one of my vehicles with a new one that gets 50% better MPG than the old one. If I don't need to drive somewhere, I don't. I switched years ago to CFL light bulbs in my home (they use only 25% of the electricity than a regular incandescent bulb with an equivalent light output). I have replaced my air conditioner/heater, my refrigerator, and my water heater with newer, more efficient models over the last few years, and I do my best to limit the amount they run. I buy my electricity (paying a bit more for it, too) from a company that has a significant amount of generation capacity from solar, wind, and nuclear (currently about 20%), and is committed to increasing that amount as time passes. I do everything I can to reduce my water use. I buy liquid products preferentially in aluminum or glass containers, and I recycle those containers. I avoid plastic containers wherever possible. I look for paper-based packaging that has significant paper recycling use in it, especially 'post-consumer' recycled paper. I do my best to limit use of harsh chemicals around the house. For instance, I don't use weed killer or chemical fertilizer on the lawn, and I use chemical pesticides very sparingly. I prefer natural fiber clothing to synthetic. Cotton and wool rule! Nylon/rayon/polyester/etc. drools!

I already do all of these thing for Environmental and Economic reasons, and I am always looking for ways to increase what I am doing. I have been doing these things for years. Years before 'global warming/climate change' became the hot topic it is today. What are you guys and girls doing to help?

Profile popandbob
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 05
Posts: 535
Credit: 1,896,421
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 602123 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 0:59:22 UTC - in response to Message 601790.

- Scientists have been, and are currently studying ice core samples from around the world.
- From these Ice cores they have been able to plot things such as historical carbon level concentrations, global temperature changes and other factors.


The only problem with ice core samples is that they only provide data about the cool times meaning ice was building (temps averaging -1 or lower). We can not accuatly use those measurements and compare them to modern air/temps where temps are higher.


- That most of current human history is in an unusually moderate stable climate.
- That Earth's climate usually goes through much more agressive changes, and we seem to be somewhat overdue for some of these.


Climate change experts (as it apears to me) seem to forget this little fact that we are in a planet of constant change. Climate change predictions usually only date back to 1900 (ish) and move forward to 2050.

We cant say humans are behind global warming until we know they are. Not all factors influencing global warming can be monitored such as heat from the earths core.

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.


Cosmic Rays are not the only output from the sun affecting global warming. Light output and infrared (Heat) output are more likely causes. I didn't see them mentioned in the article.

Also could it be the sun is expanding?
Could it be a variation in gravity causing warming?
The sun still could be the source of this warming trend.

~BoB
____________


Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 602289 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 12:32:36 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jul 2007, 12:32:58 UTC

Overhaul of flood defences urged

BBC news

Flood defences need to be overhauled to deal with the impact of climate change, experts and politicians have warned.



The Environment Agency wants a 25-year plan aimed at coping with the kind of flooding seen in England in late June.

Lib Dem environment spokesman Chris Huhne said the Midlands and Yorkshire were "largely unprepared" for an "almost monsoon" level of rainfall.

Ministers have met local councils to discuss how to spend the £14m relief package announced by PM Gordon Brown.

In the House of Commons, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears hailed the "brave men and women" of the emergency services who had assisted in the relief effort.

She said: "What communities have told me is that they want to get back to normal as quickly as possible."

The floods hit 31,200 homes and 7,000 businesses, said Ms Blears, mainly in the Midlands and northern England.

Her Conservative shadow, Eric Pickles, called for a review of the way cash assistance is provided to councils faced with emergency spending.

Meanwhile, forecasters are predicting more showers over the next few days for parts of Yorkshire - although more flooding is not expected.

About 500 Environment Agency staff are still monitoring water levels in the worst-affected areas, near Doncaster and Hull.

More protection

Environment Agency chief Barbara Young said such flooding events - where torrential rain causes a deluge of surface water - were likely to become more frequent.

She said planning needed to take climate change into account and that piecemeal planning must be avoided.

"As an agency, we've got to improve the standard of protection we've got for many properties.

"But local authorities, water companies and the developers need to have a co-ordinated process for 25-year planning for surface water flooding."

Overloaded drainage

Mr Huhne, who has visited the worst-affected areas of Hull, said the weather was causing a "new type of flooding".

"In the past we've been prepared for floods from rivers overflowing and floods from coastal and tidal surges," he said.

"This was an enormous amount of rain - four inches of rain in one day - almost monsoon quality. The drainage system simply couldn't cope."

He called on the privatised water companies to play a bigger part in assessing the risk of flooding.

Last week, Mr Brown announced the relief package, saying the £14m would help get people "back on their feet as quickly as possible".

The insurance industry estimates that claims will total £1.5bn.

Many homeowners are facing a wait of months before their houses are habitable.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8567
Credit: 4,232,738
RAC: 1,113
United Kingdom
Message 602294 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 12:45:12 UTC - in response to Message 602123.
Last modified: 12 Jul 2007, 12:53:37 UTC

- Scientists have been, and are currently studying ice core samples from around the world.
- From these Ice cores they have been able to plot things such as historical carbon level concentrations, global temperature changes and other factors.


The only problem with ice core samples is that they only provide data about the cool times meaning ice was building

OK, so you have done zero research and are just putting in glib comments here... But its good to ask.

The ice cores that are taken are from areas where there is steady and measurable snowfall over many centuries. The rate of ice accumalation and climate details can be measured from the ice core itself down to a monthy basis going back thousands of years. The deepest cores go back thousands of years.

The ice cores have also been cross-referenced against tree ring data for trees. Old trees preserved in bogs and elsewhere have pushed the tree ring data to be a continuous record going back thousands of years also.

Worldwide significant events such as volcanos can be detected and measured beyond just measuring climate change.

- That most of current human history is in an unusually moderate stable climate.
- That Earth's climate usually goes through much more agressive changes, and we seem to be somewhat overdue for some of these.

Climate change experts (as it apears to me) seem to forget this little fact that we are in a planet of constant change. Climate change predictions usually only date back to 1900 (ish) and move forward to 2050.

We cant say humans are behind global warming until we know they are. Not all factors influencing global warming can be monitored such as heat from the earths core.

All the most significan inputs and outputs are now very well known and measured or deduced. What is left unknown for directly affecting temperature is now down to very small levels.

That is why human activity sticks out so very very clearly.

There has never been such rapid climate change as there is now. And all whilst the sun's output is on a part of a cycle whereby the sun's output is cooling. That aspect may be why we are not already 'cooked'. However, it becomes all the more urgent to get our act together, worldwide, to be ready for when that particular cycle starts warming again, soon...

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

Cosmic Rays are not the only output from the sun affecting global warming. Light output and infrared (Heat) output are more likely causes. I didn't see them mentioned in the article.

Read the 'cosmic rays hypothesis' article and read around further...

That article was about cosmic rays seeding cloud formation. Excess clouds cool the earth slightly. The excess clouds is not happening. In any case, our man-made pollution already gives maximum seeding effects for clouds to form.

For example, there is a strong argument that the pollution from the USA has shifted the rain patterns in Africa by hundreds of miles and caused the deaths of millions in recent years due to drought, famine, and the ensuing wars over that drought and famine. (Not quite the full story but... near enough.)

Also could it be the sun is expanding?
Could it be a variation in gravity causing warming?
The sun still could be the source of this warming trend.

Good questions that have been closly looked at and still being explored further.

The "explored further" doesn't mean that we don't know. It means that the small percentages involved are being refined further.

The change in solar output is NOT the most significant factor by a very large margin.

Note, that due to increased pollution, we've actually had increasing global dimming for the last century or so. Our very recent anti-pollution controls are now reversing that and so they are in fact adding a small (note: small) increased heating effect. The vastly significant factor is still increased CO2 and increased methane due to human activity. A number of other knock-on effects from the increased CO2 increases the effect yet further.


Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8567
Credit: 4,232,738
RAC: 1,113
United Kingdom
Message 602405 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 17:13:25 UTC - in response to Message 602123.

... The sun still could be the source of this warming trend.

See:

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming

10:44 11 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic

Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.

The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm.


Sunspots, magnetic field, and cosmic rays detailed there.


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 602415 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 17:39:22 UTC - in response to Message 601999.

[BTW: Thanks for those articles Longshanks, They are interesting to me as they demonstrate that world economy can benefit from these new emerging trends, as well as slowing down our damage to the planet ]


You are welcome. It is true that carrying out many of the recommendations will help us whether there is climate change/global warming or not; the benefits of using clean energy, being efficient, pumping out less pollutants, etc., are all worth doing anyway.


I totally agree, and have made this same point in posts here. I'm glad to see that I am not the only one that feels this way. Using renewable energy sources will lessen the dependence of our economy on non-renewable ones. Increased efficiency in energy use will make it so that the energy that we DO use goes further. Spewing less crap into the environment will lessen the damage that we do to the environment, and hopefully allow the environment to begin to 'heal' somewhat.

The issue of human-caused global warming/climate change is a contentious one. Some people say its definitely true. Others say it definitely isn't. Me, I say that while it is possible, we just don't know enough about it yet to say one way or the other.

Furthermore, I say that there are other, compelling reasons to take most, if not all, of the proposed actions to combat 'human-caused global warming/climate change'. Economic and Environmental reasons compelling enough to start doing these things now and not wait on the GW/CC issue to be settled. These reasons effectively render any debate on GW/CC meaningless. If, at some point in the future, human-caused GW/CC is conclusively proven to exist, well, we were already taking steps to help (but for other reasons). If human-caused GW/CC is shown to NOT be significant, well, we needed to do these thing ANYWAY (again, for other reasons).

I'm already doing what I can on these issues. I replaced one of my vehicles with a new one that gets 50% better MPG than the old one. If I don't need to drive somewhere, I don't. I switched years ago to CFL light bulbs in my home (they use only 25% of the electricity than a regular incandescent bulb with an equivalent light output). I have replaced my air conditioner/heater, my refrigerator, and my water heater with newer, more efficient models over the last few years, and I do my best to limit the amount they run. I buy my electricity (paying a bit more for it, too) from a company that has a significant amount of generation capacity from solar, wind, and nuclear (currently about 20%), and is committed to increasing that amount as time passes. I do everything I can to reduce my water use. I buy liquid products preferentially in aluminum or glass containers, and I recycle those containers. I avoid plastic containers wherever possible. I look for paper-based packaging that has significant paper recycling use in it, especially 'post-consumer' recycled paper. I do my best to limit use of harsh chemicals around the house. For instance, I don't use weed killer or chemical fertilizer on the lawn, and I use chemical pesticides very sparingly. I prefer natural fiber clothing to synthetic. Cotton and wool rule! Nylon/rayon/polyester/etc. drools!

I already do all of these thing for Environmental and Economic reasons, and I am always looking for ways to increase what I am doing. I have been doing these things for years. Years before 'global warming/climate change' became the hot topic it is today. What are you guys and girls doing to help?

Well MajorKong, what can I say? But that this makes all good sense and you have given some good ideas and tips. I'm admittedly miles behind you, only really becoming interested win Climate Change when I first joined BOINC and the BBC climate project some 18 moths ago. I try and do what a can to reduce my carbon footprint and reduce my contribution to pollution. Sometimes it's just getting hold of some ideas that help. I've only just thought of buying two extra 200 liter water butts and aim to make my garden free of tap water - collected and falling rainwater only. Every little helps.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8567
Credit: 4,232,738
RAC: 1,113
United Kingdom
Message 602443 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 18:45:35 UTC - in response to Message 602415.
Last modified: 12 Jul 2007, 18:46:14 UTC

... I try and do what a can to reduce my carbon footprint and reduce my contribution to pollution. Sometimes it's just getting hold of some ideas that help. I've only just thought of buying two extra 200 liter water butts and aim to make my garden free of tap water - collected and falling rainwater only. Every little helps.

That in itself can be a big help. Water is surprisingly heavy to process and pump to your tap.

Your garden benefits also in not getting poisoned by all the chlorine and flourine put in the water supply to kill all the bugs (and us?)!

Another big win is to hang out your washing to dry rather than using a tumble dryer...

Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

John McCallum
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 04
Posts: 809
Credit: 299,953
RAC: 32
United Kingdom
Message 602468 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 19:36:07 UTC - in response to Message 602443.

... I try and do what a can to reduce my carbon footprint and reduce my contribution to pollution. Sometimes it's just getting hold of some ideas that help. I've only just thought of buying two extra 200 liter water butts and aim to make my garden free of tap water - collected and falling rainwater only. Every little helps.

That in itself can be a big help. Water is surprisingly heavy to process and pump to your tap.

Your garden benefits also in not getting poisoned by all the chlorine and flourine put in the water supply to kill all the bugs (and us?)!

Another big win is to hang out your washing to dry rather than using a tumble dryer...

Regards,
Martin

A tip that I heard on Gardener's Question Time on BBC Radio 4 was to put a few Goldfish in the rain butt aparenty they help to keep it clean by eating the algae and any insect larvae I suppose.
____________
Old enough to know better(but)still young enough not to care

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8567
Credit: 4,232,738
RAC: 1,113
United Kingdom
Message 602481 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 20:08:39 UTC - in response to Message 602468.

A tip that I heard on Gardener's Question Time on BBC Radio 4 was to put a few Goldfish in the rain butt aparenty they help to keep it clean by eating the algae and any insect larvae I suppose.

I thought of that but I'd be worried about draining all the water and forgetting that they were there!

Mosquito lavae and the subsequent mosquitoes are a real pain.

I've got some polystyrene on the surface to limit the available water surface, and a bit of old engine oil to make sure the little biters can't get any air!


The fish idea is rather good... Would you still need to feed them?

Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 602494 - Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 20:36:18 UTC - in response to Message 602481.

A tip that I heard on Gardener's Question Time on BBC Radio 4 was to put a few Goldfish in the rain butt aparenty they help to keep it clean by eating the algae and any insect larvae I suppose.

I thought of that but I'd be worried about draining all the water and forgetting that they were there!

Mosquito lavae and the subsequent mosquitoes are a real pain.

I've got some polystyrene on the surface to limit the available water surface, and a bit of old engine oil to make sure the little biters can't get any air!


The fish idea is rather good... Would you still need to feed them?

Regards,
Martin

Oh please no. I have a garden pond with goldfish and other fish. I try to give them the best "home" that I can; clear water, pond plans, waterfalls, plenty of space to swim around in, and of course they can see the light of day.

Putting some in a water butt is decidedly medieval and cruel. Please don't do it. It would be handy to send three year old children up chimneys and and keep brown bears tethered in cramped pits for fighting. And why not force pit ponies down coal mines while you're at it?

____________

flaming balloons

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Climate Change

Copyright © 2014 University of California