A 100 years huh? So what prompted this news story. And others like it 107 years ago? http://www.snopes.com/1912-article-global-warming/ .
Why do we think something that is already a part of the Earths entropy can change the entropy when we burn it? I would be pretty sure that a lump of coal can hold the same amount of energy in solid form or gaseous form . A nothing gain , nothing lost of the lump of coal.
Try this, times, about 120w output per day https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...energy-in-form-of-heat-does-a-human-body-emit http://www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/ And you wonder why there is more heat in the atmosphere....Just another part of it. approx 7.5 billion * 120w =900000000000 w per day being released into the atmosphere.
p.s then you can add on all the industrial wattage, televisions, satellites etc , to give you a summation of total wattage being released into the atmosphere every day, don't forget to add the sun too.
How about less Science and more History of Global Warming! The correlation of these thermal events with history are quite remarkable. And the Delaware River does not freeze as it did in the Little Ice Age. Moi r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
That doesn't represent a change on earth's total, though. It is just a rearrangement of what is here. Earth's total is affected by arriving radiation, dust, etc. and by the rate of departure through radiation. The problem with co2 and some other gasses is that they slightly change the balance in arriving and departing radiation. Changing that balance even by small amounts is significant.
I don't get your point here. You seem to be hoping some major event will come along and help us out for a while. But, we should be consistently focusing on responsible courses of action by those who actually could take meaningful action.
Huh? People being born and the increase in domestic use of appliances alone is something that is not here to begin with period. This is all extra energy being released into the entropy of the atmosphere. Earths total is affected by the overall of what is within and what is out coming in. I do agree the dust is a big problem, this allows the Earths total entropy (atmosphere included) , retain more energy. In thermodynamics of bodies , all bodies including environmental gases want to reach ''room'' temperature. The denser the body the more energy it can retain, the more q+ our entropy becomes the likely hood of moving away from the Sun similar to how the moon is pushing away from the Earth. Increased likewise charge will displace the Earth, we will have another ice age.
That isn't what is behind the climate change we are seeing. Changing how solar heat is gathered and retained is the issue. Feel free to cite something, though.
Cite something? I am afraid I would find insufficient information to cite something. You are correct that one action is not solely responsible for climate change, however I am pretty sure it is a part of the overall experience so if you ignored this you would be incomplete in the information . It would be rather naive of us to look for one specific cause when the simplicity view is that anything there after is new mass which equates to more energy retention in the isolated system.
You cannot release millions of years of stored carbon (ancient sunlight) within a century and expect to see no resulting effect...PERIOD.
I do not understand your ideas on "one cause". NOAA, NASA, internarional groups such as IPCC, etc all point to a collection of sources of change. It is true, of course, that those interested in doing something about it will look for ways we can safely make the largest impact. That's a rational approach.
Sure you can, when you have no reason to be confident of the connection between the alleged cause and the alleged result.
Right you are. We are seeing a greening up of the earth which given the continuation of population growth, looks like Mother Earth is adjusting to provide for more food for her fav species, homo sapiens. Humanity has been quite lucky really, to have caught this window of coming out of the last ice age, as we discovered and utilized fossil fuels for energy production, giving us the essential energy necessary for the explosion of technology and increased standards of living, where our poor live better than the rich monarchs of yesteryear. Co2 as a driver of coming out of an ice age is highly over rated. Rising temps precede growth of co2 levels, instead of vice versa. Of course dumping more co2 via fossil fuel burning is in addition to what rising temps have created seems to have generated some hysteria, but is hardly dangerous to humanity and will be beneficial from the big picture. I find it amusing that a teaspoon accumulation of knowledge in regards to climate cycling has suddenly turned some of our scientists into creatures of certainty even as this teaspoon of knowledge had not yielded a predicative model worth its salt.
The new climate denialism: More carbon dioxide is a good thing https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...aafc72-8499-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html The "Carbon Dioxide is Plant Food" argument isn’t at all creditable and has been thoroughly debunked . Why Plants Can't Sequester Excess CO2 http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/why_plants_cant_sequester_excess_co2 Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production http://environment.newscientist.com...l-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html and food production http://environment.newscientist.com...l-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
I think it was in 1896 that Svante Arrhenius first wrote a paper on the subject. That makes it 121 years that scientists have been observing fossil fuel burning caused global warming. Global warming denial is only 20 years old, and mostly comes from right-wing think tanks. However the greenhouse effect has been known since the early 1800's making the beginnings of relevant science closer to 200 years old.
Effect. More chlorophyll utilization of CO2. Last I read in Science magazine, Global Warming Chicken Littles had not taken into account the increased algae blooms in the South Pacific. Ghia watches over us. Moi Climate, like the weather is prone to changes! r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
And yet growers who grow in green houses pump in more co2. The earth is greening up due to a little higher level of co2. Growers do not waste their money and if co2 was not a positive, they would not spend the extra money. Next thing is someone will claim co2 is not good for plants, and the greening of the earth is very bad. You need to talk to growers who pump in extra co2 to boost growth, yield, and health. Tell them how to do their job in growing plants and making a living.
Increased Algae to counteract co2? What a freakin' joke....so deplete the oxygen and kill the fish in some bizarre hope it helps?
That was the topic in an article in Science magazine. Not digest, not news. Science. The article was about global warming calculations not taking into account increased algae activity in the South Pacific.
