Global Warming? Blame it on a brighter Sun.

Status
Not open for further replies.
*Shakes fist at the sun* Damn you Sun!

But it's probably a combination of both humans and the sun getting hotter. I suspect more the former than the latter. Humanity is teh d00med!
 
Even if that's true, I still want cleaner air.

That's one of the areas I lean "liberal." But I've never understood the idea of destroying the environment as "conservative."
 
umm.. the sun will slowly burn hotter, its part of the life process of a star. stars slowly run out of easier to burn elements, and create heavier and heavier elements, and must expand/grow hotter in order to create the nuclear reaction in order to 'switch' to a new element for fuel... however they have to expand alot when they get hotter, so we would most likely have noticed the sun had begun engulfing planets if this were happening on any large scale at the moment. and the process makes evolution seem speedy... so no, this wouldnt account for the huge spike in global temperature over the last couple hundred years.. and unless the industrial revolution is some huge coincidence, I think we are still your likely problem starters.

Either that or Superman really fucked up when he dropped all those nukes in there. Blame him.
 
That's one of the areas I lean "liberal." But I've never understood the idea of destroying the environment as "conservative."
Click to expand...

Conservative interests tend to be aligned with big oil/manufacturing, etc. and they are the main road blocks to any environmental controls. Opinion polls in most of the world (even the US) run overwhemingly in favor of controls on environmental additions and withdrawals.

However, current economic accounting places "growth" as the motivational basis for all actions; implementing environmental controls runs contrary to this because it diminishes profits (usually in the short run only, but when have corporate executives ever planned for the long term.) The fundamental contradiction is that the earth's resources are finite, but neo-liberal/laissez-faire "growth" policy threats doesn't consider this.

The simplest solution to this problem would be to include the costs of environmental degradation at all levels of economic activity. However, this would require some government involvement and we all know conservatives consider government to be evil and would rather put resources of future generations in the hands of British Petroleum, 3M, and Shell executives.
 
Has there really been that huge of a spike though? And would it be inconsistant with normal heating and cooling of the Earth?

I've always been skeptical of global warming. I don't doubt that 'greenhouse gases' probably contribute to it, but when you consider how huge our atmosphere really is (I mean seriously, it's HUGE) I don't see us having as big an impact as some people would claim.
 
Thaedolus said:
Has there really been that huge of a spike though? And would it be inconsistant with normal heating and cooling of the Earth?

I've always been skeptical of global warming. I don't doubt that 'greenhouse gases' probably contribute to it, but when you consider how huge our atmosphere really is (I mean seriously, it's HUGE) I don't see us having as big an impact as some people would claim.
Click to expand...

"Our atmosphere is huge," doesn't really cut it. If you'd like to know the very real contribution greenhouse gasses cause to our environment, there are some people in Australia who'd like a giant hole right above their country to be fixed ASAP.
 
Its the suns fault? Great now we can spew noxious gasses into the environment as fast as we want!!! Oboy lets burn some coal with no filters!!!111

Listen, anybody who ever trys to blame a problem on one source without absolutely conclusive findings is really kidding themselves. Is the sun burning hotter? probably. Is that contributing to global warming? probably. Is it the only thing contributing? no.

You know the sun burns your skin right? if it got brighter one day would you stop wearing sunscreen? the fact is is that holes in our atmosphere let in significant amounts of extra solar radiation. this combined with more solar output and other factors we have not even begun to consider (urban heatsinks?, flaura compensation?) are working in conjunction.

We already know major atmospheric changes can contribute to massive local and global climate change. We see it when volcanos erupt, we have soil evidence that shows soot layers preceeding major drops in temperature, i.e. darkened sky blocked radiation, so why would it be a stretch to accept that a reduced resistence to radiation entering the atmosphere is a contributing factor?

Blaming one thing (the sun, emmisions) is being disingenuous to the fact that this is a complex compund problem and that you are seeking to let something "off the hook" (polluting entities, full scientific discovery).

The new segment of backpeddling that features comercial lapdogs simultaneously blaming it on the sun and claiming that it still doesn't exist is pure comedy gold btw.

EDIT: And now after reading this article, it states just as much.
 
If the Sun is burning hotter, we need our o-zone layer/less green house emissons more than we had previously calculated before!
 
Well, I was waiting for Ripclawe to show off his scientific muscle, but since he's not taking the bait, I'll go ahead and make my point.

The only way that the Sun transmits energy to Earth is through radiation. "Burning hotter" would only (potentially) change the distribution of the frequencies emitted, not the total energy. "Increased brightness" would be synonymous with "increased energy output," and, from the point of view of the Earth, "increased intensity of solar radiation."

My point is that an increase in solar radiation of the magnitude required to account for global warming would have some fairly profound and obvious consequences -- namely, that we'd all be sunburnt to hell. Since that isn't the case, this theory is clearly a red herring.

As scola and xsarien pointed out, conservatives would love nothing more than to theorize global warming away to justify the continued -- and ever-increasing -- use of fossil fuels. Although there are almost certainly natural processes influencing global climate, you simply cannot ignore the impact that we as a civilization have on the environment -- and in particular, WESTERN civilization.
 
from the point of view of the Earth, "increased intensity of solar radiation."
My point is that an increase in solar radiation of the magnitude required to account for global warming would have some fairly profound and obvious consequences -- namely, that we'd all be sunburnt to hell. Since that isn't the case, this theory is clearly a red herring.
Click to expand...

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Click to expand...

have you read the article? It never says the sun is the only cause, now its a question of which is the major contributor.

Although there are almost certainly natural processes influencing global climate, you simply cannot ignore the impact that we as a civilization have on the environment -- and in particular, WESTERN civilization.
Click to expand...

I am all for cutting down on greenhouse emissions or whatever, but not at the cost of hampering our society's progress and production. That is in effect what the kyoto treaty does.
 
Ripclawe said:
I am all for cutting down on greenhouse emissions or whatever, but not at the cost of hampering our society's progress and production. That is in effect what the kyoto treaty does.
Click to expand...

You're right, we should just spew this crap into the atmosphere despite ourselves. What good is all of this "progress" if going outside becomes hazardous to our health? Think a bit more long term, we need to get stem this before it gets bad. And if some corporations bellyache about it being expensive? Well, better them than any future-kid-of-mine's lungs.
 
MrAngryFace said:
I suppose we could fall back on the cows farting excuse again.
Click to expand...


Cows? I thought it was supposed to be pigs now since apparently they generate more waste than we do - or so is the current logic.
 
Ripclawe said:
I am all for cutting down on greenhouse emissions or whatever, but not at the cost of hampering our society's progress and production. That is in effect what the kyoto treaty does.
Click to expand...
See, we can probably overcome any deficiencies limiting greenhouse outputs would produce through technology. If anything skirting regulations in the name of progress may be limiting certain opportunities for innovation and efficiency. Progress requires impeutus, and parties not subject to any kind of hinderences rarely feel the need to adapt. A lot of this pissing and moaning is at the cost of scrubbers and modern facilities, I am unaware of any thing that actually limits production on the product side. And as for progress; creating, installing and maintaining modern emmisions stnadards is going to stimulate the economy as well, some one has to make them.

Sometimes we have to take a step back and check ourselves, whether it be on a personal, corprate or global scale. You wouldn't be allowed to shit in your neighbor's pool if you were trying to save money by not flushing your toilet.
 
So say we replace combustion cars with electrical cars with rechargable batteries or whatever. Sure the cars are producing less/no emissions IE good for our ozone, but what about the power plants we use to power/recharge the electrical transportation... only so many are hydro or nuclear.

If fuel cells werent so damn expensive theyd be perfect.
 
DonasaurusRex said:
So say we replace combustion cars with electrical cars with rechargable batteries or whatever. Sure the cars are producing less/no emissions IE good for our ozone, but what about the power plants we use to power/recharge the electrical transportation... only so many are hydro or nuclear.

If fuel cells werent so damn expensive theyd be perfect.
Click to expand...

Actually hydro power is pretty disruptive. It's clean in that it doesn't release the kinds of pollution that other power sources release, but it can be tremendously disruptive to the river ecology.

Take the example of the dams on the Middle Snake river. As a power source, they make more electricity than is needed, hence the lower electricity prices. However, these dams cut down on the salmon that can go back up stream. Also, the young are oftentimes killed as they flow down the river because of the dams or because the rivers are artificially slow. Probably the main reason why the dams remain is to allow for cheap barging of crops downstream.

I don't know if anyone else mentioned electric vehicles. But, as the other poster mentioned, additional efficiencies or innovations could be used. Ex: the Prius, which Toyota says that it's making a profit off of. In a couple of years, the price of the technology could come down.
 
DonasaurusRex said:
So say we replace combustion cars with electrical cars with rechargable batteries or whatever. Sure the cars are producing less/no emissions IE good for our ozone, but what about the power plants we use to power/recharge the electrical transportation... only so many are hydro or nuclear.

If fuel cells werent so damn expensive theyd be perfect.
Click to expand...

Sure, if this were 1985.

Modern "electric cars" are most likely hybrids, which generate their own power. Straight alternative fuels that are currently under development, such as ethanol and hydrogen, also minimize the reliance on fossil fuels.
 
"However, current economic accounting places "growth" as the motivational basis for all actions; implementing environmental controls runs contrary to this because it diminishes profits (usually in the short run only, but when have corporate executives ever planned for the long term.) The fundamental contradiction is that the earth's resources are finite, but neo-liberal/laissez-faire "growth" policy threats doesn't consider this."

Yes it may diminish profits in the short term. But in time more pollution will create health hazards, and decrease the overall productivity of society.
 
Oh I wasnt saying hydro was just as polluting i was saying theres only so many of them, that produce that clean energy though. I think its about 20% of the worlds energy with nuclear power probably being around 17 % the other 64% is probably natural gas or coal burning. And if you have a fully electric car that needs recharging from time to time then the power needed to do that 2/3 times will tax a fossil fuel power source. Thats all I was saying.

and xsarien a hybrid isnt a modern electric car , its a combustion vehicle that runs on gas and has an electric motor. Though it has less emmissions it still has them, and is not the fully electric car that is free from using fossil fuels that the industry is working toward today and yes even in 1985.
 
DonasaurusRex said:
and xsarien a hybrid isnt a modern electric car , its a combustion vehicle that runs on gas and has an electric motor. Though it has less emmissions it still has them, and is not the fully electric car that is free from using fossil fuels that the industry is working toward today and yes even in 1985.
Click to expand...

Well, we start by cutting emissions, and then worry about total elimination some other time. I think most people aren't willing or pushing for total elimination right now. Things like the Kyoto treaty are steps in the direction of emission control... keeping emissions down with limits defined through treaty.
 
good lord, the fact that the hole in the ozone layer is now 2.5 times the size of EUROPE has nothing all to do with anything I suppose. LET'S ALL BLAME THE BRIGHTER SUN.
 
Azih said:
good lord, the fact that the hole in the ozone layer is now 2.5 times the size of EUROPE has nothing all to do with anything I suppose. LET'S ALL BLAME THE BRIGHTER SUN.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the ozone hole and global warming are two different things. Supposedly most people already agree on the CFC issue.

I don't remember much about this topic, but the "controversy" in global warming is over human CO2 emissions. Most of the scientists and research point to humans causing a lot of the recent CO2 increases. The "controversy" arises when certain people pick and choose bits of data, and they somehow use it to make it look like there are two distinct sides in the scientific community arguing over this.
 
Global Warming will not be caused by humans since we're going to run out of oil long before we can affect the climate of the earth (and by run out of oil I mean 5-10 years from now).
 
eggplant said:
IIRC, the ozone hole and global warming are two different things. Supposedly most people already agree on the CFC issue.

I don't remember much about this topic, but the "controversy" in global warming is over human CO2 emissions. Most of the scientists and research point to humans causing a lot of the recent CO2 increases. The "controversy" arises when certain people pick and choose bits of data, and they somehow use it to make it look like there are two distinct sides in the scientific community arguing over this.
Click to expand...

I applaud this explanation.
 
umm.. the sun will slowly burn hotter, its part of the life process of a star. stars slowly run out of easier to burn elements, and create heavier and heavier elements, and must expand/grow hotter in order to create the nuclear reaction in order to 'switch' to a new element for fuel... however they have to expand alot when they get hotter, so we would most likely have noticed the sun had begun engulfing planets if this were happening on any large scale at the moment. and the process makes evolution seem speedy... so no, this wouldnt account for the huge spike in global temperature over the last couple hundred years.. and unless the industrial revolution is some huge coincidence, I think we are still your likely problem starters.
Click to expand...
When Hydrogen ceases to be the primary fuel in a star's core it's on death row.
 
This is bullshit. The sun has been around for 5 billion years. The ecology of the Earth has been pretty much the same for the last billion. To say that suddenly the sun is getting hotter in the last 50 years, coinciding exactly with the increase in human pollution, is a joke. If this is true, there should also be a "cold" period. Nice to know we don't have to worry about anything.
 
The headline is very misleading (it is the torygraph after all). The scientific consensus still remains that CO2 emissions, and other gases such as methane, are the main reason for current climate change.

There are dozens of published studies that suggest this, and one study that says that the sun has got hotter in the last fifty years doesn't really change much. The lead author of the paper says so himself.
 
Neutron Night said:
This is bullshit. The sun has been around for 5 billion years. The ecology of the Earth has been pretty much the same for the last billion. To say that suddenly the sun is getting hotter in the last 50 years, coinciding exactly with the increase in human pollution, is a joke. If this is true, there should also be a "cold" period. Nice to know we don't have to worry about anything.
Click to expand...


The ecology of the Earth has definately not been "pretty much the same" for the past billion years. Not even close.
 
I think we ALL know who's to blame here...

angrysun.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
When you read a book and it has a song, do you sing it?
14
313
DGrayson replied
Gattaca is free on Amazon Prime Video now. You should watch it.
20
550
jonnyp replied
'irresponsible' tourists destroy crystal-studded 'Van Gogh' chair by sitting on it
2
66
587
ResilientBanana replied
‘Final Destination Bloodlines’ Surpasses $100 Million Globally in Opening Weekend
36
949
Eesha replied
Pixar is not what it used to be... Elio is on his way to another failure
2 3
121
844
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Top Bottom