No, really.
Cool.
Harshest winter in years (in 100 years in China).
Returning Arctic Sea ice (thicker than before).
Incomplete climate models (that don't account for wind).
Record solar inactivity (least activity in 150 years).
Too bad the debate on global warming is over.
The research I've read over pretty much states that the increase in average ambient air temperature in a number of monitoring sites the world over has been faster in the last 150 years than at any time across the previous half million years. That says, at least to me, that we're at least partially responsible for it.
But in the meantime, before the real 'heating' phase kicks in from the greenhouse effect, what we've probably done is just make systems more extreme. If the phrase global warming doesn't do it, try 'climate change'. The effects on one part of the world necessarily reflect on other parts because of the nature of the system - just look at La Nina and El Nino for examples of how changes on one side of the globe can affect billions of people on the other side. If we accept that La Nina and El Nino can have that sort of effect, then why couldn't an average increase of heat in some areas result in a reverse effect in some extreme situations?
Anyway, the clincher for me is looking at Venus - lots and lots of CO2, CO, and similar "greenhouse" gases in the air - and it's pretty much impossible to refute the effects of those gases on Venus' weather systems - it traps heat inside and basically provides a pretty decent model for what would happen to Earth if we managed to put the same amount of shit in our atmosphere. So what if we're only putting 1/10th of it in our atmosphere? I guess we'll end up with 1/10th of the temperature of Venus then - so maybe 50-55C? *shrug*
Reply
Leave a comment