Global warming. Believe? What do you think?
2017. The 8th of may. On the street it is snowing. No rain, but it is snow.Left among you, even those who do not believe in global warming? Because I remember from year to year, about 20 years ago, at the beginning of each Mar have all bloomed and the bees were flying.
PS the forum has a topic about global warming, but it's troltim with a completely different subject of discussion.
P. P. S. let me Remind you that global warming works both ways - leads to warming and to cooling. Importantly, it disrupts the climate. Theoretically, such an abrupt change in climate can lead to terrible disasters in the future.
Believe, why not? Climate tend to change. If you already had an ice age - why can't it be the opposite?
I current noticed sitting in one corner of the planet that znachitsa seasons several physical primatyvajutsja with the calendar. if it goes years 350-500 ische summer will be snow and winter will be summer voschem peck-peck
what is the way to do osobo I don't understand. with orbitalnyy movement is unlikely.
and the climate is constantly changing with the waning power of the changes and is there any natural fluctuations of CO2 and proceso
As April was too warm,put on sneakers,robe and after 2 hours came back home all wet...
rambling
Remember,January 1, 98th on the streets in my city, the puddles were.Almost all the February rains.And in March over 3 days the snow piled up,as for the entire winter.But I do not remember that in March it was +11°.In may 1999 in the morning on the street saw the ice instead of puddles
Climate tend to change. And the human influence on the processes of this magnitude are insignificant.
In General, most people, which is Earth science, knows about the cycles of Milankovitch.
The increasing greenhouse effect, having the effect of global warming is not a God to believe in him, but a scientifically substantiated fact, the evidence of which is visible now to the naked eye even to a layman. CO2 concentration had a steady amplitude during the last 800 thousand years as shown by the sample of Antarctic ice. But in the last 100 years, it has grown to 30, and according to some even 40%. If you follow the Milankovitch cycles, then there is no reason to increase the temperature of the surface of the Earth, solar activity is stable, volcanic activity in the normal range. So, where in the last hundred years did so much carbon dioxide? I do not need to remind you that the burning of oil and coal produces carbon dioxide, as well as the fact that over the last hundred years there has been a technological breakthrough based on burning oil.
Then they say that global warming is, but it is not in man. And the opposite is true, it is actually there, but almost all of those who practice it are confident that it has anthropogenic causes.
unforgettable878 wrote:
If you follow the Milankovitch cycles, then there is no reason to increase the temperature of the surface of the Earth, solar activity is stable, volcanic activity in the normal range.
I recommend to read more about what are the Milankovitch cycles. Volcanism here at all in the subject.
Not to be unfounded: V. I. Astakhov: the Beginning of the Quaternary Geology. There you can read about the interglacial and glaciation.
unforgettable878 wrote:
So, where in the last hundred years did so much carbon dioxide?
Oh, again about carbon dioxide it. Look on the Internet chart, which shows how varied the CO2 content in the atmosphere over time. And how the climate was changing.
Here's one example:
Spoiler
Gauguin wrote:
almost all perpetrators are confident that it has anthropogenic causes.
Science also says that the cyclical warming and minor ice ages is also a fact, so the question is open...
Judging because we still people wear jackets, and in some parts of our country the snow falls and hail, then I conclude that it's global cooling.
OkGo wrote:
Volcanism here at all in the subject.
Volcanism here I meant as a separate natural factor that is not associated with Milankovitch cycles. As I recall volcanoes emit CO2 during eruptions.
As for the Milankovitch cycles, then that's what Wikipedia says about it: In this age the difference between the winter solstice (December 21) and the passage of the perihelion (January 3) is only 13 days, but the eccentricity is now equal 0,0167, which is significantly less than the average (the maximum value 0,0658), and continues to decrease. In this regard, the seasonal fluctuations of the orbital velocity of the Earth and the distance to the Sun is small and the brought seasonal changes coming to the Earth of solar energy is insignificant. Not the most reliable source, but nevertheless, assuming it is written, as far as I understand it there is no reason to say that now these cycles are the reason for the increase in temperature. Correct me if I'm wrong. Of course, I have no way to check the information about the significance of anthropogenic factor regarding CO2 emissions and I have to believe in the word (which is very not like). In addition, to understand the possible motives associated with scientists receive funding to study this issue (as well as the motives of the oil companies to challenge the significance of anthropogenic factor), but the rapid increase in CO2 concentration over the last 100 years, coupled with the visible climate changes, which started de facto simultaneously with the technological revolution and the massive deforestation are hardly an ordinary match.
Do not forget that May is primarily even spring!
in the distant 70s in July, it snowed! The snow in the middle of summer! this is abnormally, and snow in early may, it's all about what...
but if you look at weather data, global warming - fact! to believe in him or not believe, it is everyone's business, but global warming is already underway and a long time coming.
warm currents (e.g. Gulf stream) are shifting, glaciers are melting, swamps are saturated abnormal amount of gas displaced titanicheskie plate, the atmosphere is saturated with foreign gases, which leads to the complete and utter PI... um, to a complete ass!
if we consider the stable part of the world, tektonicheski shifts and the least problem is the climate control. changes, it will be Australia and Central Russia.
20 years - 30 only on these plates will be relative peace. everything else Wake to shake and crumble. just look at Italy now. or Japan.
so I'll get everything.
and by the way, among the meteorologists I heard a rumor that soon (in 10 years or so - 15) weird Yellowstone. then just kick EVERYONE. America will not be part of Europe will wash away, but the ash cloud will close 80% of our ball.
but it only forecasts, assumptions, both in principle and rumors about global warming. and to believe in them or not, matter...
unforgettable878
Let's say, a direct connection between the content of CO2 in the atmosphere and after cooling/warming present.
Which, incidentally, can be seen even on a fairly common chart that I brought.
But with the cycles of the Milankovitch all is a great deal linked. Which in turn correlate well with isotopic methods (the Dating of marine sediment + oxygen-isotopic method for the Antarctic ice shield). In addition, all still linked with magnetometric survey of the Loess plateau in China.
Now we live in the era of interglacial, so in spite of the climatic fluctuations, the General trend is for warming. If the person has on the process influence, it is only minor. In the interglacial period can be cooling and warming, but short-term, in terms of geological time. After 5-7-10 thousand years of the interglacial is likely to end, to be followed by global cooling, with all its consequences.
I'm exaggerating a lot in your posts (the same isotope Geology), but I can explain if need be. Suggest the free time to read the textbook, which I cited above on the subject. There are some chapters these questions are parsed in more detail.
insel260
Is global warming itself is quite fit into the framework of the interglacial epoch.
Talking about tectonics - is another matter. Tectonic processes are generally weakly expressed within ancient cratons, but it is quite an extensive region. Which are on all continents.
About climate change, they say, will affect the least - not quite true. There are areas that are under global climate change will be affected in such a way that it will become less suitable for human habitation, some will be more suitable.
About Yellowstone - the likelihood of an eruption is not very big, actually. Yes, even if it explodes, then the probability that it will be something like you described - is negligible. Yes, the ash in the atmosphere will cause cooling, but not very long. And not to the world, the end has come)
Actually, the Neogene was not one eruption of Yellowstone. Moreover, in the Quaternary period there were 3 major eruption. However, even the ancestors of modern humans somehow managed to survive the whole thing.
OkGo
About the effects of CO2 on the surface temperature of the Earth, as far as I know it is a proven scientific fact that like everything in science, there is criticism and that's fine. There is a perception that Venus was about the same, making the atmosphere of the planet in a hellish Inferno. To judge about the processes only on a textbook one author probably not the best option. About graphics, I'm not an expert, but as far as I can see at higher CO2 reduced the duration of glacial periods, and given the fact that during the ice age there are factors of the Milankovitch cycle, they apparently compensate for the temperature difference caused by the increase of carbon dioxide and this prevents the complete no-show of the ice age. Again this is just my narrow-minded TZ
unforgettable878
Let's just say, I do not judge a textbook by the same author. Just as the most comprehensive and relatively accessible scientific language describes the mechanism of climate change.
This is the most common opinion in the scientific community. Not afraid to say that it is a paradigm. At least in Russia and the CIS countries.
I do not deny the influence of CO2 on temperature at all, in some way it can manifest. I'm just saying that CO2 does not affect climate as it draws journalists from various media and organizations like Greenpeace.
However, articles that are similar to the views the scientific community itself is quite and in the English-speaking scientific communities.
OkGo wrote:
in some way it can manifest.
Judging by your schedule this is a very serious measure, because it is a huge time intervals. Given the geographical concentration of the supporters of your position, allow that there may affect the political aspect, our country and raw material is not beneficial to recognize the destructive power of CO2. Once tetraethyl lead was considered safe, adding it to fuel, and oil companies hire scientists, who for decades led the argument in favor of its readability, people meanwhile died.