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.
most likely there is an anthropogenic contribution to warming. because people are constantly burning and heating something, which is comparable to constant forest fires, which have not gone away, plus free carbon into the atmosphere. it also means that people use buried carbon in the form of coal, oil and gas, which also enters the atmosphere and it has not been there for several million years. then the food business and my man. in principle, this carbon was in circulation because plants are involved in the circulation of carbon, but it is not entirely clear how it is there with the dynamics, because the food industry may require a higher concentration with a shorter constant carbon cycle, which in my opinion is the main contribution. However, it is always present in a consistently high concentration, being one of the greenhouse gases of various CO plus menthane. historical deforestation for pastures and good lands, as trees store free carbon well for a long cycle. and plastic - instead of throwing it away and having it be inactive like coal and gradually decomposing over centuries or reused with low losses, they tend to burn it. and other energy conversions with heat losses making a small contribution. and all this in the aggregate is not anthropogenic factors. a gradual increase in solar activity due to thermonuclear processors such as tou. so we can expect some unprecedented warming. How strong and catastrophic is a difficult question. but it would probably be worse for the civilization of the middle temperate zones if the ice age began. white cold ahhh there was an urgent need for a sacred thermonuclear fire to set fire to thorium to boil seagulls.
MunchkiN 616
, of course, there is a contribution - but the carbon that people burn was just in the atmosphere before, all of a sudden - right?) And even when it was in the atmosphere, the living conditions were quite suitable for photosynthesis of higher plants.
In any case, this should worry countries with a high population density - well, a fusion is needed, of course, but purely because of its effectiveness, its appearance should be another revolution.
Sweety_Mustard
Usually, historically, the biosphere arranged a white cooling for itself by a cooling increase in oxygen. there was just no excess carbon in the atmosphere because it was conserved by plants in the Carboniferous period before the appearance of mushrooms that could process wood and all sorts of ancient swamps. and the man here is, as it were, the king-consumer - he found a use for the waste of iron bacteria and plants and arranged for himself a bathhouse with a steam room. and there is also a human food cycle that affects the working carbon cycle, including in the partial production of more greenhouse gases such as methane.
MunchkiN 616 I
mean, there were shellfish - but there were no mushrooms? And why the hell are mushrooms, when at that time there was no higher vegetation that had lignin in its tissues?) This and ordinary bacteria will eat it with pleasure.
Pirat13666
I think you're giving too much credit to *them*. Those who allegedly regulate the weather. There may be some truth in this, but not as terrible as some describe.
If the "weather weapon" really were so formidable, we would see a completely different development of events, and the heat in Russia in 2009-2010 or major floods would seem like a childish prank. Since nothing really terrible is happening, there are two options: either * they * do not want to use the “climate weapon†to the fullest, or they cannot influence the weather / climate so much. The second option is understandable, but the first, if you or others choose it, requires justification. It seems to me that there will be no justification beyond conjectures 8)