Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Famine]

That's where the researchers work... Remember this?

I should also add that Jones's CRU group was the first producer of climate change statistics and all the institutions with which the data was shared were merely in receipt of that data - the IPCC and the UK Meteorological Office being two such institutions. If Jones falsified data, as alleged, the other institutions aren't "in on it", merely conducting research with data they were unaware was false.

 

[Sam48]

That's where the researchers work... Remember this?

Ah, I was confused for a second there.

 

[orimarc]

Well...

it's snowing in here (Barcelona capital). I live 3 miles (5km) away from the sea AND IT'S FREAKING SNOWING. In March.

I don't know if that is Global Warming, but I'll be damned if I didn't scream "Holy sheet!" when I saw it.

P.S: It's snowball fight time! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeea!

 

[DK]

Well...

it's snowing in here (Barcelona capital). I live 3 miles (5km) away from the sea AND IT'S FREAKING SNOWING. In March.

That's certainly climate change if you ask me.

 

[Northstar]

That's certainly climate change if you ask me.

Nope, that's weather, there is a difference.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Well...

it's snowing in here (Barcelona capital). I live 3 miles (5km) away from the sea AND IT'S FREAKING SNOWING. In March.

I don't know if that is Global Warming, but I'll be damned if I didn't scream "Holy sheet!" when I saw it.

snow in Barcelona in march can be considered normal, snowfalls in Spain are in january-march, but climate change is a fact and it's here

 

[addictions]

Ok here is a little idea of my own.
The earth is a sphere and spins around as we all know.
There are some massive cities that are heavily populated with people and vehicle's ect, ect.
Thus equaling weight. Large weight scattered around on a sphere could cause a shift in the earths rotational behaviour.(Altering the axis) Which in turn would alter the line of equator causing different temperature patterns in different countries = weather change. And if my idea is correct this problem could only get worse.
As I said just a thought.

In the UK alone there is an estimated 32m cars in this tiny country.(I'l let you work out weight) Then there's buildings. And lets not forget the amount of stuff we've taken from below the surface coal,oil,sand,stone and much more.We're not talking small weights we're talking billions and billions of tons.

 

[Neal]

^ Ermm...I don't think even the largest and most densely populated cities significantly alter the distribution of mass on the Earths surface to have any effect on the rotational axis. I know you said it’s just a thought but it’s seems a bit too unlikely.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok here is a little idea of my own.
The earth is a sphere and spins around as we all know.
There are some massive cities that are heavily populated with people and vehicle's ect, ect.
Thus equaling weight. Large weight scattered around on a sphere could cause a shift in the earths rotational behaviour.(Altering the axis) Which in turn would alter the line of equator causing different temperature patterns in different countries = weather change. And if my idea is correct this problem could only get worse.
As I said just a thought.

Are you trying to say that the problem is that we are adding weight to the Earth? Because we aren't.

And if you are saying that having weight shifted around on Earth, by moving metal and stone from scattered places in the ground to centralized locations in cities is causing the problem I think you are over estimating our ability to affect change, since it requires massive and sudden crust movements, such as the tectonic activity that caused the recent earthquake in Chile to cause a measurable difference. And that was basically the result of an entire tectonic plate (think the weight of an entire country's land mass or more) being shifted all at once. Basically, Earth is huge and our effect on it due to weight movement is likely similar to bacteria on a basketball.

 

[Dotini]

I have heard it said that the Three Gorges dam in China actually has the potential to cause a small but measurable change in the Earth's rotation.

 

[Jay]

Basically, Earth is huge and our effect on it due to weight movement is likely similar to bacteria on a basketball.

So thats the reason for the air balls, I knew it!

 

[niky]

In China, they have all their citizens jump for fifteen minutes at mid-day in an effort to prevent Global warming by pushing the Earth slightly further away from the Sun.

I swear, this is totally true. not.

I suggest we all do the same.

 

[Neal]

In China, they have all their citizens jump for fifteen minutes at mid-day in an effort to prevent Global warming by pushing the Earth slightly further away from the Sun.

I swear, this is totally true. not.

I suggest we all do the same.

Maybe we could also point the exhausts from all the cars in the world at the sun and rev the engines so the exhaust fumes push the earth away from the sun!

name the programme

 

[Danoff]

In China, they have all their citizens jump for fifteen minutes at mid-day in an effort to prevent Global warming by pushing the Earth slightly further away from the Sun.

I swear, this is totally true. not.

I suggest we all do the same.

Lots of fun things about that. But presuming for a moment that we actually could change the earth's orbit but pushing something into the ground, doing so at mid-day wouldn't move us any farther from the sun.

Pretend that you have an earth-pushing device and you're standing on the equator and the sun is directly overhead (doesn't happen every day). If you push the earth outward, away from the sun, what you're effectively doing is fighting the sun's gravity right? The sun is pulling inward and you're pushing outward. It's essentially like the sun lost a little bit of gravity.

So what would happen if the sun suddenly lost a little bit of gravity?

Our orbit would slow down. It doesn't move out or in, it just slows. It takes longer to get around the sun once. So pushing against the earth won't actually move you outward (unless you have enough force to escape the sun's gravity).

To increase the earth's orbital distance you need to push on the terminator (sunset). But if you do that once, you're actually only increasing the orbital distance on the other side of the sun, when you get back to the time when you pushed you'll be right at the same distance you were. So you need 2 pushes to increase the orbital radius but maintain a circular orbit (or low eccentricity). One push on one side of the sun (at sunset), and another equal push on the exact other side of the sun (at sunset). This will increase the orbital radius while keeping it circular.

If you don't do it at the right latitude, such that you're pushing exactly into the Earth's orbital plane (this will depend on the time of year), you'll end up changing the orbital plane itself. This is known as the inclination of the orbit. This wouldn't necessarily change the distance from the sun, but it would require you to use extra force since some of the force would be wasted on changing the orbital plane instead of boosting the orbital radius.

Technically, you also need to perform a maneuver on the moon as well. What you're really trying to accelerate is the Earth-Moon barycenter. Unfortunately I think you're guaranteed to screw up the Moon's orbit a bit when you do that.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have heard it said that the Three Gorges dam in China actually has the potential to cause a small but measurable change in the Earth's rotation.

If we wish to get nitty gritty in fractions of microseconds, then yes, any vertical mass shifting we do can have an effect.

But in comparison, Three Gorges Dam is estimated (I say estimated because I can't find anything giving a measured difference) to have slowed Earth's daily rotation by 0.06 microseconds. In comparison, the Chile earthquake measurably shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds.

But to get picky enough to look deep into it then I cause a change just by walking up the stairs to work on the third floor of an office building every day. But when one of the largest engineering jobs in human history is only a tiny fraction if what Earth does to itself on a regular basis it seems to be a very tiny thing to worry about.

Considering that we live in a world where the media and politicians talk about witnessing global warming first hand by watching ice melt in Greenland, in the summer, I have to believe that no environmentalists or politicians would pass up the opportunity to make us to stop building things that are heavy and tall if it were having an effect that could be shown to cause a problem. Their problem is likely one where its affect can be measured to billionths of a second and there is very little room for obfuscation in the prediction models.

 

[niky]

Lots of fun things about that. But presuming for a moment that we actually could change the earth's orbit but pushing something into the ground, doing so at mid-day wouldn't move us any farther from the sun.

Pretend that you have an earth-pushing device and you're standing on the equator and the sun is directly overhead (doesn't happen every day). If you push the earth outward, away from the sun, what you're effectively doing is fighting the sun's gravity right? The sun is pulling inward and you're pushing outward. It's essentially like the sun lost a little bit of gravity.

So what would happen if the sun suddenly lost a little bit of gravity?

Our orbit would slow down. It doesn't move out or in, it just slows. It takes longer to get around the sun once. So pushing against the earth won't actually move you outward (unless you have enough force to escape the sun's gravity).

To increase the earth's orbital distance you need to push on the terminator (sunset). But if you do that once, you're actually only increasing the orbital distance on the other side of the sun, when you get back to the time when you pushed you'll be right at the same distance you were. So you need 2 pushes to increase the orbital radius but maintain a circular orbit (or low eccentricity). One push on one side of the sun (at sunset), and another equal push on the exact other side of the sun (at sunset). This will increase the orbital radius while keeping it circular.

If you don't do it at the right latitude, such that you're pushing exactly into the Earth's orbital plane (this will depend on the time of year), you'll end up changing the orbital plane itself. This is known as the inclination of the orbit. This wouldn't necessarily change the distance from the sun, but it would require you to use extra force since some of the force would be wasted on changing the orbital plane instead of boosting the orbital radius.

Technically, you also need to perform a maneuver on the moon as well. What you're really trying to accelerate is the Earth-Moon barycenter. Unfortunately I think you're guaranteed to screw up the Moon's orbit a bit when you do that.

What if we just strap a rocket to the moon, push it in towards the Earth (not directly at the Earth, though...), and use it to slingshot us out into a higher orbit?

It would suck losing the moon, though...

 

[Danoff]

What if we just strap a rocket to the moon, push it in towards the Earth (not directly at the Earth, though...), and use it to slingshot us out into a higher orbit?

It would suck losing the moon, though...

Well yea, that would totally work...


(probably not )

 

[Sam48]

I thought this was a global warming thread, not can we alter the earths orbit thread?

 

[FoolKiller]

I thought this was a global warming thread, not can we alter the earths orbit thread?

Buzz kill.

We were sort of kind of on topic since we were responding to a suggestion/curious question that climate change may be the result of man made alterations to Earth's movement and what that may do to how the sun interacts with our atmosphere.

 

[Sam48]

Buzz kill.

Your welcome,

I guess I'll through my opinion out there anyway by saying I'm pretty sure we cant change the earth's orbit. Even a sky scraper sized meteor smashing into the earth won't change it's orbit.

Even if we did change the earth's orbit, it wouldn't stop global warming, even though I don't believe in it. If we where any closer to the sun, say 2000 miles, I would be sitting outside right now getting a tan while lying on a long chair. If the earth was about 2000 miles farther from the sun, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference as it hasn't hit 40 degrees here since November.

 

[Dotini]

We were sort of kind of on topic since we were responding to a suggestion/curious question that climate change may be the result of man made alterations to Earth's movement and what that may do to how the sun interacts with our atmosphere.

Foolkiller has put his finger on the key issue: How does the sun interact with the Earth's atmosphere? If the sun were a variable star, which it is, one might think that conditions on the sun had an absolutely enormous amount to do with Earth's climate. If all the planets in the solar system are observed to be heating up, and the Earth is too, then, since the sun is the source of our heat, it's logical that the sun is the driver of climate change, not earthly activity. If we are going to change anything, it may be prudent to direct our attentions to the workings of the magnetosphere and ionosphere.

 

[Sam48]

Foolkiller has put his finger on the key issue: How does the sun interact with the Earth's atmosphere? If the sun were a variable star, which it is, one might think that conditions on the sun had an absolutely enormous amount to do with Earth's climate. If all the planets in the solar system are observed to be heating up, and the Earth is too, then, since the sun is the source of our heat, it's logical that the sun is the driver of climate change, not earthly activity. If we are going to change anything, it may be prudent to direct our attentions to the workings of the magnetosphere and ionosphere.

You make a very good point as astronomers have reported the sun hasn't produced any sun spots for the past few years. This is probably what's causing this cooling trend we're having.

 

[Dotini]

FWIW (Brits may know).
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0

...and,
http://www.eham.net/articles/23487

 

[homeforsummer]

But in comparison, Three Gorges Dam is estimated (I say estimated because I can't find anything giving a measured difference) to have slowed Earth's daily rotation by 0.06 microseconds. In comparison, the Chile earthquake measurably shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds.

Pfft, only 1.26 microseconds. Small beans...

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that caused the boxing day Tsunami is estimated to have shortened the day by around 2.68 microseconds, thanks to it's effect on reducing the oblateness (increasing the sphericity) of the Earth. I wish I could find the original Nasa page I had bookmarked on the event (they had a website re-jig and the page no longer links) but they had all sorts of data that even the wiki page doesn't explain fully - like the change in circumferance the Earth experienced after the quake.

Regarding sun spots, I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that we're currently in the lull between periods of heavy sunspot activity - this activity is expected to increase in the next few years, so I'm sure we're sure to have a few record heatwaves and the like.

 

[niky]

Well yea, that would totally work...


(probably not )

C'mon... at least I'm trying... although, now that I think about it, such a move would probably merely give the Earth more orbital wobble...

Even if we did change the earth's orbit, it wouldn't stop global warming, even though I don't believe in it. If we where any closer to the sun, say 2000 miles, I would be sitting outside right now getting a tan while lying on a long chair. If the earth was about 2000 miles farther from the sun, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference as it hasn't hit 40 degrees here since November.

That's because you're thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too small. The Earth's orbit is elliptical... (egg shaped), and at its furthest, it's a few million miles further out than at its closest.

2000 miles? Communist China's superior geoengineering skills laugh at such puny numbers. All party members are now instructed to jump for thirty minutes a day. (yeah... it's kind of hard to make Communist Russia jokes now that the USSR is gone...)

 

[Sam48]

That's because you're thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too small. The Earth's orbit is elliptical... (egg shaped), and at its furthest, it's a few million miles further out than at its closest.

2000 miles? Communist China's superior geoengineering skills laugh at such puny numbers. All party members are now instructed to jump for thirty minutes a day. (yeah... it's kind of hard to make Communist Russia jokes now that the USSR is gone...)

Well yes, that why we have seasons, but if the elliptical orbit was off set 2000 miles or so, we'd have a very different earth.

 

[Keef]

Basically, Earth is huge and our effect on it due to weight movement is likely similar to bacteria on a basketball.

If that's the case then UD better start washing their hands better.

 

[niky]

Well yes, that why we have seasons, but if the elliptical orbit was off set 2000 miles or so, we'd have a very different earth.

Orbital tilt is what creates the seasons... not the orbit itself. Which is why winter isn't a global phenomenon. In fact... (checks internet)... perihelion (closest approach of Earth to the sun) this century actually occurs in mid-winter.

 

[Touring Mars]

one might think that conditions on the sun had an absolutely enormous amount to do with Earth's climate.

Of course it does, but the question is whether or not observed variation in solar activity can account for observed changes in Earth's climate. While solar activity will always be a dominant driver of climate on Earth, it is not the only driver, and the warming observed in the 20th Century cannot be explained by considering solar variation alone.

If all the planets in the solar system are observed to be heating up, and the Earth is too, then, since the sun is the source of our heat, it's logical that the sun is the driver of climate change, not earthly activity.

To start with, not "all planets" have been observed to be heating up. Secondly, even if they had (which they haven't), the assumption that the Sun is the only factor in controlling climate is still totally wrong. Thirdly, even if all planets are warming, and the Sun is the only factor controlling their climates (both of which are completely not true), then you would still have the small problem of explaining how, in that case, you can account for the discrepancy between warming of the planets and actual solar activity.

The argument that "other planets are warming up, therefore Earth's warming must be due to the Sun" is incredibly weak, yet I don't doubt that there are many people who would happily believe it, despite a total lack of evidence.

--

While I sympathise with the general public and others who read articles that state things like "Jupiter is warming, therefore the Sun causes climate change", I have no time whatsoever for those people who write these articles knowing full well that they are misleading people on purpose. One such article is by Ian McClintock, titled "Proof that CO2 is not the Cause of the Current Global Warming", he states:

WARMING ON OTHER SOLAR SYSTEM PLANETS AND MOONS

Further evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is
provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar
system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gasses. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming (7,8) pointing to the Sun as the
dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.

7) Marcus, P.S. 2004: Prediction of global climate change on Jupiter: Nature 446:828-831
8) Hathaway, D.H. and Wilson, R.M. 200: What the sunspot record tells us about space climate. Solar
Physics 224: 5-19

This is a sickening piece of sloppy pseudoscientific garbage, and it is a tremendous pity and no doubt a major annoyance to the authors of the cited 'evidence' that their work has been subverted in this way. The Marcus paper (which isn't even cited correctly) has the words "climate change" and "Jupiter" in the title. This is clearly as much as McClintock bothered to read - or perhaps more importantly, it's as much as McClintock is counting on you reading. The actual paper does talk about how to predict climate changes based on observations of Jupiter's cyclones, but it says nothing at all about the influence of solar activity on Jupiter's climate... rather, he says "I predict an imminent, dramatic change in the jovian climate as part of a 70-year cycle" in reference to long-lived cyclonic systems, not solar activity!!. Similarly, the other paper is being cited out of context too, and does not support the outrageous conclusions being made by McClintock.

 

[Kutscher80]

Interesting Thread.
Living and Learning...