RE: [Utah-astronomy] Variable Sun?
Don wrote:
The solar impact on global warming may be greater than the Stanford article assumes due to cosmic rays. Also cosmic rays from other sources may have an impact.
Thanks for the links, Don, but I decline to discuss global warming or intelligent design in this listserv because, based on last winters' threads, I feel it is divisive to the group's cohesion. My own preference is to see more posts of SLAS members astrophotos, observing reports, arrangements for small group observing at the Gravel Pit, discussion of astrophotography techniques, astronomy-telescope GAS (gearhead acquisition syndrome-disorder), etc. Respect, regards and clear skies - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net
There's another good reason to end this pointless debate. Thanks, Kurt! On 5/24/07, Kurt Fisher <fisherka@csolutions.net> wrote:
but I decline to discuss global warming or intelligent design in this listserv because, based on last winters' threads, I feel it is divisive to the group's cohesion.
If you add in things like volcano eruptions what does it do to the equasion? Bob Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Kurt Fisher Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:48 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Variable Sun? Don wrote:
The solar impact on global warming may be greater than the Stanford article assumes due to cosmic rays. Also cosmic rays from other sources may have an impact.
Thanks for the links, Don, but I decline to discuss global warming or intelligent design in this listserv because, based on last winters' threads, I feel it is divisive to the group's cohesion. My own preference is to see more posts of SLAS members astrophotos, observing reports, arrangements for small group observing at the Gravel Pit, discussion of astrophotography techniques, astronomy-telescope GAS (gearhead acquisition syndrome-disorder), etc. Respect, regards and clear skies - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Replying to both Don's concern about Amazon deforestation, and Bob's about volcanic contributions- this is exactly my point. No one knows what the atmospheric CO2 threshold is before a runaway greenhouse effect begins. No one knows if, once started, it can be slowed or stopped. No one knows if it will take hundreds of years or only a few, before the planet is no longer hospitable to life as we know it. If the temperature increase trend is a gentle slope, there may be hope. If it increases geometrically once triggered, then the writing is on the wall, as far as humanity is concerned. Clearly, in the absence of a thorough understanding of the development and progression of the greenhouse effect on a planetary environment, man-caused emissions of greenhouse gases must stop completely as soon as possible. Some of the timescales I've seen for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, by various world governments, are measured in decades, with only partial reductions. My gut feeling is that this will be too little, too late. I hope my gut is wrong. Don, only 200 years ago, much of North America was covered by forest. Europe lost it's primeval forests over a timescale about 4x-5x longer than that, but desertification over large portions of Africa is a fairly recent phenomenon. Even parts of Asia (southeast, particularly) have lost vast forested regions in recent history. The Amazon isn't unique in it's loss of forested areas. The major portion of the earth's land-based CO2 sinks is gone. Recent data shows that ocean sinks are already at or very near capacity- something that up until recently was thought to be hundreds of years away. Once the eccosystem can't sequester anymore CO2, it just won't matter if humanity or the sun is a major or minor contributor.
participants (3)
-
Bob Moore -
Chuck Hards -
Kurt Fisher