First, being empty of water would imply empty of oxygen (H2O). And Earth does have a significant amount of water than any other body we know of (we were excited when the rover found ~1.5 weight % water in the soil on mars). But it didn't happen a few millions of years ago... Waaaay longer. I mean as far as like 3.4 billion years ago we had the first photosynthetic organisms cropping up, and they started spewing oxygen into the atmosphere and changed it forever. As for water, the most common theory is that it originated from a comet (which are composed mostly of ice) that hit the earth early on in earth's evolution (ie within first few million years after it had coalesced). But when exactly this occurred is unclear. Bottom line: Earth was not like Mars a few million years ago. Very early in its formation it was enriched with water (most likely by a comet), and later on the evolution of photosynthetic organisms caused the surplus in oxygen.
I'm just stunned by people who still deny it. I don't know why they deny it, either. I was told 15 years ago by a climate specialist that exactly this would happen. The predictions are true and there is still denial. That's dangerous. Very dangerous. Increased average temperatures are real, and that creates harsher, stronger weather patterns globally. And worse, it heavily impacts agriculture. I think it's the people who don't understand how it works that deny the reality. When you understand how it works it's frighteningly clear. Denial is.... ludicrous at best. Suicidal at worst. (there is FAR more money to be made denying climate change than accepting it, btw)
I read a few days ago that the sun's activity is the lowest it's been for about a hundred years. Looks like we humans are causing climate change on the sun as well.
So you've bought the narrative human generated greenhouse gasses are not the problem, natural factors are all that are in play? Care to give us you theory where all the CO2 is coming from? Or perhaps you've bought the narrative millions of years ago the planet was hotter than now so we needn't be concerned? Because after all, the planet has never had any periods of mass extinction and alternate climate conditions we need to worry about.
Sorry, I'm often satire challenged. The thing that's scary is how many intelligent people have bought the Exxon-paid-for narrative promoted using many of the same actors that promoted doubt about the science supporting second hand smoke causing health problems. I was stunned to hear John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin report say just the other day he thought climate change was one big farce. BTW, the record heat wave continues in Australia. Australia Is Melting Under a Horrifying Heatwave
A study of 11,944 papers on climate change found that of those that expressed an opinion of the cause, 97% stated that the changes were being caused by humans. If the overwhelming majority of the experts on a subject agree on something, it's a bit odd to disagree, isn't it? Something I've learned in life is that people generally believe what they want to believe. In my opinion, that's why so many people believe in an afterlife (don't worry about death; afterwards you get transported to a magical kingdom where everything's perfect), so many bad gamblers will tell you they've been unlucky (you're just as clever as you think you are; it's just bad luck), and now people deny climate change (no need to feel guilty about driving that big car all the time; 97% of climatologists are either deluded or part of a conspiracy). It may be the case that humans can adapt to it more easily than is currently thought, but seriously, we're causing climate change.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of cases where the overwhelming majority of experts were wrong and the few who disagreed turned out to be right. In this particular case, however, while we can't be absolutely certain, I think an anthropogenic effect on climate is the most reasonable interpretation of the data, and furthermore from a risk v. reward standpoint it makes sense to act.
I know you are not arguing against climate change, but I do think one can sort out when the scientific majority might potentially be wrong. Historically, when the majority have been wrong and the few right, it's been when an established conclusion has been challenged, not when something new for the most part to established science is the case. In addition, one can follow the money to the naysayers from Exxon and some other financially interested parties like the Koch brothers. That's very different from something like Dr Snow's new discovery following epidemiological evidence of a cholera outbreak, or the discovery of evidence of plate tectonics or the expanding Universe. There was no previously established body of knowledge that the climate was stable, or that humans could not have such an impact on the environment.
Of course they can, and they have been. I was only trying to point out that one can think critically about such things beyond just saying, it's possible.
There are some theories that mars used to be like is earth is now. The Sun burned away it's atmosphere though, apparently.
It may well have been for the short time it's core was sufficiently molten as to create a magnetic field. Mars wasn't big enough for sheer mass plus internal radioactivity to keep things hot and molten inside. No spinning core, no magnetic field, no protection against solar wind. Blasted and fried despite the distance.
Ten points for wrey! You are exactly right about that. Mars may have been like that in the past, but with no magnetic field its atmosphere was whisked away by solar winds. My point in my last comment was just about earth's past.
Regardless of the melted ice moving into the ocean, both the oceans and the glaciers are being heated by the excess heat from the Sun that the greenhouse gasses are trapping. In addition, glaciers reflect heat, when they melt, the ground that is exposed absorbs more heat. The one thing working against those things is more moisture in the air creates clouds that reflect heat. Melting glaciers dump fresh water into the saltwater oceans and the fear is this will mess with the circulating currents. The overall interaction of all these factors results in a net heat gain, not a net heat loss. And more importantly, climate extremes and disruptions can be expected.
Could it happen to Earth? Could our magnetic core weaken and atmosphere blow away? Better question is: what will become of Earth with global warming.
Well it will happen to Earth, but it's nothing we have to worry about. Basically as heat escapes from the core into the mantle, the liquid outer core right next to the solid inner core freezes. This happens at a very slow rate, but eventually the solid inner core will expand to the point that we won't have a liquid outer core at all. But this wouldn't happen for a few billion years, so we're good. The theory about Mars that was mentioned earlier is simply that because Mars is smaller its core cooled quicker, so it lost it's magnetic field much faster than we did. As to your last question: lots of people have given good answers to that so far. Like what Ginger just said.
But wait a minute, weird shit happening contrary to what you're saying. It's colder in the US than last year. 2012 was supposed to be Britain's last snow, 2013 they got a harsher winter.
Did you miss this in post #32 above: BTW, the record heat wave continues in Australia. Australia Is Melting Under a Horrifying Heatwave Climate will be seriously disrupted everywhere because the global climate affects the jet streams and ocean currents. We had a freaky cold wave here because a polar wind stream came further south than it normally does. The record heat in the southern hemisphere tells us the total global temperature is rising. As jet streams move, rain patterns shift latitudes. Expect floods and droughts. As the oceans heat, expect stronger hurricanes and typhoons. As CO2 levels rise, some of that goes into the oceans causing acidification, which then kills the coral reefs which then kills the fish that rely on the reefs and so on. Rising sea levels also threaten coral reefs, they are under a double whammy. Expect tropical mosquitos to change latitudes bringing tropical diseases north with them. Animals that can't migrate will die in larger numbers. As the permafrost melts, large methane releases will add to the greenhouse gasses. Loss of tropical mountain glaciers threatens the water supplies of billions of people that rely on the rivers formed from the glacial melt. And so on and so on. You cannot try to understand climate by looking at single weather events.
Not a snowflake this year on Balkans! A few drops of rain yesterday, after 4 months. And my heating bills are abnormaly low - one good thing for the home budget!
Not a snowflake this year on Balkans! A few drops of rain yesterday, after 4 months. And my heating bills are abnormaly low - one good thing for the home budget! So, maybe it's not about "global" warming, but "everywhere-except-NorthAmerica" warming. Like the killer bees!!!
I'm looking forward to the next issue of my fave science rag as it'll be a special issue on the climate change; whether or not (and how) humans have contributed to/caused it. It was unusually warm until Christmas over here, but no we've got temperatures ranging from -8 to -20 C (from 17.6 F to -4 F). It's pretty cold, actually, 'cause I live in the south and it should be warmer over here.
The pattern here in the UK over the past 10 years or so has been made up of extremes. Coldest, wettest, hottest, driest, windiest, flooding, drought, too much snow, no snow at all. At the moment we're having an unusually warm January, following the wettest, warmest December in yonks. It's the extremes and the unpredictibility that indicates the way weather patterns have changed. And of course, like @GingerCoffee said, this brings all sorts of side-effects, on crops, wildlife, plants and people. Global warming is kind of a done deal now. We didn't act soon enough to stop it. I do hope we 'act' now, to prevent it from getting any worse.
