The other day I was watching this program that talked about Columbia disaster and if it have been caused by some flying space junk. And they said it was not very probable because solar activity in prior year(s) was higher than normal, which caused atmosphere level to raise and scrape lots of that junk. And yet we don't here about that when Global Warming is discussed. Something like that for sure could be responsible for hurricane intensity, but it is also never mentioned. So what's up with that?
2006-12-14 11:19:45 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/sunspots.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/MWE-LIA.gif
Look at the images and compare them. Is that a good answer?
And don't you hate how many killer hurricanes global warming has caused this year?
2006-12-14 11:32:51 · answer #1 · answered by Halcyon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the space shuttle Columbia was damaged by space debris, it would have been in outer space in orbit, not anywhere near the atmosphere. If the space junk is anywhere close enough to the Earth to be encompassed by the atmosphere expanding and contracting, gravity would have brought it into the atmosphere and it would burn up. There is still plenty of space junk in orbit which will never burn up in the atmosphere and is in areas where the space shuttle travels to.
Solar activity causes the ionosphere to be ionized refracting electromagnetic energy. The ionosphere has no bearing on global warming or hurricanes as these occur at atmospheric layers much closer to Earth.
2006-12-14 19:27:00 · answer #2 · answered by Geoff S 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Much of what you hear in the popular media about global warming is dumbed down because americans won't be able to understand hard data and scientific explanations. There is extensive research being done about global warming throughout the world, and you can just type in global warming in any search engine and get all kids of articles, studies, and results. I suggest you watch the documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Some will say it's politically motivated, but you'll have to watch it to see that it's not.
2006-12-14 19:27:14 · answer #3 · answered by drail 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is political and down with the US and we are the bad guy that burns more than we ought. Many of those countries will not progress to the point to compete with us.
My pet peeve is CO2 is not a pollutant,it is part of the food cycle for plants, some we need some we don't. CO2 is not the problem it is the solution to the problem. Plants need CO2 just as much as we need oxygen . If the plants have plenty CO2 it will accelerate growth.
2006-12-14 21:04:51 · answer #4 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, as the world's largest energy consumer, the US prefers to remain nearly tone deaf regarding global warming.
Who wants to throw rocks while sitting in a glass house.....
2006-12-14 19:32:08 · answer #5 · answered by McMurdo 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋