<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Astronomy articles, stories, and discussion </title>
<link>http://astronomy.hopcott.net/index.html</link>
<description>Astronomy articles, stories, and discussion by Rob Hopcott</description>
<language>en-GB</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2007</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:53:34 +0100</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:53:34 +0100</pubDate>
<generator>http://thingamablog.sf.net</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>

<item>
<title>Astronomical not Earthly events may be the root cause of global warming </title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;
      According to a Channel 4 UK television documentary last week, global 
      warming may have more to do with sun spots than human generated carbon 
      emissions. If this is true, global warming may be a slower phenomenon 
      than currently believed, which is reassuring, but also one which we can 
      do nothing about, which is much more scary.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      The point was made that planet Earth has gone through proven cycles when 
      temperatures ranged widely across the globe. The North and South poles 
      have been melted long before the internal combustion engine was even a 
      twinkle in the eye of homo sapiens. Ice ages have come and gone with no 
      intervention from human beings and there is no reason to believe that 
      this will not happen in the future.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      One of the most important points made was that atmospheric carbon 
      increases happened naturally as a consequence of higher Earth 
      temperatures which were primarily caused by changes in the Sun's emitted 
      radiation and can be monitored by observing Sun spots. When sunspot 
      activity was high over many years, there was a slow increase in Earth's 
      surface temperature and then, subsequently, an increase in carbon 
      dioxide in the atmosphere. The argument made by the television programme 
      was that the amount of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused 
      by the sun's changing activity was vastly more significant as an effect 
      on the world's climate than the activities of humanity.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      In the Sunday Times, the more popular view about the causes of global 
      warming and it's possible consequences, were comprehensively documented 
      and they were scary indeed.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      Depending on, how successful international governments would be in 
      stemming the outflow of carbon dioxide, a number of outcomes for the 
      global climate were considered. None of these outcomes were pleasant. 
      They varied from extremely inconvenient, with many human beings dying 
      through lack of water, to global disasters of Armageddon proportions 
      with city's underwater and fireballs rained through the skies and 
      devastating all in their path. Estimates as to the probability of the 
      different outcomes considered tended strongly towards the pessimistic. 
      What was particularly perturbing was that all these horrors could happen 
      very quickly, within the next 50 years or so.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      Stories that the end of the world is nigh have always been a good way to 
      sell newspapers. On the other hand, there are also powerful vested 
      interests keen to keep us using oil and other fossil fuels. It is 
      obviously necessary to question the message, the messenger and the 
      science behind predicted outcomes.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      Worryingly, although the two messages might appear to be contradictory, 
      at first sight, they may not necessarily be so. The television programme 
      suggested that global warming was caused by astronomical events and the 
      newspaper article claimed that global warming was caused by human events.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      But, does it matter? If either or both of these stories are true, from 
      the point of view of the man in the street, the outlook is grim, whether 
      it is in decades of hundreds of years.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      Perhaps there is one good thing that may come out of the debate. If it 
      stimulates a greater interest in astronomy and the world around us 
      amongst ordinary people, we may at least understand better what is 
      happening to us when it happens.
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      Bye for now
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      Rob
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      (Rob Hopcott - &lt;a href=&quot;http://hopcottfictionblog.hopcott.net/ &quot; title=&quot;News about articles and stories by Rob Hopcott &quot; name=&quot;news&quot;&gt;online 
      author&lt;/a&gt; and awestruck some time astronomer)
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;
      &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.hopcott.net/&quot; title=&quot;News about articles and stories from Rob Hopcott &quot; name=&quot;news&quot;&gt;Comments 
      and news about stories and articles from Rob Hopcott&lt;/a&gt;
    &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<link>http://astronomy.hopcott.net/archives/2007/03/entry_0.html</link>
<guid>http://astronomy.hopcott.net/archives/2007/03/entry_0.html</guid>

<category>astronomy </category>

<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
