...they're often frozen on the surface when found right after the fall! It's a common myth that meteorites blazing hot. In reality, the molten surface of a meteorite has plenty of time to cool during the fall through cold atmosphere, and the interior of the meteorite remains very cold.
Too much hyping. This object seems to be a scattered Kiper Belt object than an Oort Cloud object. Why? Its orbit crosses Neptune's orbit, which means it is strongly influenced by the planet's gravity. Sedna is different, because it never comes near Neptune. That doesn't mean that Sedna is an Oort Cloud object since its aphelion (most distant point of orbit) is not far enough. This newly-found object has a longer orbit, but compared to some long-period comets that originate from the Cloud and which can take several tens of thousands to millions of years to complete one orbit this is not at all unusual.
Actually, we affect ecology simply by existing. Fishing changes fish population patterns, man's spread to every corner of the Earth has caused a decline in certain species and a (relative) increase in others (check out the pigeon population of NYC, for instance). In that sense, environmentalists who say the only way to 'reverse the damage' is to 'remove man' are right, and in fact intellectually honest -- although their PR skills are questionable.
Indeed, the most ecological action would be to stop breathing. Major problem in the relative decrease/increase issue is the vanishing biodiversity. Organisms that are usually increasing are typically invading alien species, and the decreasing ones are local ones which can't compete. So the "increase" is not necessarily a good thing.
One of the best known debunked examples was Sagan's rapid-cooling scenarios ("nuclear winter"). The other problem is environmentalists refusal to see Earth's ecosystem as a evolving system, instead harking back to the past as a ideal that the future should aspire to. Ecosystems don't work that way! Millenia ago, most of Europe was an icy wasteland and the Sahara was an oasis. An observer then might decry the loss of the Sahara, but would they have predicted the advantages a temperate Europe would have brought?
Very much so. Earth's climate is extremely dynamic system. However, climate changes are normally slow and organisms have enough time to adapt. The situation is now different, however. Several ecosystems are already been pushed in a critical state due to human activity. Global warming may push them over the edge. In addition, there are over six billion people on the Earth. Hundreds of millions of people are in risks if the land where they live can no longer support them. In many parts of the world there is already an acute shortage of drinking water, and melting mountain glaciers will (not "may") make the situation much worse.
I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources.
Nuclear energy has its own problems, most notably the potential risks of radioactivity (which fortunately are often exaggerated) and the shortage of fuel. In my opinion, combining several renewable sources and developing more energy efficient tenchology is the answer. Nuclear may help in the short term.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming due to CO2 == heat is trapped in the troposphere => less heat lost => colder stratosphere.
If the global warming was due to the Sun, the whole atmosphere would be warming.
On the other hand, Venus has runaway greenhouse effect and its stratosphere is abnormally cold.
...they're often frozen on the surface when found right after the fall! It's a common myth that meteorites blazing hot. In reality, the molten surface of a meteorite has plenty of time to cool during the fall through cold atmosphere, and the interior of the meteorite remains very cold.
Too much hyping. This object seems to be a scattered Kiper Belt object than an Oort Cloud object. Why? Its orbit crosses Neptune's orbit, which means it is strongly influenced by the planet's gravity. Sedna is different, because it never comes near Neptune. That doesn't mean that Sedna is an Oort Cloud object since its aphelion (most distant point of orbit) is not far enough. This newly-found object has a longer orbit, but compared to some long-period comets that originate from the Cloud and which can take several tens of thousands to millions of years to complete one orbit this is not at all unusual.
XTE = (Rossi) X-ray Timing Explorer
GRO = (Compton) Gamma Ray Observatory
They're high-energy object catalogs, named after the satellites whose data they're based on.
That's mere 7.6 billion billion billion metric tons. Almost nothing.
"They don't allow Christianity" Then how did John Paul II get there?
Just don't bother to mention that Cuba is under US trade embargo.
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
I'd rather catch flu than get malaria.
Counterquestion: Does increasing heat and decreasing precipitation make life better in Africa or Australia?
Actually, we affect ecology simply by existing. Fishing changes fish population patterns, man's spread to every corner of the Earth has caused a decline in certain species and a (relative) increase in others (check out the pigeon population of NYC, for instance). In that sense, environmentalists who say the only way to 'reverse the damage' is to 'remove man' are right, and in fact intellectually honest -- although their PR skills are questionable.
Indeed, the most ecological action would be to stop breathing. Major problem in the relative decrease/increase issue is the vanishing biodiversity. Organisms that are usually increasing are typically invading alien species, and the decreasing ones are local ones which can't compete. So the "increase" is not necessarily a good thing.
One of the best known debunked examples was Sagan's rapid-cooling scenarios ("nuclear winter"). The other problem is environmentalists refusal to see Earth's ecosystem as a evolving system, instead harking back to the past as a ideal that the future should aspire to. Ecosystems don't work that way! Millenia ago, most of Europe was an icy wasteland and the Sahara was an oasis. An observer then might decry the loss of the Sahara, but would they have predicted the advantages a temperate Europe would have brought?
Very much so. Earth's climate is extremely dynamic system. However, climate changes are normally slow and organisms have enough time to adapt. The situation is now different, however. Several ecosystems are already been pushed in a critical state due to human activity. Global warming may push them over the edge. In addition, there are over six billion people on the Earth. Hundreds of millions of people are in risks if the land where they live can no longer support them. In many parts of the world there is already an acute shortage of drinking water, and melting mountain glaciers will (not "may") make the situation much worse.
I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources.
Nuclear energy has its own problems, most notably the potential risks of radioactivity (which fortunately are often exaggerated) and the shortage of fuel. In my opinion, combining several renewable sources and developing more energy efficient tenchology is the answer. Nuclear may help in the short term.
Actually it's all about money in general. Global Warming has become huge business, from the research grants to the sale of phony carbon credits.
Yeah sure, and it is totally inconceivable that global warming denialists could get paid by oil companies.
"Were are at the low point of the 11-year sunspot cycle." Right, but not in 2004. This is kind of old news...