i'm questionable whether or not earth's magnetic field actually diverts light. but then how does the earth's magnetic field work in blocking radiation?
The radiation that the earth's magnetic field blocks are charged particles. Primarily protons, but also alpha particles, and various others in lesser amounts moving at very high speeds. The sun spits these out all the time, and occasionally in large bursts, and the earth's magnetic field deflects the majority of them.
The wikipedia page on Cosmic Rays does a good job describing them if you're interested in learning more.
Well Krizaz Im smarter than you think and i really dont care what one person thinks because there are 5999999 othere people in the world to talk to and superzmcshort i was talking to firefly and blu3sBrOs
I'm fairly sure that the leading theory at this point in regards to cosmic rays causing climate change pointed the finger at changes in the sun and it's production of rays rather then in the earth. But I could be wrong.
The reason I said the number wouldn't change (which could be wrong) is that I though the shift in polarity didn't represent an overall weeakening of the magnetic field, just a shift in where it's strong/weak. So it would be bad for us, because if it's weaker over major population centers we'd have higher levels of mutation and cancer, but the weakening there would be accompanied by a strengthening somewhere else.
Do you have any idea how little of our atmosphere is comprised of CO2?
I am talking about greenhouse gases, of which 72% are C02
Why discuss solutions to a problem that doesn't exist?
It doesn't take much effort to realise that mass deforestation coupled with poisoned seas and massive emissions will have a significant effect on our ecosystem.
I support them because they are good for the environment, not because I want to stop man-made global warming. There is a difference.
Is this because you do not believe that man has caused it, or do you just not care?
Also, please, please, please call it Global Climate Change. There's a reason the scientific community advocated that change.
While renewable are fantastic and we all love them, when I refer to technology we already have I refer to nuclear power. There's enough fissionable material on the planet we could probably get away with using fission at least until we develop workable fusion power. It's cheap, clean, and the only problem is facing the political challenge of where to store the used radioactive materials (which is in my opinion a fairly small one).
I have no problems with nuclear fission, although the issue of waste is certainly not minor and does need to be resolved. Not to mention the security costs incurred through the constructions of plants/waste grounds etc. As for fusion, I don't think we'll be seeing it as a workable for quite some time, as we need an abundant source of Deuterium, which we don't have.
