Paladin77 Paladin77

Global Warming is REAL

▼

Global Warming is REAL

We need to find a new place to live.

from JoeUser Forums
This is a truncated version of a book I wrote a few years ago. I think you will get a kick from it.

Global warming is a known fact. It has been a fact for over fifty years, yet no one is worried about it because it will take billions of years for global warming to kill the Earth.
This is also a known fact. What most people including the scientist have not figured out is that with global warming we will be among the first to die as a species.

Some small attention is being raised by the kook fringe but their claims are so off the wall that they are being ignored. Let’s start on the outside and work our way in.

The sun will die in roughly five billion years. When the sun dies nothing in the solar system will survive. All living organisms on this planet survive within a narrow temperature range once that range is altered the organisms will die. Humans can live within a range of minus one hundred degrees to a maximum of plus one hundred forty degrees Fahrenheit. this narrow temperature range mark the limits of what humans can survive but in order for humans to flourish we need to be safely within this range, between zero and eighty degrees Fahrenheit.

The process of a stars death

As the sun burns fuel its mass is reduced, as the mass is reduced the magnetic field weakens. As the field weakens the star (our sun) expands. The magnetic field that holds in most of the heat and radiation stretches a bit. It has been doing this for millions of years. There is a zone of habitability a few million miles wide. As the sun expands this zone moves with the expansion. At one time the planet Venus was within this zone and earth was a very cold place. The zone moving with the expansion of the sun has turned Venus into a nasty place to live with temperatures around nine hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The oceans have boiled away, the radiation level is lethal, and the global warming has run amok. The earth is coming to the end of the habitability zone. The earth will get hotter, the first signs that the earth is in its last stages will be an ice age. The earth is a living organism that regulates its temperature. But the earth can only do this one or two more times before the seas begin to heat up, the water trapped in the poles melts to cool the earth then even that won’t work any more and the water will begin to boil. Not to worry we (all humans on earth) will all be dead by then. The best guess the scientists have at this time is a million maybe a million and a half years before this happens. So yes the sun will die in five billion years but the earth will become uninhabitable in less than two million years.

Back to the Sun getting weaker. The sun will expand but as it does so will the radiation striking the earth. Notice that there are more people dieing of cancer. Cigarette smoking was blamed for the increase in cancer deaths, but not all those people smoked, then second hand smoke was blamed but that has been proven false. Then people blamed the environment or more to the point humans destroying the environment. This is where the kook fringe comes in. Don’t misunderstand I am not saying that cleaning up the environment has not helped humans live longer. But if we dumped all our hazardous waste wherever we wanted we would not kill that many more people. We as a species need to grasp the fact that we can not save the earth. We can not stop the end of days. We can not prolong our stay on this planet. The last time there was global warming was millions of years ago. It took all the volcanoes on this planet erupting simultaneously for roughly three thousand years to achieve this global warming. We have not been burning fossil fuels for more than two hundred years yet the earth is supposedly being super heated by man.

There are only two ways to save the sun and in doing so save the earth.
The first way is a little difficult. We have to take all the hydrogen from both Jupiter and Saturn then compress the hydrogen to the size of the planet Mars and insert it into the center of the sun without igniting the fusion process prematurely. This will give the sun more mass and increase its magnetic field and bring the earth closer to the center of the habitability zone adding a few million maybe even a billion years to the life of the earth for us. Chances of success are negligible. Ok it’s a little tricky and we don’t have the technology yet and the ramifications of removing the two largest planets in the solar system need to be studied. We also need to study what the added mass will do to our orbit but little things like that can be worked out.

The other way is a little crazy. All we have to do is create a transparent shield to circle the sun that will block the harmful UV radiation and reduce the heat. Short of doing either of these means we have to find a new place to live outside of the solar system.

Honey call the movers

I know some misguided people think they can transform Mars into a habitable planet but it is not possible. Allow me to explain why.

Mars is a third the size of the earth with negligible water and air. Mars is also a geologically dead planet, it no longer has the ability to retain an atmosphere that can sustain humans. It has no ozone layer to protect us from radiation. The best guess from scientist is that it will take millions of years to teraform the planet once we get the technology. By then the habitability zone will have just reached Mars but without a strong gravitational field to hold an atmosphere it won’t do us any good. Any oxygen we can bring or manufacture would drift off the planet into space. Even if those little problems are overcome the planet will only be habitable for a few million years and we have to find another place to live as the sun is still going to die and as it expands it will kill everyone on the planet Mars.

This brings me to the only option left, find a planet outside of the solar system and move there. With a limited amount of time left to us we either have to figure a way of getting a huge number of people off the earth and onto another planet or resign ourselves to the fact that the only hint that we ever existed left the solar system with our deep space probes like Voyager and all our radio and television broadcasts.

There are no other planets in our solar system that can hold our population, or sustain life. we have to look to another planet and that will be very difficult. As space travelers we are still in the womb. It took millions of man hours and a few hundred billion dollars to get three people quarter of a million miles to the moon with a three day travel time. We need to travel at least a few dozen light-years. We have to first find a planet that can sustain humans and then figure a way to get us there all the while hoping the place is not already occupied by the time we arrive.

No pressure folks we will all be dead by then it is for our progeny, the survival of the species that we need to get to work on this as soon as possible. We are willing to do without aerosol spray to save the children, we are willing to restrict our pleasures to protect our children, and we are willing to put people in jail to protect the spotted lizard owl or what ever it is that some wack job wants us all to save. You think the poor fish in the ocean are in pain from being hooked or netted, think of the pain they will feel when they are boiled to death. Now you know we are all going to lose the battle of saving the earth and no amount of conservation can help let’s try to do something useful and get our butts off this rock before we are a faded memory.
50,520 views 99 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also China is much less developed than America. I think America has the means to reduce its emissions, China less so. And the U.S is some kind of a role model, if not you, who else?


For your uninformed info... the US HAS reduced it's gases. China has not even tried! So again:
Look it up and read on it then come back and let us know how you wish to appoligize.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is crazy talk you suggesting that man is not the cause of global warming. Keep this up and you will be kicked out of the flat earth society.


You might think it crazy, but its extreme statement like this that many of the scientific community must consider.

Address even one of those points individually...go ahead, even one.

Furthermore, I could really care less about global warming. The earth will not break. These things have happened time and time again, and they will continue to happen until the ends of the earth. In case you for get, they call this uniformitarianism.

The earth functioned on its own terms long before people arrived, and it will function in the same fashion long after we are gone.

So really, what is the point? And you call me a heretic.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
You mean it won't????? Even after drinking a 6 pack??


Nope, its going to take 2 of us and a 12-pack....whos buying
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Mr. Greene, Have you read the UN report on second hand smoke?"

Before you ask me a ? why don't you answer mine?

Would that be asking too much?

are you really advocating we leave the planet ASAP or at least start working (urgently) on a way to prevent a problem that is prehaps 1-5 billions years away?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
"My best calculations bring us to 150k years before the oceans start to boil."

Hold the phone here tony... You're saying in 150,000 years at worst, the earth's oceans will boil as in reach 100 C?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
"My best calculations bring us to 150k years before the oceans start to boil. Sure in 5 billion years the sun will run out of fuel but we will be dead long before that happens."

Xythe's Response
"I'd really be interested in seeing those calculations."

My Response
No sh*T

Way to pull a number out of your ass. Care to share some variables or just speculate to no meaningful end?

Perhaps rather then just making sh*t up you'd like to inject a little science into your pseudo mathematics. For example, you take the average increase in temperature of the sun, to be a steady increase, which it is not, jut a steady increase measured over too small a time frame, so that add uncertainty.

Also consider that if this was really happening, and we survive another 5,000 years, we will have found a way to combine any via nano technology in whatever quantity needed in many years less then that. We could even rebuild the ozone layer if need be, or create another layer better able to reflect or asorb radiation. The probability that we'll discover that in the next 1,000 years is very likely considering how close we are to nano technology right now, our ability to mass produce anything, and the world's economic resources.

Now for you some chemistry, to heat water from solid ice to liquid water, you'll note if you look this up, that it takes 1/2 Calorie per gram, per degree celsius, to do that while the water is solid. When it becomes liquid it takes a full 1 Calorie per gram to heat that water up, 1 degree celsius, and again when the water is a gas, it takes 1/2 Calorie per gram to heat it. So that means, that assuming a steady increase in radiation from the sun, you'd see an increase of water on the planet as the ice melts, and then when you got to all liquid it would take an immense amount of energy to raise the full quantity of water on the earth to boiling.

Even if the sun were increasing steadily it's radiation, which it is not because nothing in nature is steady all the time, as human's we could counter act this effect by providing a less efficient greenhouse effect. I.E. locking up those atoms in the atmosphere with other atoms that combine with the greenhouse contaminates, and having those fall back to earth in the form of precipitation. It could even work as fertilizer perhaps depending on the level of sophistication of the effort.

Basically this isn't a problem that is solved now, it's a problem that is solved in the future by using science not politics to fix it. If it helps you sleep at night by reducing your emissions, and lowering your energy bills, go for it. But saving the planet by doing those things you are not.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if the sun were increasing steadily it's radiation, which it is not because nothing in nature is steady all the time,


WRONG answer! Yet again, try reading up on a subject "before" you start talking.


Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003



In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said


Link


NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.



Link


March 20, 2003
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.



Link

That is unless you're now going to tell us that NASA doesn't have a clue?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've seen the articles regarding solar energy increases before. With the limited data set it's impossible to know if that slight increase/decade is an ongoing constant trend or just part of a cycle which will eventually reverse. Only time will tell.

It's entirely possible that this probable solar energy cycle combined with fluxuations in the Earth's magnetic field have been responsible for past warming/cooling periods through geologic history. This is far more likely than accrediting it to the relatively small man-made contribution to greenhouse gases.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
"WRONG answer! Yet again, try reading up on a subject "before" you start talking."

Hey drmiller, Dr. Greene is prescribing a chill pill now; your quoted statments say...

"Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming"

Not trend, or even definitive trend, possible trend. Well possible trend doesn't mean conclusive and that's the whole point, is could very well also mean possibly not a trend.

"NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE"

Here again, "CAN CHANGE" not is changing, or actively changing. Learn to read please, and back off the acusatory tone regarding reading up before I talk ok, you clearly either do not know the meaning of the words you have just posted, or are too busy defending the UNPROVEN argument that the is global warming debate to give a solid sh*t.

I stand by my statement that nothing in nature is stable increasing or decreasing all the time.

"That is unless you're now going to tell us that NASA doesn't have a clue?"

You know what, it's not that NASA doesn't have a clue, it's that they don't have enough clues, and neither does anyone else hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm k?

Even today you can't tell me with more then 50% accuracy what the weather is going to be in my city, 14 days from today, but you claim to be able to predict the weather on the planet in the next 30,50,100,1000 years, or as the other guy stated 150,000 years.

Yeah ok, assuming the world isn't hit by an asteroid, or we don't end up nuking ourselves, or we don't encounter what Donald Rumsfeld likes to call, unknown unknowns in the universe. Say there is some phoneomenon that we fly though on our solar systems interstellar orbit of the galaxy that wipes all life off the planet.

In order to accurately predict something and not be Nostradamus, you have to use something called the scientific method and derive conclusions from the observations. You also have to be able to replicate the experiment for it to be accepted by the whole of the scientific community. The bottom line is the global warming debate/evidence is still largely in the realm of politics and not science. The only real solution to this problem, if it even is a problem, right now that is still debatable, is going to be through science, not politics.

In order for science to even attempt to solve the problem, it has to be understood. What we know is pretty much this...
-The sun has been around for about 5 billion years,
-there are sun spots every 11 years,
-The Earth has been orbiting for about 4.5 billion of those years,
-The Earth has had ice ages,
-We also know the orbit of the earth was more eliptical at one time.

None of us have been recording history since the time of the last ice age or even speaking a language, we've been working on killing the local animals and eating and staying warm.

Now you are trying to tell me and the rest of us, clearly because you know it all, that 30-35 years or so of evidence one way or the other is sufficient to explain and offer solutions to this problem? That's ridicuolous.

Well I reject that, purely because there is insufficient data. If it were sufficient, and conclusive, we would not be discussing the issue, and the world economy as a whole would be moving much more rapidly towards alternative uses of energy.

In the 1960's they were warning us about the impending return to an ice age, I guess because we've willed it, and spun the Earth in a whole new direction now we have to worry about global warming. It had to get a lot hotter a lot more consistently longer for the argument to have any meaning and I mean beyond our lifetime.

Tell you what, why don't you read up on it, and tell me what my weather is going to be in Wisconsin December 11. If you can do that, that's something my 3 local weather guys can't do. Neither can NASA or anybody else more accurately then a coin flip.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
are you really advocating we leave the planet ASAP or at least start working (urgently) on a way to prevent a problem that is prehaps 1-5 billions years away?



YES!!!! you did not notice this but that was the purpose of my article. My calculations are as conservative as I can make them and it comes down to 1500 years not 1 to 5 billion years. With a 15 degree increse in the earths average temprature you have an ice age all work will stop because unless you live on the equater you need snow skis.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Paladin wrote: My best calculations bring us to 150k years before the oceans start to boil."

Mr. Greene replied: Hold the phone here tony... You're saying in 150,000 years at worst, the earth's oceans will boil as in reach 100 C?


yup! And in between now and then we will have a few ice ages which will slow down the work so the sooner we start the better.

Scientific fact: the sun is growing weaker and as a result of that weakness the sun is expanding getting closer to the earth. This brings the heat closer to the earth meaning the earth gets hotter.

Scientific fact: so far observations show the earths temperature goes up 1 degree every hundred years. 150k years equals 1500 degrees. Do you serously believe that you can stand outside at sunrise and not be vaporized in 1560 degree heat? If you believe this then please change your name to Clark Kent so we all know who you really are, Superman. This is basic high school science, nothing fancy.

At the very least look at the planet Venus. The average temp right now is 800 degrees and all the water on that planet has either evaporated into space or is part of a sulfuric acid cloud surrounding the planet. Scientist say when winding the clock backwards the sun was much cooler and the habiability zone was still around venus it looked a lot like the earth does now. That zone is moving outwards and the earth is in the last parts of that zone while Mars is just starting to warm up as the zone reaches there. Our time is almost up my friend. That habitability zone is only about 100 million miles wide and mars is about 95 million miles from earth. Hence mars is warming up at about 1 degree every hundred years just like us. So yes there is evidence that the oceans will boil away. Got any sun block? I reccomend an SPF of about 9000.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
-We also know the orbit of the earth was more eliptical at one time.


Just to clear up this one little point. All the orbits are eliptical because the SUN is moving around the Galaxy and dragging all the planets with it.

Now you are trying to tell me and the rest of us, clearly because you know it all, that 30-35 years or so of evidence one way or the other is sufficient to explain and offer solutions to this problem? That's ridicuolous.


Not at all. The point of posting sections of my book was to prove what you are saying here. The religious left says the reason for the weather being the way it is, is because of man made global warming. Based on the current science the religious left is wrong. The accepted scientific theory is that the sun is the cause not mankind. There is more evidence that favors the current theory than the theory of the religious left. It is those theories that I base my book and the reserch has been extensive. I first believed that Global Warming was caused by man which was why I started the book but as I learned more I learned that the left was preaching religion rather than science. Keep in mind that those religious zelots warned us that because of man made global warming we were going to have many cat 5 hurricanes this year that would devistate the US. I said because of the earths wabble on its axis that we would not get any sifnificant hurricans. Hurricane season ends tommorrow, how many cat 5 hurricans have been spawned? How many have hit the US?

Tell you what, why don't you read up on it, and tell me what my weather is going to be in Wisconsin December 11. If you can do that, that's something my 3 local weather guys can't do. Neither can NASA or anybody else more accurately then a coin flip.


It will be cold in wisconsin till around april or may then it will get warm until around september. I also forcast snow in your area except when it rains. Prove me wrong! lol

Science has not gotten a grasp on local weather the best they can do is forcast 5 days, anything more than that is pure guess work. What you are doing is dishonest. you seek to prove your point by using two different disciplines and claiming the shorfalls of one to the other. I still remember when the forcasters could not accurately forcast the weather for the next day now they have advanced to 5 days. While the climate is in constant flux there are things that are known and understood. Just like we learned the earth was not flat or the sun and planets do not revolve around the earth. Does it mean we know it all now? No! But based on what we currently do know and if it holds true then this is where we are headded. Could I be wrong? It would be nice to think that I am and my Grandkid will have childred and in some small way I will live forever. I don't currently hold that view and I believe that if we don't start looking for another planet to live on then we as a species will end in two or three thousand years. The last time I was wrong was when I thought I would be dead by age 41, 10 years later I have revised that a bit. lol Based on what I was doing at age 22 it seemed unreasonably optimistic for me to live to age 41. You try living in Cuba, North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union without their permission or knowledge and expect to live more than a week.

The Viking landers have been taking readings of the planet Mars until they died, they have been replaced by other probes and orbiting satellites that have been taking readings of the planet. Then there are the probes sent out to the other planets. All of them tell us the solar system is getting hotter a little bit at a time. The only thing we don’t know for sure is if this is normal or abnormal, time will tell but currently it is happening and there is 30 years of data to back it up. When it stopps then we can reevaluate the data but as of now that is what i conclude from the data.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps rather then just making sh*t up you'd like to inject a little science into your pseudo mathematics. For example, you take the average increase in temperature of the sun, to be a steady increase, which it is not, jut a steady increase measured over too small a time frame, so that add uncertainty.


You try to bait me and it is starting to work Mr. Greene.

You, who have no knowledge of how the solar system works rejects out of hand basic accepted information. The reason I use an average is because it is not steady but adding it all together you can see it is going up not down or staying the same. The time frame is based on what scientist have postulated throrized and proven over a longer period of time than 30 years. It is hard to believe that a one inch high line of sand at the bottom of the ocean is now on the top of Mt. Everest but it has been proven. No one has seen it happen but we know it to be true, the fossil evidence is too strong to ignore. More than 100 years of observation has told us these things are true. The scientific evidence gained in the last 10 or 20 years has allowed us to interpret those observations. It allowed us to discount some and elevate others. For instance the sun raises the earths temprature about one hundreth of a degree a year meaning every hundred years we gain about one full degree. Sometimes it is less sometimes it is more but on average it is one degree.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even today you can't tell me with more then 50% accuracy what the weather is going to be in my city, 14 days from today, but you claim to be able to predict the weather on the planet in the next 30,50,100,1000 years, or as the other guy stated 150,000 years.


Okay SHOW ME where I said I could predict the weather! Talking about climate change is NOT predicting the weather!
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
I bet you $1 that the human race will eliminate itself before the sun has a chance to go red giant on us and suck up the first 3 or 4 planets.

As for global warming...not concerned...it'll get hot, then again...maybe we'll pop into another ice age, you never know what's around the corner.

~Zoo
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay SHOW ME where I said I could predict the weather! Talking about climate change is NOT predicting the weather!


Sir!

Please do not confuse the issue with fact or logic when dealing with Mr. Greene.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sir!

Please do not confuse the issue with fact or logic when dealing with Mr. Greene


And pray good sir, why not? He has an already confused himself with fact versus brain fart!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Just to clear up this one little point. All the orbits are eliptical because the SUN is moving around the Galaxy and dragging all the planets with it."

Yeah, do you know what an elipse and a circle are? If so, then you should conclude that what is meant by the sentence "-We also know the orbit of the earth was more eliptical at one time. " is that the orbit of the sun is more circular then eliptical now. Get it? Moot point anyway.


"The religious left says the reason for the weather being the way it is, is because of man made global warming. Based on the current science the religious left is wrong. The accepted scientific theory is that the sun is the cause not mankind. There is more evidence that favors the current theory than the theory of the religious left."

Religion can't offer you the scientific method, if you want to run to religion to figure out your weather problems or climate change issues go ahead. Science can't offer you solutions to a problem or even verify a problem exists until there is enough data, of which I have stated there is not.

Politics, religion, and science, only one of the three can offer you facts over BS.

"It will be cold in wisconsin till around april or may then it will get warm until around september. I also forcast snow in your area except when it rains. Prove me wrong! lol"

I can't because it can't be done, yet you can't tell me the exact temperature here on the December 14th at noon, for sure, yet you predict that it'll be warmer on the globe in lots of years. Ok well you can work on your space escape plan. I'm done discussing with you Paladin.

"Keep in mind that those religious zelots warned us that because of man made global warming we were going to have many cat 5 hurricanes this year that would devistate the US. I said because of the earths wabble on its axis that we would not get any sifnificant hurricans. Hurricane season ends tommorrow, how many cat 5 hurricans have been spawned? How many have hit the US?"

...More BS... What are you smoking?

"You try to bait me and it is starting to work Mr. Greene."

No was trying to get something logical and reasonable out of you, to no AVAIL, so to hell with you and your stupid viewpoint. You are entitled to whatever you wanna advocate, say, or believe in.

"I know you won't believe this but I have not seen any proof that smoking will kill you. Sure it can cause health problems but I find it disturbing that there are less people smoking in the US and more people dying of cancer."

This statement shows you are either an idiot, or refuse to consider that not all cancer deaths are caused by smoking, but certainly all smokes have a huge increase in risk of having their cells mutate into cancerous tumors. But as I said you have as much right to belive that you can fly to the Mars if you want, but it isn't the truth.

Want to debate 1+1 = 5?
I think you'll be doing that on your own.

Here's why your argument is BS ok. Lets just say this statement is true...

"For instance the sun raises the earths temprature about one hundreth of a degree a year meaning every hundred years we gain about one full degree. Sometimes it is less sometimes it is more but on average it is one degree."

You made this one, now if that were true, and if as you say it's linear, then rather then going forward, if we looked at history, at 1 degree per hundred years, 1000 AD the earth would be 10 degrees cooler, In the time of "Jesus" 20 degrees cooler, 1000 BC, 30 degrees cooler, 2000 BC the time of the egyptians 40 degrees cooler, 3000BC Summerians 50 degrees cooler. Are you seeing how stupid your theory is? I don't mean to be insulting, but 50 degrees cooler? How much colder could humans even survive? hell when do we reach absolute zero? Certainly before we get to 1 million years, yet the sun has been around for 5 billion. The Earth itself for 4.5 billion years, YOUR NUMBERS DONT ADD UP, because they are based on insufficient data.

Listen If I relay a sentence to you.

"The cat in the hat is black." But the only part I show you is the "h" from "hat", you can't possibly extract the sentence structure or meaning, that's what you are trying to do with the greenhouse/global warming theory.

Bogus man.

"Okay SHOW ME where I said I could predict the weather! Talking about climate change is NOT predicting the weather!"

Hey Dr. Weather is intricately related to climate, why do you think Paladin has been using hurricanes in his faulted argument, clearly a weather phenomenon, about climate changes.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Okay SHOW ME where I said I could predict the weather! Talking about climate change is NOT predicting the weather!"

Hey Dr. Weather is intricately related to climate, why do you think Paladin has been using hurricanes in his faulted argument, clearly a weather phenomenon, about climate changes


Then he is wrong also. While weather is linked to climate change,I NEVER said I could predictict the weather. IE: It's going to rain tomorrow. I wouldn't even attemp it. So my statement still stands. "Talking" about climate change is NOT predicting the weather. Like I said earlier: You are confusing yourself with fact versus brain fart.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
The oceans will begin to boil next Tuesday at 4:36 GMT


Oh shit . . . better pull out my ether-thumb and catch a ride with the next skimmer . . .

"The cat in the hat is black." But the only part I show you is the "h" from "hat", you can't possibly extract the sentence structure or meaning, that's what you are trying to do with the greenhouse/global warming theory.

Bogus man.


Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are only two ways to save the sun and in doing so save the earth.


This entire started off rediculously.

This brings me to the only option left, find a planet outside of the solar system and move there.


Ahead warp factor 8 Mr Checkov
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, do you know what an elipse and a circle are? If so, then you should conclude that what is meant by the sentence "-We also know the orbit of the earth was more eliptical at one time. " is that the orbit of the sun is more circular then eliptical now. Get it? Moot point anyway.


Actually I don't please explain.

Religion can't offer you the scientific method, if you want to run to religion to figure out your weather problems or climate change issues go ahead. Science can't offer you solutions to a problem or even verify a problem exists until there is enough data, of which I have stated there is not.


What is your point, you seem vague here.

Paladin wrote: "Keep in mind that those religious zelots warned us that because of man made global warming we were going to have many cat 5 hurricanes this year that would devistate the US. I said because of the earths wabble on its axis that we would not get any sifnificant hurricans. Hurricane season ends tommorrow, how many cat 5 hurricans have been spawned? How many have hit the US?"

Mr. Greene replied: ...More BS... What are you smoking?


Are you suggesting that we were hit by hurricanes that devistated the US?

Todays news report: As the blissfully benign 2006 hurricane season ends today, Hattie Willis has a lot to be thankful for, not least of which is this remarkable fact: Not a single hurricane struck the United States this year.

Contrast this with the dire predictions from the envirmentalist because we were hit by Katrina. It was all mans fault because of global warming. It was not science that came up with this it was the religious left.

I smoke Doral menthol lights 100's why do you ask?

You made this one, now if that were true, and if as you say it's linear, then rather then going forward, if we looked at history, at 1 degree per hundred years, 1000 AD the earth would be 10 degrees cooler, In the time of "Jesus" 20 degrees cooler, 1000 BC, 30 degrees cooler, 2000 BC the time of the egyptians 40 degrees cooler, 3000BC Summerians 50 degrees cooler. Are you seeing how stupid your theory is? I don't mean to be insulting, but 50 degrees cooler? How much colder could humans even survive? hell when do we reach absolute zero? Certainly before we get to 1 million years, yet the sun has been around for 5 billion. The Earth itself for 4.5 billion years, YOUR NUMBERS DONT ADD UP, because they are based on insufficient data.


Are you not getting it? Yes, it was a lot colder on the earth. The only reason it was not frozen solid was our core is active or we would have sub-zero temperatures when the sun sets. In space where we don't have the Earth’s internal heat the temperature is currently 250 in sun light and minus 260 in the shade. The farther you get from the sun the colder it gets. On Mars a hot sunny day is around 0 degrees and minus 70 in the winter; with an average temp of -81f Earths average temp is 57f. Why? Because the core on Mars is solid, geologically dead, it means no internal heat, it has a weak magnetic field and the little atmosphere it has keeps it as warm as it is.

The Earth can't reach absolute zero because it is so close to the sun and because the Earth has an active core generating heat. So the Earths surface is being heated from the sun and the core within. What does not add up is again your lack of basic understanding. Did you attend High School? You are aware that the Earth’s weather has more than one component to it and that the heat from the sun is only one of the factors? That the heat from the sun as a contributing factor helps cause things like hurricanes, and tornados and oh yeah the wind which circulates warm air to the poles and brings cold air to the equator. You have heard of the jet stream right? This along with volcanoes and the rotation of the Earth is what makes up our weather. In your wonderful calculations did you take any of this into account? Oh yeah, that goes with what you said about not having all the data. I see now you were just proving the point that without relevant or sufficient data you would come to the conclusions you illustrated. Thanks. I get it now.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, do you know what an elipse and a circle are? If so, then you should conclude that what is meant by the sentence "-We also know the orbit of the earth was more eliptical at one time. " is that the orbit of the sun is more circular then eliptical now. Get it? Moot point anyway.


Actually I don't please explain.

An elipse is more of an ovular shape, sort of an egg shape, lends at least in computer models to climate changes that vary more both up and down in the course of a year, a circle is a path orbiting a single point, and the radius of said path does not change, wheras the path of the ovular shape also orbits a central point, but the radius does change.

The difference is different distances away from the sun. The orbit right now isn't perfectly circular either, but it is relatively close, orbits are affected by gravity of the masses involved, and their distances relative to each other. The moon's gravity effect on the earth is the most dramatic, as is evident in tides, and also the changing distance that the earth is from the sun at different times of the year.

This means that your caluclations based on linearity are going to be off.

Do you get the difference between elipse and circle though?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I see now you were just proving the point that without relevant or sufficient data you would come to the conclusions you illustrated. Thanks. I get it now."

Exactly, there isn't enough data, certainly not enough data scientifically collected to even tell us what the weather is going to be 14 days out with any accuracy, by even the best science has to offer us, yet you proclaim that 150,000 from now, its going to be really hot, well that's an opinion, but as for if it is a fact. I think we need at least an order of magnitude or two more then we have right now of scientifically collected data. That and better modeling of the dynamics involved.

So rather then 10's or years, we need hundreds or thousands of years of scientifically collected weather data in order to draw reasonably accurate conclusions.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
The difference is different distances away from the sun. The orbit right now isn't perfectly circular either, but it is relatively close, orbits are affected by gravity of the masses involved, and their distances relative to each other. The moon's gravity effect on the earth is the most dramatic, as is evident in tides, and also the changing distance that the earth is from the sun at different times of the year.

This means that your caluclations based on linearity are going to be off.

Do you get the difference between elipse and circle though?


Yeah, thanks.

But that was an assumption on your part that I did not include this in my calculations. Sorry but it is already taken into account. I even took into account the moon moving away from the Earth at about 1.5 inches a year and that because of this eventually the Earth will slow down having 46 hours in a day, right now the Earth spins at a little more than a thousand miles an hour but is it slowing down as the moon moves farther away. All that stuff was looked at and included if needed. I also took into account the solar system circling galaxy to the best of my knowledge. Did you know that in 25 billion years the andromeder galaxy will colide with the milkyway galaxy? Or that the milkyway galaxy is speeding toward the Virgo cluster?

Mr. Greene do you get the difference between doing a quick search on the net and actual study of the situation?