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.
50,532 views 99 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mr. Greene do you get the difference between doing a quick search on the net and actual study of the situation?


Heh heh heh . . . you're both just guilty of the latter.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


Yeah if you are talking about weather paterns on the earth you are correct because there is too much we can't know about the weather.

Now when you are talking about what a star does in its lifetime there is a difference. We have studied stars at various stages of life. None of them have gotten cooler without major expansion first. We can weigh each star we can see to know at what stage of life the star is in. This is how we determine the age of the star and the age of the solar system as well as the estimated age of the universe. When I say we I mean human scientific research. Before our star becomes a white dwarf it will become a read giant. This means it will expand until it consumes the planets Mercury, and Venus. There is debate as to whether the Earth will be sucked into the star or if it will become the closest planet to the sun, in either case the planet earth will become a burned out cinder. The radiation levels are also rising which is why we have more people coming down with cancer that will get much worse as time goes on. Now if our star was a few times larger then it would die differently in that case it would collapse on itself and become a black hole or as Einstein predicted a dark star. A few years ago it was just theory but now we have found them and they are all over the place. In 1975 I agreed with the theory of black holes and said they were at the center of each galaxy. I was laughed at because given what was known at the time “if” a dark star or black hole existed it would suck in everything around it including the galaxy that surrounded it. Now there is proof that they are at the center of each galaxy only now they call them super massive black holes.

Does this mean I know it all? Nope. It means that my guess was better than the professors guess. There was no proof of this until the mid to late 90’s so this information I believed was true was not accepted until 20 years later. I was not the only one with this theory but the people like me were regulated to the misguided group. You know, go play over there and don’t hurt yourself. I am an amateur playing with the big boys so it is normal for me to be wrong as often as I am right. Which is why I wanted to go back to school and play with the big kids. The theory of the earth being turned into a cinder is based on what we have learned watching other stars go through the same process. Since none of the stars observed have done anything different it is accepted it will happen with our star. Predicting local weather is a different science a different discipline. We know that the sun is expanding we watch it 24 hours a day. We have I think 8 different satellites observing it and teams around the clock looking for any changes. The variables involved in local weather prediction are partly caused by what the sun did in the last 96 hours. Which is why they can’t predict more that 5 days in advance. It is called the butterfly effect. The precursor to the chaos theory. If the sun puts out a CME our weather will change slightly if a cool spot appears the weather will change slightly. Until we can predict what will float to the surface of the sun we won’t be able to predict the weather with better accuracy. Every 11 years the poles change on the sun and during that time we have solar max. During solar max we have the more severe weather on earth like, hurricanes, blizzards and so on.


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.


I disagree with you here. It is not based on earth observations but solar observations. until we can see deeper into the sun we can't predict the weather any better. It was not until someone connected the dots between bad weather on the sun and bad weather on earth were we able to forcast the weather more than 48 hours in advance. Once GOES was launched in 75 and we could observe the sun 24/7 were we able to better forcast the weather on Earth. Now we have like 6 sats (but I am not sure how many are active or in reserve) just watching the sun. As I said before the only way to get more accuracy is to be able to look deeper into the sun.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lets see the math please. Not words, MATH!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lets see the math please. Not words, MATH!




Ok before I get into the math please explain these three equations cause I am not going to go through the whole thing and at the end you say prove it or link please. Because you don’t understand the math you begged for. There is no link to the math you have to do the math to get it or at least have a basic understanding of the science.

1. F = G M1M2/d2
This one is the start
2. x' = x - vt, y' = y/g, z' = z/g, t' = t - vx/c3
3. Ric = kg

Ok these are easy but the first one was a little confusing so I gave you a hint.

I don’t want you to identify who wrote them I want you to explain what picture they describe and if these are below you then correct the one that is wrong.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Newton) F=G(M1*M2)/d^2

As postulated by Newton, the motion of a particle has to be described relative to an inertial frame in which the particle, not subjected to external forces, will move at a constant velocity in a straight line.

Does not take into account for magnetic and electrical forces; ether drag

(Voigt) x' = x - vt, y' = y/g, z' = z/g, t' = t - vx/c^2

This gives the geometry of special relativity.

If I remember, the first time I saw this was when I was learning about the Doppler effect.


(Einstein) E=MC^2

Inertial frames are in uniform motion with respect to each other. This theory is based on two postulates:

1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames.
2. In any inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light is emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.

Fundamental theories of gravity and relativity

I'm not to sure where we are going here Paladin. You have been flinging numbers around without any explanation what so ever. Now you ask me to define or explain fundamental physic to you, or you will not tell us how you came up with those numbers?

We are in the real world. Its up to you to defend your postulates, not to quiz me when I ask to see your calculations.

Look man, either you can show us some calculations, or I can only assume you have pulled these numbers out of your arse.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thats what I thought.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
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."


if that is the case - why are they still banning smoking in public places? It cannot only be because non smokers do not like the smell?
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay can I be rude and ask a personal question?

Paladin 77 you sound like an educated person - what are you educated in - what are your qualifications?

This was interesting reading by the way.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay can I be rude and ask a personal question?

Paladin 77 you sound like an educated person - what are you educated in - what are your qualifications?

This was interesting reading by the way.


Don't expect an answer to soon if at all. The last time he logged on was Nov 15th.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't expect an answer to soon if at all. The last time he logged on was Nov 15th.


He will back eventually, probably a broken computer...........so for the big sit in...................

SmileyCentral.com
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
First let me apologize for not getting back sooner. Midterms and Finals were last week and during finals I go into total shutdown mode. I don’t use my phone or go on line. I was asked to produce the math for my assertions that the earth will become uninhabitable in 150k years.

Instead of going through the math line by line I have chosen to let you do the math. I gave all the information for you to get the math do it yourself since you already know the basics.

I based my calculations on current and scientific data though it is not the most complete data it is all I have to go on.

The basic math included the facts that every 23k years the earths orbit is a little farther away from the sun lowering the average temperature by as much as five degrees. Also taken into account is the earth heats itself and that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling as well as ice ages in-between.

The last two hundred years the data indicates, and agrees with the accepted theories of paleontologist, that the earth is warming on average of one degree per century. This would be more if not for some massive volcanic eruptions in the last two centuries that have brought the average temperature down. Examples of this are Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mount St. Helens in Washington State. Both eruptions lowered the earth’s average temperature by one or two degrees each and we were still able to continue to keep an average raise of one degree for this century. Using that simple math in fifteen centuries the earth’s average temperature will go from an average of 65f to 85f degrees. At that point or even before, the oceans will warm up enough to start releasing the trillions of tons of frozen methane trapped just below the surface of the ocean bottom. Once that happens over the next 10k years the earth will get a lot hotter, and average of 90f degrees. It happened before and it wiped out 95% of all life on the planet making way for the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs and 95% of all life on the planet were wiped out by a meteor making way for us. The earth will be here and we as a species can’t hurt the earth the most we can do is make the earth bad for man. As demonstrated by nature even with only 5% of the animal world left after each turnover of world dominance the planet flourished. So if we as a species can not destroy the planet, then we as a species can not save the planet.

Over the last thirty years scientist of many disciplines agree that that our star, the sun, is of middle age, goes through cycles of eleven years where the poles reverse, and those changes create some of the severe weather on the planet in the forms of tornados and hurricanes. It has been noted that the sun is getting weaker blowing off 400 million tons of material each second, give or take a pound or two, it is losing mass and therefore the ability to hold and control all of the objects within the system. This includes the sun itself. The red stars you see in the night sky used to be yellow stars like our sun but instead of burning hydrogen like our star it has exhausted all the hydrogen, then helium, and all the other lighter matter until all that was left was iron giving it the red colour we seen in the night sky. Through observations we know that at each stage where the star burns heaver and heaver matter that the star loses its power to keep from expanding. Beadulguese for example has expanded to the size of our current solar system. Our star is a bit smaller so the best guess for our sun is it will only expand to the orbit of Venus and maybe reach the earth, while the worse case our star will expand to just past the orbit of the earth. In either case long before the stars expansion can threaten our little rock all life will be destroyed by the radiation that will sterilize the planet. The only creature that can survive the radiation will be the cute little roach. But by that time the most of the water on the planet will be gone, and without water very few things on this planet will survive, roaches are one of the things that can’t live without water.

Water on the planet will start to evaporate into space once we have an average temperature of 95 degrees. What keeps this from happening in the past were the ice ages. Ice ages cool the planet and trap the water keeping it from going off into space. The problem is the solar system is getting older the sun is getting hotter and the zone of habitability is moving away from the earth and slowly warming the planet Mars. By 150k years there is nothing we can do to keep the water on the earth what does not float off into space will be trapped as sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. Look at Venus as an example of what the earth will look like. At only 800f there is nothing left that can support human life. It is speculated that some of the water on earth came from Venus. Keep in mind that when in obit around the earth the temperature stays on average 250f and as high as 280f but when we first started taking the temperature in space around the earth in the late fifties and early sixties the temp was only 200 to 230f. Some of that can be attributed to faulty equipment and ignorance but even factoring that it shows an increase in temperature.

Now how one can blame humanity for global warming that has happened twice before man was even walking the earth and showing signs it is happening again? While I was in school I told this tree hugging religious fanatic that he was wrong about humans being the cause. I laid out my evidence and he continued to cling to that silly assed report that said that man was the cause for global warming. I got the last laugh when the UN put out their report saying that cow farts are the major cause for global warming. So now I guess we should start banning cattle. I bet that report was done by PETA, you know People Eating Tasty Animals. I guess that is why I only got an A- for the semester. Liberal professors are so childish.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
if that is the case - why are they still banning smoking in public places? It cannot only be because non smokers do not like the smell?


The reason is because it is the politically correct thing to do. There is no problem with banning crack or heroin or cocaine but a dangerous drug like tobacco is allowed to be used all over the country. Why not ban its use? As long as it is a legal drug why is it that people feel it is ok to pick on people who smoke? The same reason it is ok to pick on people that are fat or ugly or bald. Liberals are racist, bigoted homophobic idiots. They have now learned how to pick on inferior people by calling it a health risk. And they want to SAVE us from ourselves. They do this by dumbing down the population. Name one prominent liberal that did not go to college. Yet they insist on doing things that make everyone behind them dumb. When I was in school they did away with phonics because it was irrelevant, they came out with see it say it. That was 40 years ago and now some company makes millions teaching phonics to kids because they stopped teaching it in school and kids had a harder time reading. They did the same thing with math. This makes them superior. The school system is so bad now that a high school diploma is worthless you need a GED to get into college without taking prep classes. With people too stupid to read for themselves you need a wise liberal to lead us on the paths of purity.

Okay can I be rude and ask a personal question?

Paladin 77 you sound like an educated person - what are you educated in - what are your qualifications?


I am a layman. I did a little more than a decade in the military I helped start a few businesses for people I started my own business and I like to study things of interest. I am and armature astronomer and at one time if you told me the day and time I could tell you from memory what planets and stars could be seen in the night or day sky so anything that has to do with the planets or stars is something I enjoy learning about.

He will back eventually, probably a broken computer...........so for the big sit in...................


You are so kind.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
sorry double post
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm curious as to why your equations, if linear, don't go backward in the same way that they go forward.

"the earth is warming on average of one degree per century."

If this were true, and the rate were linear, that is if today's average earthly temperature were 60 deg F, and 1000 years ago it were 10 degrees cooler, 2000 years ago, 20 degrees, 3000 years ago, 30 degrees cooler, you could go back less then 10,000 years and expect to lower the average earth temperatures to a level that would have all the water frozen except for the tropical areas, 60+ -100 = -40, yet that is not a case supported by any historical geology. If you stayed linear, you could go back less then 50,000 years, lowering average temperatures by -500 degress for the sake of argument, and cross the point of absolute zero.

Good luck figuring out how the hell to explain that scientifically.

Nor would the assumption that the oceans would raise as the polar ice caps melted with an increasing temperature, match up with the concept you suggest. Would the oceans be lower because more and more water was locked up in the polar ice cap regions as you went back in time and water was more solid then liquid because of lower average temperatures?

What science and geology do suggest is that there are ice ages and warming periods. Also that when insignificant data exists to draw reasonable conclusions, the conclusions drawn in the absence of such data is usually wrong. [Law of probability]

Average temperatures, are more like the Dow Jones, up and down, up and down, trending over time. If you just take the reading between 9:15 and 9:17 AM you can hardly claim to know if the trend is up or down for the entirety of the day, or the Earth for that matter.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
"the oceans will warm up enough to start releasing the trillions of tons of frozen methane trapped just below the surface of the ocean bottom."

Paladin pull your pants up and do tell me all about the difference between a lengthy research and the bullshit you spew online, as well as a quick internet search...

Frozen methane?

How about frozen methane hydrate.

Maybe, but doubtful.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very interesting reading, guys. Thanks for making it so.

I don't recall the specifics & this is not my forte, but another effect of the moon's steady departure from earth orbit, other than slowing the earth's rotation, will be destabilization of the earth's rotational axis, which is currently kept near-perpendicular to it's orbital path by the moon's gravity, resulting in the seasons we so enjoy. Once the stabilizing effect of the moon is gone, the earth will be free to wobble all over the place. Can't recall how soon the calculations predict this will happen. The point being that there are forces already in play that render whatever contribution man may be making to average global temperatures so miniscule in comparisn as to be negligible. I also believe that we have or will develop the technology to mitigate the impact of any short-term effects of currently rising global temperatures, but our ability to compensate for these larger forces and trends is virtually nil. Our departure from this planet, whether by way of extinction or transplantation to other worlds, is inevitable.

On a side note, the last figures I recall reading indicated that about 5% of lifetime smokers developed lung cancer. Virtually 100% develop emphysema or debilitating chronic bronchitis. In a very large percentage, early cardiovascular disease develops - smoking is like gasoline on a fire, a very potent accelerant if you have the predisposition to heart or vascular disease. Having said that, if we're serous about "doing something," we'll ban the product, not regulate where it can be used, although I'm in favor of neither. The adverse health effects of second-hand smoke are virtually nil, except for people with asthma whose airways react to any irritant/particulate exposure.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
If this were true, and the rate were linear, that is if today's average earthly temperature were 60 deg F, and 1000 years ago it were 10 degrees cooler, 2000 years ago, 20 degrees, 3000 years ago, 30 degrees cooler, you could go back less then 10,000 years and expect to lower the average earth temperatures to a level that would have all the water frozen except for the tropical areas, 60+ -100 = -40, yet that is not a case supported by any historical geology. If you stayed linear, you could go back less then 50,000 years, lowering average temperatures by -500 degress for the sake of argument, and cross the point of absolute zero.


It does go backward but you have to take into account situations that have happened in the past that will not happen again. Keep in mind that the earth was at one time was molten and dry as evidenced by the moon which is a chunk of the Earth. The moon has only a few thousand tons of water that have not boiled off as of yet. So you have a planet that was at one time liquid rock that cooled before we had water; the water which sped up the cooling of the planet. Mars was just like the Earth and its core is now cold and dead. My point is that the internal heat of the planet helped keep warmth on the planet. As the planet cooled the sun was warming up. At one time in our past the earth was covered with ice so at one time the temp was below zero and it is surmised that the volcanoes putting out greenhouse gasses and tremendous heat melted miles thick ice brining the temperature up to today’s warm temp. Because the Sun is expanding as it ages the Earth will never get that cold again.
What I am saying is there are several dynamic actions in play. Mars is farther out from the Sun and it is warming up again from being an ice ball. Because it is a smaller planet with weaker magnetic field it lost its water long before it could freeze and has mostly carbon ice instead of water ice. Also our core is cooling as Mars did but because it is much larger our core is just a little larger than the planet Mars with seven miles of atmosphere and another 28 miles of solid rock to help insulate our core. It will take longer to cool but it is slowing down as it cools creating holes in our ozone layer and allowing the solar winds to blow off some of our atmosphere.

So at one time the only real heat on the earth came from within. With a thinner atmosphere we have a rise in cancers because more radiation is now reaching the surface than years before. This started getting noticed in the 1950’s theorized in the 60’s and confirmed in the 80’s. The rise in temperature and cancers seem to be going hand in hand. Our orbit is now at the center of its swing where we will be spending the next 15k years in a warm spot that cycle every 28k years. The next time we hit the cold spot we will have another large ice age but it will never be as bad as the last two because the Sun is also expanding. There are about 10 different cycles in play here, which is why I figure we have about 140k years before the earth can no longer sustain human life instead of the billions of years that has been advertised. We have the solar cycle every 11 years; the earths wobble that cycle every 20k years, the solar system that travels through the galactic plane every 28k years, the magnetic field of the Earth which changes about every 14k years and so on. All of them cause drastic changes on the Earth and by 140k years we should be about where we are now only a lot hotter.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin pull your pants up and do tell me all about the difference between a lengthy research and the bullshit you spew online, as well as a quick internet search...

Frozen methane?

How about frozen methane hydrate.

Maybe, but doubtful.


Funny you should mention this; the trillions of tons of this stuff that has been discovered so far is right off the cost of Florida. What we call warm waters, just not warm enough to release all the methane trapped there. Yes, it is methane hydrate until it melts and then it releases methane gas. It is held in place by temperature and pressure. The less water pressure, the easer it is for the gas to bubble up to the surface. So as the water evaporates and comes down as rain and snow there is less pressure on the methane, the ice trapped at the poles needs to re-enter the ocean in order to keep the pressure. Show me that this does not happen or that the Earth is not being warmed by the sun. I am sure the scientific community will be more than interested in your discoveries. I would love to be wrong and instead of 140k years we have 3 billion years before humans are wiped off the planet. Oh wait, no matter what we do humans will still be wiped off the planet it is only a matter of time. I am saying we need to move faster at finding a new home instead of slower. I am saying that we should not waste our time worrying about burning coal or SUV’s since they have a negligible effect on the Earth since the Earth is more than able to handle what little we do to it. Man can only live in a very narrow range of temperatures from zero to about one hundred degrees f. Once outside that range we have to make serious adjustments. There is not another planet in our solar system that can sustain human life without us doing something. No air, no heat, too much heat and on all of them deadly radiation. Could my calculations be wrong? Sure, it is a theory that can’t be proven ahead of time. With the evidence we have today this is the conclusion I have come up with. Show me some evidence I may have over looked or not taken into account, and I will re-evaluate my theory.

Nor would the assumption that the oceans would raise as the polar ice caps melted with an increasing temperature, match up with the concept you suggest. Would the oceans be lower because more and more water was locked up in the polar ice cap regions as you went back in time and water was more solid then liquid because of lower average temperatures?


Currently the oceans are at a low level because of the ice trapped at the poles. Keep in mind that the last major ice age we had ice three miles thick over much of North America and the ice age before that covered the entire planet. I doubt this will happen again because there is more land than before to soak up a few trillion tons of water. I keep bringing up the Sahara desert. After the last major ice age the Sahara was a green and lush area of land. It has since been baked dry and the soil turned to sand. A desert that was so small you could walk across it in a week is now, 3000 years later is so large you can drive across it in a month and goes almost from one coast to the other. The water from rivers replenishes the oceans, as it rains and snows in the upper latitudes in winter then in summer it melts and flows into rivers and reaches the oceans. Also remember that between the Adirondack Mountains and the Sierra Nevada mountain range was an ocean that evaporated which is how we got the salt flats which means West of New York and East of California should be under water, which is the natural state of the continent. If North America were further south it would look like the Sahara but it is still happening only more slowly.

What science and geology do suggest is that there are ice ages and warming periods. Also that when insignificant data exists to draw reasonable conclusions, the conclusions drawn in the absence of such data is usually wrong. [Law of probability]


I agree with you which is why what I propose is a theory not a scientific fact. Global warming is a fact. How the globe is warmed is the theory. We are dealing with a planetary system that has cycles of 100k years with only 100 years of data. My point is that with so little data on the books how can one say that man who has not been around for 100k years be the cause of global warming.
Modern man has been documented to be on this planet for roughly 70k years and has almost died out twice in that time. We have survived and in only the last 6000 years have we started to notice things. In only the last thousand years did we bother to write things down that had to do with things other than survival. Only in the last 200 years did we start to try to understand what the earth is doing. All the major discoveries about the Earth were made once we sent probes to other planets and started to make comparisons over the last 40 years. We can confidently say that we have a solid 5 years of data with which to base all conclusions on as far as global warming goes. Five years of a 100k year cycle.
The theory that the sun is getting hotter was first brought about when we compared the temperature of Mars from the Viking probe of the 70’s and the Mars rovers a few years ago. The rise in temp is the same as on Earth over the same period. That was when my theory gained strength. I started saying out loud that the earth was getting warmer in the 70’s but I had nothing to base it on other than my gut and the tiny amount of evidence I could glean from scientific community. Remember that back then they still did not have proof of black holes, and no one believed that the earth could be hit with a comet and the dinosaurs were all killed of by an ice age. Back in the mid 80’s a geologist postulated that we have regular ice ages on a time scale of 20k years and was laughed at because he said it was caused by the ice caps melting changing the salinity of the ocean. This was laughable until about 5 years ago. Now it is man that causes the ice caps to melt and we will all drown and those that don’t drown will freeze to death. Like the witch hunts 200 years ago the new witch is man. People taking the little data that is around and filling in the blanks with superstition, because man needs to blame problems on someone.


Average temperatures, are more like the Dow Jones, up and down, up and down, trending over time. If you just take the reading between 9:15 and 9:17 AM you can hardly claim to know if the trend is up or down for the entirety of the day, or the Earth for that matter.


This is where geology comes into play. geology allows us to see the past giving us a better way to understand the present.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Keep in mind that the earth was at one time was molten and dry as evidenced by the moon which is a chunk of the Earth."

Millions and millions of years ago it was molten at the surface.

"Having said that, if we're serous about "doing something," we'll ban the product, not regulate where it can be used, although I'm in favor of neither."

Not that it matters considering this is a 'global warming is real' bs thread, but tobacco would have long since been banned as a substance, if not for the tobacco lobby and the fact that any big business lobby can buy its way into or out of just about anything in this society.

"Because the Sun is expanding as it ages the Earth will never get that cold again."

The suns expansion occurs over billions of years, not hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. The swelling that occurs at the natural death of stars occurs in the last few millions of years, the extreme end of a stars lifetime, not during the middle which is where our sun is estimated to be.

"It will take longer to cool but it is slowing down as it cools creating holes in our ozone layer and allowing the solar winds to blow off some of our atmosphere."

Smells like B.S. What is slowing down?

"So at one time the only real heat on the earth came from within."

Yeah after the sun dies, assuming nothing happens to the earth between now and 5 billion years from now. Are you seriously suggesting that the end of the sun's life will have any effect on populations now, or with in a 150,000 years?

"The rise in temperature and cancers seem to be going hand in hand"

Absolute & total pure spectulative b.s.

"Our orbit is now at the center of its swing where we will be spending the next 15k years in a warm spot that cycle every 28k years."

Maybe

"The next time we hit the cold spot we will have another large ice age but it will never be as bad as the last two because the Sun is also expanding."

Sure. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

"Could my calculations be wrong? Sure, it is a theory that can’t be proven ahead of time."

Well you can certainly disprove it, by indirect association and assuming a linear relationship which your assertion that the temperature of the earth is rising 1 degree per century does.

"All the major discoveries about the Earth were made once we sent probes to other planets and started to make comparisons over the last 40 years."

Gee did we discover that the world is flat by sending a spacecraft into orbit?

"We can confidently say that we have a solid 5 years of data with which to base all conclusions on as far as global warming goes. Five years of a 100k year cycle."

A series of less then a hundredth of a percent of a range of data, does not a trend make.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
The suns expansion occurs over billions of years, not hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. The swelling that occurs at the natural death of stars occurs in the last few millions of years, the extreme end of a stars lifetime, not during the middle which is where our sun is estimated to be.


By your own definition the sun expands "every" day. It may take awhile to make a noticeable difference. However to do that it "must" happen daily or it would happen all at once.

"The rise in temperature and cancers seem to be going hand in hand"

Absolute & total pure speculative b.s.


No BS, pure fact:


2003. This makes it the most common type of cancer. The actual number of cases may be much higher, because this type of cancer tends to be under reported. Because most cases of skin cancer are easily treated and cured, these skin cancers are often left out of national cancer statistics.

Skin cancer and the sun
Most skin cancers are caused by long term exposure to the sun. Look at the melanoma section of Cancer Help UK for lots of information about how to protect your skin from the sun.

The ultraviolet light in sunlight damages the DNA in the skin cells. This damage can happen years before a cancer develops. The sun’s rays contain 3 types of ultraviolet light.

UVA makes up most of our natural sun light
UVB is what makes the sun burn the skin and is the main cause of non melanoma skin cancer
UVC is mostly filtered out by the atmosphere of the earth


Link


Gee did we discover that the world is flat by sending a spacecraft into orbit?


No however the "rest" of the major discoveries were made with the help of space craft.

"We can confidently say that we have a solid 5 years of data with which to base all conclusions on as far as global warming goes. Five years of a 100k year cycle."

A series of less then a hundredth of a percent of a range of data, does not a trend make.


That is "your" opinion and not one held by the scientific community at large.

Well you can certainly disprove it, by indirect association and assuming a linear relationship which your assertion that the temperature of the earth is rising 1 degree per century does



Sorry but this would "not" disprove his theory. A theory is an asumption (not proof) so following....an asumption would be a theory (and not proof either).
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
The suns expansion occurs over billions of years, not hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. The swelling that occurs at the natural death of stars occurs in the last few millions of years, the extreme end of a stars lifetime, not during the middle which is where our sun is estimated to be.


Ok, I see that you don't understand how simple flame works. The sun burns off about 400 billion tons of material every second. That means it has less mass every second weakening the magnetic field that holds it together. As the Sun gets weaker it expands a little at a time. What you are describing is the theory of the last few million years when it has lost so much material that it will expand rapidly. I am talking about billions of years before that.

Smells like B.S. What is slowing down?


What is slowing down is our core. The core is made up of a few hundred trillions of molten nickel and iron with a few billion tons of uranium to keep it all hot. The core is spinning which gives us our magnetic field that protects us from the radiation of the sun. The radioactive decay is showing that it is cooling and as it cools it slows eventually it will stop spinning and the planet will become sterile if it stops before the sun bakes us into a cinder.

Yeah after the sun dies, assuming nothing happens to the earth between now and 5 billion years from now. Are you seriously suggesting that the end of the sun's life will have any effect on populations now, or with in a 150,000 years?


The sun is dying now and it is having an effect on the population today. The Sun is pumping more radiation at us than it did 100 years ago. This is why there is a rise in skin cancers around the world. It is why we have drought and a host of other things happening on this planet like hurricanes caused by the suns heat. You give me the impression that you think the solar system and our planet are constants that won’t change. My theory is that not only are we in a constantly changing dynamic solar system but that the system is dying and we will die with it unless we find a new place to live. The sun keeps us alive and is killing us at the same time. 150k years from now the earth will not support life as we know it. Plants will burn under the hot sunlight, hurricanes will be greater in number and strength. Right now we are well within our average but that will change in a few decades.

"The rise in temperature and cancers seem to be going hand in hand"

Absolute & total pure spectulative b.s.


Prove it wrong.

Gee did we discover that the world is flat by sending a spacecraft into orbit?


Actually it proved to the last of the nay sayers that the earth was round. There are still about a million people world wide that belong to the flat earth society. Are you a member?
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The core is made up of a few hundred trillions of molten nickel and iron with a few billion tons of uranium to keep it all hot."

Don't you mean friction caused by molecules rubbing together, because they are pressed together by gravity? How exactly does uranium keep things hot?

"The Sun is pumping more radiation at us than it did 100 years ago."

How much more? And don't you mean that more is reaching the earth because of the holes in the Ozone layer?

"You give me the impression that you think the solar system and our planet are constants that won’t change."

Well the Earth has been spinning around the sun for 4.5 billion years, the only major change in the solar system in the last century has been the impacts on Jupiter of those asteroids. What other major events, have altered anything in the solar system?

"Plants will burn under the hot sunlight, hurricanes will be greater in number and strength. Right now we are well within our average but that will change in a few decades."

Plants will burn, you mean be unable to photosynthesize at extreme temperatures? Or literally combust?

What causes the change in temperature in a few decades? If you say the temperatures increase at a rate of 1 degree per average per century why the increase in a few decades? See Pally you contradict yourself and give two or three meanings inside sentences over and over again.

Why does the planet get hotter in a few decades? What makes that happen. Why isn't it concern or lethal until 150k years from now?
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
How much more? And don't you mean that more is reaching the earth because of the holes in the Ozone layer?


Sorry, scientifically disproven!
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
So there are no holes in the Ozone layer? I'm not saying there are because I have no way of knowing, I just have heard the intensity of light is stronger then before because of these so called holes in the O zone layer.

My point, how much more light is supposedly getting in?
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't you mean friction caused by molecules rubbing together, because they are pressed together by gravity? How exactly does uranium keep things hot?


No, the gravity is created by the spinning of the core. The heat is caused by the radiation and decay of uranium, you may have heard of the China syndrome. That is what is at the center of the earth a puddle of radioactive slag.

How much more? And don't you mean that more is reaching the earth because of the holes in the Ozone layer?


Can't say how much more because the equipment to document the radiation did not get invented until the 1900's The only guide we have is that skin cancers are up over the last 100 years. And no, I mean the Sun is pumping more radiation at us than before. As the Sun expands it is getting closer to us, while at the same time the habitability zone is moveing away from us. This means we are getting more lethal rays hitting the Earth or I should say more intense rays that are lethal.

Well the Earth has been spinning around the sun for 4.5 billion years, the only major change in the solar system in the last century has been the impacts on Jupiter of those asteroids. What other major events, have altered anything in the solar system?


Well let's see, in the last 100 years the Moon as moved about 30 feet further away from the Earth causing the Earth to slow down by a few seconds. The tides are not as high or as low as 100 years ago. The Sun has expanded by about 150 miles or so (ball park figure). We discovered an astroid that will miss us on its next pass by about 30K miles and the next pass 30 years later will pass so close to the Earth that they can't say it will miss us. We found out the andromeder galaxy will colide with our galaxy and is coming at us at over 100,000 miles an hour. We found out all the Galaxies in our local group are rushing into the Virgo Cluster at about 1 million miles an hour. So it looks like a black hole formed and is strong enough to pull all 50+ galaxies into it so any body think that the sun burning out is a big deal should think again. The Galaxy is doomed just like the Sun only with a few google years extra. Where have you been the last five years when all of this was discovered?

Plants will burn, you mean be unable to photosynthesize at extreme temperatures? Or literally combust?


You don't know the meaning of the word burn? Lets put it this way. If you stand too close to radioactive material your skin burns. It does not have to burst into flame to burn. Ask any farmer what happens when the sun is too hot and the crops die.

What causes the change in temperature in a few decades? If you say the temperatures increase at a rate of 1 degree per average per century why the increase in a few decades? See Pally you contradict yourself and give two or three meanings inside sentences over and over again.


As stated before, the sun goes through cycles that last 22 years, 11 years of solar max and 11 years of solar min. We are just coming out of the last solar max so in a few more years we will get into solar max again. Remember what I said about we average 1 degree rise in temp? It is just that an average, we get spikes as much as five degrees but because of other things happening on the planet and in space it still comes out to 1 degree per century. We had a three degree spike and then a few volcanos blew and dropped the temp down so it averaged a 1 degree drop in temp for the next year. You see the temp keeps going up but forces on the Earth have so far compensated if we don't get any major eruptions we will see the temp go way up again.