New Global warming puzzle: Is it the sun?

medicineman

New Member
We don't really know how old the sun is... do we know whether the sun is still exploding or imploding, so to speak? If it is still exploding then this would cause the effects we are witnessing. I saw an hour long documentary on the sun on the science channel a couple a days ago. This is just theory as no-one has been to the sun yet, But this it: The sun is about 4 billion years old, mid-life, it will last like it is (varying a few thousand degrees every second) for another 5 billion years, then rapidly (maybe a few thousand years) turn into a super-nova. The only thing that actually influences weather changes on earth are the sunspots and their eruptions known as solar flares. Otherwise the sun is pretty much doing what it has been doing and will continue doing for hundreds of millions of years, I don't think we have to worry about the sun heating or cooling for at least 2-5 billion years, that ought to cover our lifetimes and our great-great-great grand kids and their great grandkids lifetimes and then some. So no the sun is not cooling or heating, it's a fantasy cooked up by people whom want you to believe that humans have nothing to do with global warming. Peace!
 

bigballin007

New Member
bigballin007, please refrain from the shrill nonsensicle emotional post and put something up with some logic to it... One thing I have always hated is someone pissing in my threads.
Better than pissin on you! Besides everyone knows that the earth has been heating up at a rate never seen before, yet you want to turn a blind eye!

You people who see the future should be proud, cause if I could see the future I sure as hell wouldn't worry about the planet, RIGHT!

You would have to be a lil' stupid not to think for a second that humans have absolutely no impact on the earth!

Stupid does as stupid is!

When will people start to care? Once the earth is no longer viable? When you destroy the earth? We can solve all of our problems through war?
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
Whenever a new theory is introduced there will always be sceptics that had such a hard time adapting to the old theory that they'll take a long time to see the sense in the new one.

The 'Old Theory', about Global Warming even existing is now proven as fact. Pollution causes smog, but is it reponsible for Global Warming? I don't think so...

I'm leaning towards Dank's view of a rotary type pattern where the Earth heats up then cools again periodically. My reason for this view is History. For example, back in Medieval times... the South of England was famous for it's wine and vineyards... which indicates that the south of England was much hotter during this period in history.
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
We can solve all of our problems through war?
yeah man.. like totaly.. lets just kill those fuckers.. man they are like totaly taking our oil and shit.. and man they like attacked us first.. man.. so we got to kill those fuckers...

hey man the planet is like totaly fine.. what are you some sort of fucking liberal... only liberal assholes think he world is heating up.. its like normal for 6 billion humans to drive escalades on the planet.. plus man.. I'd rather die and take the entire planet down with me before I let someone tell me that I can't drive my Camero whenever the fuck I want... I am an AMERICAN MAN.... we rule... we rule your asses.... get in line or get fucked.. ahhahaahhah

we are number one man.. we rule the planet man.. we are smarter than monkeys and shit... long live eorge BUsh.. greatest president that evcer lived... he gets it man.. that's why he his trying to make marijuana legal.. man.....

gotta go to my fence building meeting.. we are building a fence around the USA to keep out Mexicans.... I am teaching my children about freedom!!!
bye for now..


Hey where's my GUN...? :spew: :spew: :spew: :spew: :spew: :spew: :spew:

LOL

ioveyou
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
Whenever a new theory is introduced there will always be sceptics that had such a hard time adapting to the old theory that they'll take a long time to see the sense in the new one.

The 'Old Theory', about Global Warming even existing is now proven as fact. Pollution causes smog, but is it reponsible for Global Warming? I don't think so...

I'm leaning towards Dank's view of a rotary type pattern where the Earth heats up then cools again periodically. My reason for this view is History. For example, back in Medieval times... the South of England was famous for it's wine and vineyards... which indicates that the south of England was much hotter during this period in history.
check out Al Gores movie.. it goes into detail about this theory.. and how it is correct... BUT.. there is an added bonus... the pattern has be very heavily influenced by other factors... you should defintley see this movie..

iloveyou
 

medicineman

New Member
The only things that causes global warming-cooling besides Man are 1. lack of or an abundance of sunspots, 2. a change in the polar tilt, 3. an asteroid hitting earth, 4. extreme volcanic activity. Pretty much all other changes are caused by, you guessed it, Man!
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
Also, we could be looking in the wrong direction... isn't there a ball of fire at the centre of the Earth... Increase in Earthquakes, the ice caps melting... maybe it's coming from the other direction.
 

DankyDank

Well-Known Member
here is an interesting article for the Evangelical Environmentalists to groove on... it's a Newsweek cover story from 1975... warning about global cooling!

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling.

[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
[SIZE=+2]A[/SIZE] survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
[SIZE=+2]M[/SIZE]eteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
[end]

heh heh heh
 

medicineman

New Member
To be honest about the local weather, It's been cooler than normal for the last couple of years. But that doesn't explain the melting glaciers and icecaps now does it?
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
Unprecedented since modern records began.

Maybe it is my indestrucible optimism, but i really want to believe that we are in no real danger (total sentient life extinction) from the weather.
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
So by using core samples they can tell that the Earth has never heated up a whole degree within ten years?

What about when that comet hit, 65, 000, 000 years ago. I bet it heated up then.
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
So by using core samples they can tell that the Earth has never heated up a whole degree within ten years?

What about when that comet hit, 65, 000, 000 years ago. I bet it heated up then.
No I will not take that bet.. LOL..

plus i told you already.. FOREVER and EVER
 

ViRedd

New Member
Well, standby ... Mount St. Helens is acting up again. Small earthquake on the mountain and its spewing steam. How many SUVs would it take to do the damage to the environment that one Mount St. Helens would cause?

Vi
 

bigballin007

New Member
And just how often does this mountain erupt? And how many SUV's are driven at any second out of the day. Your comparison to a mountain to an SUV is like arguing that you will get rich off of a Cracker Jack Box Toy. Volcano's have been erupting since the earth was formed yet the engine has only been around for a hundred years. The planet has been able to cope with Volcano's but the Earth is unable to cope with turning the Earth into a highway and burning billions of gallons of petroleum oil everyday. I would be willing to bet that a volcano does not emit near the amount of gases that are toxic per eruption as the engine does in one day on a global scale.
Just look around a billion cars starting up everyday and running for an average of two hours a day, compared to an eruption that happens what every hundred years or so!
 

medicineman

New Member
Well, standby ... Mount St. Helens is acting up again. Small earthquake on the mountain and its spewing steam. How many SUVs would it take to do the damage to the environment that one Mount St. Helens would cause?

Vi[/q My car might pollute,But I don't think it pollutes as much as Mt. St. Helens.
 
Top