Can you please post any reliable evidence that the sun's temperature is increasing?
Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Pounder
Phaethon was here
Here is one of many:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1045327.stm
Global warming is the least of our worries, within the next couple decades after the sun has passed through the plane of the galaxy, the polarity of the sun could flip. Which means that the polarity of the earth could also flip, remember playing with magnets, what happens when you flip one, same poles repell and voila the magent flip 180 degrees.
The sun could rise and set in the east on the same day, tsunamis miles high, or maybe the earths core flips and the crust only slides 90 degrees and you end up on one of the poles. 90% of the worlds life could be wiped out in a day and it is back to the stone age for the rest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1045327.stm
Global warming is the least of our worries, within the next couple decades after the sun has passed through the plane of the galaxy, the polarity of the sun could flip. Which means that the polarity of the earth could also flip, remember playing with magnets, what happens when you flip one, same poles repell and voila the magent flip 180 degrees.
The sun could rise and set in the east on the same day, tsunamis miles high, or maybe the earths core flips and the crust only slides 90 degrees and you end up on one of the poles. 90% of the worlds life could be wiped out in a day and it is back to the stone age for the rest.
So, does increasing the Earth's heat-insulation (i.e., CO2) help us if the Sun is outputting more, or hurting us?
What proactive steps are you taking if you believe that the Earth is set for a doomsday scenario in the next couple decades? Are you helping fund a space lifeboat project?
Edit: your article is quoting the work of Dr. Butler. Here's one of his recent papers. He does not conclude that man-caused climate change is not happening. He merely points out that solar activity in the past has had significant effects; but he emphasises that current changes are not explained by changes in solar activity
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/global-warming-man-or-nature.pdf
Pounder
Phaethon was here
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm
Here's a few more.
If we let the earth defend it self we might be better off, let the forest fires burn, volcanic activity all add to global cooling as the ash particles in the atmosphere would insulate us from the sun and thus cool the earth.
As for CO2, it is not a pollutant, every plant requires it to create O2 and sugar.
Every animal breathes out CO2, maybe we should decrease the animal/human populations, shut down Coca Cola down as CO2 is what gives there beverages the fizz. No more fire extinguishers or dry ice, ban it all. This would all be a joke.
The global weather records have only been kept for a few decades not enough to establish any trends, but we do know that there is a cycle for ice ages that is about 100,000 years on average and that all the ice on the earth has been melted many times before.
And we do know from drill ice cores in Greenland and Antartica that CO2 level have been higher than they are now in the past.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm
Here's a few more.
If we let the earth defend it self we might be better off, let the forest fires burn, volcanic activity all add to global cooling as the ash particles in the atmosphere would insulate us from the sun and thus cool the earth.
As for CO2, it is not a pollutant, every plant requires it to create O2 and sugar.
Every animal breathes out CO2, maybe we should decrease the animal/human populations, shut down Coca Cola down as CO2 is what gives there beverages the fizz. No more fire extinguishers or dry ice, ban it all. This would all be a joke.
The global weather records have only been kept for a few decades not enough to establish any trends, but we do know that there is a cycle for ice ages that is about 100,000 years on average and that all the ice on the earth has been melted many times before.
And we do know from drill ice cores in Greenland and Antartica that CO2 level have been higher than they are now in the past.
This is why metabolism can be discounted, it's a zero sum game. All animal respiration is from CO2 that was sequestered by plants a short time ago. Animals aren't adding anything that wasn't already there. It's not like animals are causing a reduction in plant biomass!
Regarding the fizz in soda drinks (and other minor example). The fizz in the soda can is minor compared to the CO2 released in the process of getting that soda manufactured and into your hands. All the CO2 released in that process, too, was from CO2 that used to be sequested under ground in the form of oil.
I followed a couple of your links, it appears that the consensus is that ~20% of the problem is due to changes in solar radiance. Unless I'm miscalculating, that leaves at rather significant chunk left for CO2 to be the major problem. As well, unless I'm wrong, it seems that humanity is almost solely in charge of burning the fossil fuels. It strikes me as the major cause of the changes and the cause that we can do something about.
To quote the fellow in your links
Pounder
Phaethon was here
Are you telling me that the 7 billion people and the equivalent 700 billlion chicken per year needed to feed them (using chicken for equivalency, don't want to list quantities of all livestock) are not incremental to the average of 250 million people and their livestock that had been the average population of humans for most of their history.
I'm saying that rising CO2 levels have lead to warming and dropping CO2 levels usually lead to an ice age. There is a natural cycle. I disagree that our output has any significant effect.
Some major volcanic activity may be what we need to trigger some cooling.
I'm saying that rising CO2 levels have lead to warming and dropping CO2 levels usually lead to an ice age. There is a natural cycle. I disagree that our output has any significant effect.
Some major volcanic activity may be what we need to trigger some cooling.
Given the tonnage of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, I cannot see how we can deny that we're causing the CO2 increase.
I don't think so, but I'm not really sure what you're asking.
The fossil fuel requirements of keeping people fed is certainly contributing to global warming, though the 'food' aspect of fossil fuel usage is not the major consumor of fossil fuels. However, in general, eating is not a CO2-increasing activity. All CO2 I breathe out was a plant within the last year, and new plants will be grown to feed me next year. It's a zero sum game.
If I eat a cow that was raised on grass pasture, all the fossil fuels expended are the shipping and the cooking; not really all that much. All other CO2 is already ecologically balanced.
However, given the way we raise cattle a whole lot more CO2 is consumed than need be.
So, it's not the chickens breathing that's the problem, but how we get grain into their gullets.
I think this answers your question?
I don't think so, but I'm not really sure what you're asking.
The fossil fuel requirements of keeping people fed is certainly contributing to global warming, though the 'food' aspect of fossil fuel usage is not the major consumor of fossil fuels. However, in general, eating is not a CO2-increasing activity. All CO2 I breathe out was a plant within the last year, and new plants will be grown to feed me next year. It's a zero sum game.
If I eat a cow that was raised on grass pasture, all the fossil fuels expended are the shipping and the cooking; not really all that much. All other CO2 is already ecologically balanced.
However, given the way we raise cattle a whole lot more CO2 is consumed than need be.
So, it's not the chickens breathing that's the problem, but how we get grain into their gullets.
I think this answers your question?
