Global warming

I am glad that everyone has the benefit of listening finally to what is really going on: the earth is in fact overall cooling down. Warming and cooling cycles have existed since the earth was formed some 5.5 billion years ago, but at one time the temperature on the surface of the earth was thousands of degrees F! We are probably in a localized "warming" period that may or not be affected by humans, but on the scale of billions of years the earth will in fact one day become unihabitable, not because of excessive heat, but due to excessive cold! The earth's surface heat, generated by its enormously hot, molten core, is being radiated into outer space. Due to solar activity, and the complex and convoluted nature of earth's continents, et al, earth experiences climate cycles. But the reality is that on the largest scale possible, the earth is cooling down and will one day become a solid block of frozen rock -- if not consumed by an expanding sun, which will in most likelihood become a red giant star. Whether or not that happens, it cannot be denied that given enough time the earth will cool down overall.

There is plenty of credible, scientific information available on the web (I am talking about abstracts and reports written by Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, et al, scientists -- not "wannabe" scientists) to support what I have posted.

There are undoubtedly scientists who don’t agree about global warming, and while some would call global warming a theory, others would call it a proven set of facts. Opinions differ vehemently.

It’s true that the earth is cooling down if we count millions of years, but I do believe people who say that at the moment we are in a warming period! Whether it’s entirely human activity that are causing it, I’m not sure. The environment of the world as we know it is slowly, but very surely increasing in overall air and water temperature, and a promise that if whatever is causing this is not interrupted or challenged, life on earth will dynamically be affected.

The prevailing counter opinion is that all that is presently perceived to be global warming is simply the result of a normal climactic swing in the direction of increased temperature. Most proponents of this global warming ideology have definitive social and financial interests in these claims!

I assume that the conflicting facts between scientists has to do with how they define the period they refer to.

On the web there are countless articles about global warming, but it’s just too time consuming to keep up with who says what. I’ve seen some programmes about global warming on National Geographic, and I believe they are trustworthy. :)


The U.S. Global Change Research Program says:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

The real question about climate change is: is it anthropogenic? We know, for example, of a cause-and-effect relationship between CFCs and the ozone hole: when CFC emissions dropped, the ozone hole got smaller. The whole CO2 debate is a lot tougher; in my opinion it's a good idea to reduce pollution of all types just to make life easier for all who live on Earth.

There is some evidence of rapid (decades-scale) climate change in the past. Some suspects have been: solar cycles (the Sun is a variable star); volcanic activity (the Year without a Summer in the early 1800s); and even asteroid impacts!

Both sides of the debate have an axe to grind. The oil companies want to continue to explore for, drill for and sell oil. The solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, etc. sides want funding (Federal or otherwise) to fund their research.

People want to improve their standard of living; this is natural. Heinlein said it best: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. This TANSTAAFL principle must be kept in mind; everything we do takes resources, energy and has an impact on the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randi

There are undoubtedly scientists who don’t agree about global warming, and while some would call global warming a theory, others would call it a proven set of facts. Opinions differ vehemently.

It’s true that the earth is cooling down if we count millions of years, but I do believe people who say that at the moment we are in a warming period!

---

Well, how would you go about discounting "millions (billions, actually) or years?"

I agree and believe that we are in a warming period. It is probably, equally true that this warming period is being adversely affected by mankind; however, no amount of heeding of the facts will change the immutable fact that the earth will eventually lose all of its heat, its molten inner core will eventually cool down, and sometime in the far distant future will become a solid, frozen rock, totally devoid of life.

__________________

Quote:

---

By Willow oak
Well, how would you go about discounting "millions (billions, actually) or years?"

I agree and believe that we are in a warming period. It is probably, equally true that this warming period is being adversely affected by mankind; however, no amount of heeding of the facts will change the immutable fact that the earth will eventually lose all of its heat, its molten inner core will eventually cool down, and sometime in the far distant future will become a solid, frozen rock, totally devoid of life.

---

There is no doubt the earths core is cooling and in a million or so years will be a solid frozen chunk. I'm not really going to worry about this event. i am concerned about the warming that is happening right now that is thawing mountain tops, melting Glaciers, and changing ocean currents. This will bring about an early end to life as we know it. Until we change how we treat our environment this trend will continue to accelerate. I have seen major changes in my lifetime, I am 69 years old not .69 million years old. We can try to justify what is happening with a lot of technobabble, the fact remains the problem is here now and it is real.

I think it will take a lot longer than a million years for the Earth's core to freeze. There's a pretty big insulating layer around it!

Quote:

---

Smokey the elder
I think it will take a lot longer than a million years for the Earth's core to freeze. There's a pretty big insulating layer around it!

---

Whether it is a million, 10 million , or 100 million will not matter because man
would have been gone for a while before this happens. Our decades are numbered.

Mr. Gore's face is priceless. The comments are even better. LOL

I love it when "Progressives" get spanked and then all they can do is attack the messenger. Priceless.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/03/sawyer-beck-gore/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kokopup

There is no doubt the earths core is cooling and in a million or so years
will be a solid frozen chunk. I'm not really going to worry about this event.

I am concerned about the warming that is happening right now
that is thawing mountain tops, melting Glaciers, and changing ocean currents.

This [near-term warming] will bring about an early end to life as we know it.

Until we change how we treat our environment this trend will continue to accelerate.

I have seen major changes in my lifetime, ...

We can try to justify what is happening with a lot of technobabble,
the fact remains the problem is here now and it is real.

---

Well said!!

Now, WHY is that so hard for so many to understand? :confused:

:(

Does post #39 give me license to use The Onion as a "news" source?

Well what do ya know?

"Manipulation of evidence"
"Suppression of evidence"
etc...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

And for the LOL moment...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2e126&Issue_id

I have not posted on here for months... too busy worrying about what Obama is going to CHANGE next and how bad it will be for all of us when it happens. Blue seems to be the only one who has a clue about this 'global warming hoax'. What is the matter with all the rest of you? It is junk science! The REAL scientists have been disputing the whole thing for years now, but the mainstream media will NOT print their results for us to read. Same old same old.....

The silence from some is interesting....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...nd-its-issues/

Key points...

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.

The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.

They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.

They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.

They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent

Hello?

No comments?

"The question is not whether we believe in global warming or not, it is happening right now! The question is, how fast will it destroy the life on Earth we know, and can we do something about it, or is it too late."


"Global warming isn't a theory, it is a sad fact. It exists whether you believe in it or not. And while the Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times over its history, from what we can tell, this one is the "fault" of humanity. I am, however, hopeful that humanity can act to slow its progress before life become unsustainable."

"It's not a matter of believing it or not, it is a theory based on lots and lots of hard data and research. It would be like choosing not to believe in Gravitational Theory."


Maybe that big ball of fire in the sky had something to do with it afterall... Who knew?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

Maybe that big ball of fire in the sky had something to do with it afterall... Who knew?

---

Dude, you scaring me.....You mean the sun is made of FIRE?:eek: