Thread: Global Warming-Forget everything you know

We all know what it is, why it's caused and what the implications of it are, but recent research of old recorded accounts of varying shifts in the Earth's magnet feild present a new idea. Around 300 years ago every night British Navy personnel recoreded North and true North and now after analysing those centuries ago to todays North and true North, there is a off degree of 2, just 2 degrees you say? Well, around 700,000 years ago the Earth's magnetic field inverted ovre a period of time causing fluctuations in the field which will happen again, and is beleived to have started already due to those changes in the field. It is known by myself that it does fluctuate naturally anyway, but only by 0.5 degrees give or take. So if the field gets weaker due the the inversion then the Earth will be unable to be protected as much from the Suns ions and UV EM radiation, causing the planet to get hotter naturally anyway so why bother with the CO2, human contribution to it is only less than 5%, so our contribution doesn't matter in the long term, we should stop focusing on trying to stop it and focus on how to combat future problems due to it-we cannot stop it, it is inevitable.

i'm not sure how long it takes for a magnetic field to reverse itself but i doubt whether is instantaneous

in comparison, CO2 increases at lightning speed

Field reversal takes in the close order of a couple of thousand years. We are quite possibly in the initial stages of such a reversal right now.

its said that reversal 700k years ago took about 4500 years to complete.

the sun reverses its magnetic field, every 11 years which happens to coincide with sun spot activity.

Dosen't the earth magnetic field protect us from ion's and not from em-radiation ?

It's not called "Global Warming" anymore for a reason. The new name is "Climate Change". Mainly because we're also setting Cold Temperature Records (see: Every day Al Gore speaks, there is a new "coldest day on record". Poor Gore). Weather is not getting warmer, it's getting increasingly extreme.

And not, by the way, due to CO2. Has anybody taken an interest as to why Mars is also "warming" and exhibiting increasing extreme weather like the earth? Oh, I don't know, maybe the sun plays a role? Y'know, those crazy suggestions that only crazies suggest with their crazy ideas that the sun can control things. Crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Still, pollution in general should be a major concern. Contrariwise, CO2 should not be the only focus. There are many other types of pollution, and we are conveniently ignoring them to "save the environment". I think our lungs need more saving than the CO2-eating-tree environment.

Contrariwise, I'd also suggest we pull our fat lips off CO2's ass, and try and focus on the depleting amount of fish, oil, wood, and every other natural resource known to man.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

... and try and focus on the depleting amount of fish, oil, wood, and every other natural resource known to man.

in short let's concentrate on how population growth will affect our quality of life in the near future

It's not called "Global Warming" anymore for a reason. The new name is "Climate Change". Mainly because we're also setting Cold Temperature Records (see: Every day Al Gore speaks, there is a new "coldest day on record". Poor Gore). Weather is not getting warmer, it's getting increasingly extreme.

You can call it Bollock Brain Ice Cream if you like, it doest make much difference. Extreme weather is one of the things that is/was expected to happen with an increase in global temperatures.

Has anybody taken an interest as to why Mars is also "warming" and exhibiting increasing extreme weather like the earth?

Yes and from what i have been reading the warming on mars has only been seen in the southern hemisphere over the last 3/4 years. Overall (although there is still some debate) mars is cooler now then it was in the 70's. So what evidence is there that the sun is responsible for the recent rise in the earth temperatures ? Or is this post any theory we can think of day and declare it the real reason for GW.

-------------

On a side note this Al Gore must have had sex with under aged girls, murdered old aged pensioners or something, as everybody in the US seems to hate his gut's.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

On a side note this Al Gore must have had sex with under aged girls, murdered old aged pensioners or something, as everybody in the US seems to hate his gut's.

no, it's just that he's a sanctimonious prick who bores the pants of other people - it's not because i agree that global warming or climate change or extreme weather is a reality that i want him to be my cheerleader

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

You can call it Bollock Brain Ice Cream if you like, it doest make much difference. Extreme weather is one of the things that is/was expected to happen with an increase in global temperatures.

Yes, but "Global Warming" isn't properly descriptive.

Yes and from what i have been reading the warming on mars has only been seen in the southern hemisphere over the last 3/4 years. Overall (although there is still some debate) mars is cooler now then it was in the 70's.

At least you admit to "some debate". Links.

So what evidence is there that the sun is responsible for the recent rise in the earth temperatures ? Or is this post any theory we can think of day and declare it the real reason for GW.

Sun spots. Care to check current solar activity?

http://roguepundit.typepad.com/rogue...arming__1.html
(uncertain about the credibility, but that'll do)
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0613022.htm

Also, think "The last ice age". That wasn't caused by pollution.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Yes, but "Global Warming" isn't properly descriptive.

i'd say most people understand what you're on about when you use the term 'global warming' and would understand the interchangeability with climate change

a bit like insisting you should always use the term 'plate tectonics' instead of continental drift - technically correct, but for everyday usage, who cares ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Yes, but "Global Warming" isn't properly descriptive.

i'd say most people understand what you're on about when you use the term 'global warming' and would understand the interchangeability with climate change

I assure you they don't. Global Warming is just that, warming. It's quite obvious the planet is exhibiting extreme weather in general. Not excluded to warming.

a bit like insisting you should always use the term 'plate tectonics' instead of continental drift - technically correct, but for everyday usage, who cares ?

...okay, now it's ridiculous. Continental Drift describes an action due to Plate Tectonic movement. They are not interchangeable terms.

no, continental drift was the old term for plate tectonics - it was dropped because it seemed to imply that continents moved by ploughing through ocean crust, which more recent understanding proved not to be the case + following the realisation that all parts of the crust move, not just continents

...okay, lets try this way.

Continental drift: Old theory, but the words still mean something. It means the continents "drift". Simple.

Plate Tectonics: This is the theory. Unlike Continental drift, it doesn't inherently mean something as coherent. It's a title for the present theory (and objects in said theory).

Continental drift can both be used to describe the old theory, or (in modern usage) describe the fact that continents "drift". Am I clear?

i understood you the first time - language being what it is, it often tends to run roughshod over technical niceties, hence continental drift and plate tectonics are often treated as interchangeable in the vernacular, and so are global warming and climate change

Originally Posted by marnixR

i understood you the first time - language being what it is, it often tends to run roughshod over technical niceties, hence continental drift and plate tectonics are often treated as interchangeable in the vernacular, and so are global warming and climate change

My point was that treating those two terms as synonymous when they are clearly not doesn't even make sense. "plate tectonics" is a name, "continental drift" is the action used commonly to describe it (not the original theory). Climate change encompasses the whole change, while global warming clearly means warming only.

Another thing to note, is that "global warming" has not fallen out of disuse yet (as Continental Drift did as a theory). So using the terms doesn't even make sense on a interchangeable basis, ignoring the obvious definition conflicts with "change" and "warming".

/End string of slightly off-topic discussion. I rest my case, as I made every point I was going to.

likewise

Well, here is a link to an overview of a scientific paper which mentions a little bit about mars being cooler now then it was in 1977 (there are many of those papers), it's the best i can do though as i can't find an easy to read type web site. The debatable part is weather the dust storms or volcanic activity is to blame for the warming back in the 70's.

As for the evidence that mars is warming, well, here it is......



There are other pictures about, but ive lost the link, they were somewhere on NASA's site. Here's a link to Real Climate web site were they discuss the warming and the possible cause;s

----------

With regards to the sun being the cause of the earth's recent warming, we have recently had a very similar debate on the forum which should be able to show you it is not the reason for the extra warming.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...t=7664&start=0

----------

I will post again as soon as i find some proper links.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

I believe for you naysayers (and me being too lazy to dig up links and evidence), that is Q.E.D.

3 summers in a row - that's some trend you got there !

Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures.

Link.

----------

Mars has seen some melting in certain places on the southern ice cap, this does not mean mars is in a state of global warming.

Mars is cooler now then it was in the 70's, which is the complete opposite of what you would expect to see if the sun was the culprit considering the earth's average temperature is thought to have risen during the same period.

Mars is showing signs that it is warming in certain places for the last 6 years (or 3 mars years). The earth has been showing consistent warming for nearly 40 years, how the fuck can anybody make a comparison between the two ?????

Earth, Mars, Jupiter (maybe), one of Jupiter's moons and pluto are showing signs of warming up, none of the other planets or planets satellites are showing any sign of warming.

-------

Scpg, a quote from your link...

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."