What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Global warming a fact... no, wait... I mean yes... but...

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
Eventually our planet is supposed to get warmer.
The process of the warming of our planet is closely related with the cooling of the Sun.

To be fair, I will first post the article made by Michael Harris, Stellar Evolution and its Effects on Earth.


The Sun's Evolution and the Fate of Life on Earth

To better understand how Earth will be affected by the evolution of the sun it is important to first describe the relationship between the sun, Earth, and life. For this Unit I will briefly describe, or outline, this relationship. Ideally, the subject of Life's relationship with the natural resources on Earth and those relationships with Earth's natural cycles and process would be covered in earlier units. Here we really want to focus on how the Sun affects Earth's natural resources such as water, gases, and soils. Life on Earth owes its existence to liquid water and the proper amounts of certain gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen to name a few.

In the past, the Earth had much more carbon dioxide. This is important because carbon dioxide allows solar radiation to pass through it but does not allow radiant heat from the Earth's surface to pass through. Instead it absorbs this heat and reradiated most of it back to the Earth surface. This process has come to be known as the greenhouse effect. This is an important process for life, for without carbon dioxide (and a few other greenhouse gases like methane and water vapor) the temperature of Earth's atmosphere at sea level would be 15 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit) colder.21 That is not to say that life is better off with increasing levels of carbon dioxide. If there is too much carbon dioxide then the Earth's temperature will rise too high and life will be threatened. It should be noted though that the Earth started with more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than it currently has now. However, the sun's energy output was about 30 percent less and therefore in balance enough to create an environment that was not too cold or too hot for life to take hold. Overtime as the sun's energy output has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has decreased well. That is, except for the past 50 to 80 years as the industrial revolution took hold. Increased use of fossil fuels and the cutting of forest have caused the Earth's carbon dioxide levels to increase. With the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, it is uncertain what will happen as the sun produces more energy and bathes Earth in ever increasing amounts of radiation. What is certain though is that no matter what our atmosphere is made of, eventually, the sun's will evolve through stages of life and eventually the energy it produces will be too great and will disrupt the delicate relationship between the sun's energy, Earth's natural resources and process, and all living organisms.

With a mass of 1.989 X 1030 kg, our sun is classified as a low mass star.13 And like all stars it began as a huge giant cloud of dust and gas. Gravity pulled these materials closer and closer together until the intense heat at the center cause the hydrogen to fuse into helium thus forming a protostar. Like all other stars on the main sequence, our sun has continuously increased the amount of heat energy being given off. That is to say that in the past our sun did not bath Earth in as much solar energy as it does today. In fact, it currently gives off 30 percent more heat energy than it did at its birth.20

Currently the sun is a main sequence star. It has been burning it hydrogen core for about 5 billion years and is expected to continue as a main sequence star and fully burn up the hydrogen in its core in about another 5 billion years.14 Relatively soon after all the hydrogen in the core is burned the sun will become a red giant as the outer hydrogen shell expands. This outer shell will expand to a size greater than that of the orbit of Mars, which is about 430 times larger than its current size.15

As the outer shell expands, the sun's luminosity will increase to about 20,000 times its current value. However, the surface temperature will lower to about 3,500 K while the core temperature reaches 100 million K.16 Earth will be bathed in more solar radiation and energy as the outer shell expands and nears Earth, thus casing the surface temperature of Earth to raise. It will continue to heat Earth until it is too dry and to hot for life to exist. Eventually, the burning hydrogen shell will envelope the Earth as well as Mercury, Venus, and Mars.


Now lets compare the article from above with the original one, which was written by Henry Norris Russell. This scientist didn't use in his predictions any carbon dioxide and green houses effects, but he based his words in pure scientific analysis and according to his own calculations.

It is important to notice that Russell was first against the conclusions of Cecilia Payne when she declared that stars are composed mainly with Hydrogen and Helium, and barely 1 percent of other elements. Russell finally conceded and he himself used later on the calculations made by Mrs. Payne. However (and this is food for another topic) recent reviews I have made of the composition of the Sun, can be interpreted that our star has more earth's alike elements in greater percent than the preached by the conventional scientific releases. And that "they" know about it, and are now trying to explain it with lots of superfluous hypothesis. Anyway, Russell perhaps wasn't "that wrong" after all about this issue.

Stellar Energy is a paper written by Henry Norris Russell, in 1939, a paper you can find in some science journals.

You can learn the different explanations of how stars' temperature and shinning are related, an explanation about atoms of hydrogen converting into helium, and lots of more scientific stuff, similar to the article presented above.

At one point, while describing the cooling process of our sun, Russell mentions its relationship with earth, and he predicted the warming of our planet without pointing by any means the industrial era in the world as the cause. This is because, sooner or later our planet will warms up anyway.

Of course, as a typical scientist he will use the millions years numbers for his calculations, because such is what any scientist must say in order to be accepted and his papers published in science journals and universities. That is called: "survival".

Here is the copy of page 12 of his article.

Enjoy.

1594256715914.png
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,523
Reaction score
2,838
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Climate change in 1 billion year time intervals? ...

Are you married? ... I don't have a womb but we can adopt ...
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
25,326
Reaction score
7,612
Points
360
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
The current cooling sun is causing the current fast global warming? How does that work?

In the long term, the sun is warming, by about 1% every 100 million years. But right now, the trend is down, and the earth is still warming.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,523
Reaction score
2,838
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
But right now, the trend is down, and the earth is still warming.

Pure ignorance ... solar output is at the same level it was in 2009, 1998, 1987, 1976, 1965, 1954, 1943, etc etc etc ... it's called "solar minimum" and it occurs like clock-work every 11 years ... "the trend is down" is as stupid as saying Jordan is tropical ... did you know all that ice cream your mommy gives you is unicorn poop? ...
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
25,326
Reaction score
7,612
Points
360
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Pure ignorance ... solar output is at the same level it was

Haven't you learned yet that your butthurt vendettas never work out?

in 2009, 1998, 1987, 1976, 1965, 1954, 1943, etc etc etc ... it's called "solar minimum" and it occurs like clock-work every 11 years ... "the trend is down" is as stupid as saying Jordan is tropical .

As is the case every time, the facts say that I'm right and you're clueless.

1901


You really should check with your fellow deniers before saying stuff like you say. Most of them have fancy theories as to why changes in solar output are driving warming. None of them make any sense, but you make yourself the odd man out by denying outright that there are any solar output changes.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,523
Reaction score
2,838
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Pure ignorance ... solar output is at the same level it was

Haven't you learned yet that your butthurt vendettas never work out?

in 2009, 1998, 1987, 1976, 1965, 1954, 1943, etc etc etc ... it's called "solar minimum" and it occurs like clock-work every 11 years ... "the trend is down" is as stupid as saying Jordan is tropical .

1901


You really should check with your fellow deniers before saying stuff like you say. Most of them have fancy theories as to why changes in solar output are driving warming. None of them make any sense, but you make yourself the odd man out by denying outright that there are any solar output changes.

Hey, MORON ... solar activity is measured by number of sunspots ... as my graph correctly illustrates ...

Hey, MORON ... how did SATIRE-T2 + PMOD measure solar irradiance in 1880? ... oh wait, "satire". ha ha ha ... now I get it ...

Hey MORON ... now go look up SATIRE-T2, fool ... and bathe in your own ignorance ...
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
51,238
Reaction score
14,571
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
The globe has been warming since the ice age. The unproved theory is that human decadence is causing it. The only thing that is certain is that MMGW is a freaking cash cow and every university is looking for a piece of the pie and every two bit politician and anti-American scammer is willing to jump on the bandwagon. WW2 is less than a hundred years ago which is a tiny drop in the bucket in geological terms. Humans dumped more shit into the environment and the oceans than we can imagine and yet global temperatures were unchanged ten and twenty years later. Along comes a failed politician with no background in science who creates something he calls "carbon credits" that he wants to sell like junk bonds. The Nobel Prize committee awards him a prize to make his scam sound reasonable and mostly left wingers use the concept for a political power grab and an extortion scam.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,523
Reaction score
2,838
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
As an experienced Conspiracy Theorist ... the main problem with your argument is that this is better explained by ignorance rather than conscience effort ... we don't have the 5% brilliant deductions for our inconsistencies ... CCC is idiotic from top to bottom so there's absolutely no room for any forethought ... malicious or otherwise ...

The numbers look good though ... 102% of all scientists worldwide are on the "inside" ... not quite as good as the fake Moon landings but better than the Nixon administration ...

I suggest dropping the "cash cow" requirement ... there's no new money going into research, the existing money is just being redirected towards climate and away from dynamics ... prove AGW wrong tomorrow and no one loses their job ... we'll just go back to researching tornadoes and hurricanes is all ... you know, saving lives today and worry about 100 years from now in 100 years ...

Maybe up the dosage on your meds and rethink your claim that Yasser Arafat is selling junk bonds ... he should still be dead, so if he's up and about now, we have other problems to deal with ... especially if he's sell junk bonds in Salt Lake City ...
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
25,326
Reaction score
7,612
Points
360
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Hey, MORON ... solar activity is measured by number of sunspots ...

No, TSI has been measured directly for the past 40 years. The level has been decreasing slightly. You're denying the hard data.

as my graph correctly illustrates ...

A graph you haven't posted. Oops.

Hey, MORON ... how did SATIRE-T2 + PMOD measure solar irradiance in 1880? ...

By using old sunspot numbers as proxies. Which has nothing to do with the fact that direct TSI measurements show a slight decrease in solar output over the past 40 years.

It's official denier dogma that changing solar output is causing the current warming. By denying that solar output changes, you're attacking official denier dogma. You're all alone here with your brand of lunacy.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,523
Reaction score
2,838
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Hey, MORON ... solar activity is measured by number of sunspots ...

No, TSI has been measured directly for the past 40 years. The level has been decreasing slightly. You're denying the hard data.

as my graph correctly illustrates ...

A graph you haven't posted. Oops.

Hey, MORON ... how did SATIRE-T2 + PMOD measure solar irradiance in 1880? ...

By using old sunspot numbers as proxies. Which has nothing to do with the fact that direct TSI measurements show a slight decrease in solar output over the past 40 years.

It's official denier dogma that changing solar output is causing the current warming. By denying that solar output changes, you're attacking official denier dogma. You're all alone here with your brand of lunacy.

Opps ... thank you for this correction ... I think I crossthreaded ... my bad ...

sunspot1.png


"The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is a nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity measured in terms of variations in the number of observed sunspots on the solar surface." -- Wikipedia [emphasis mine]

So once again you've been caught spewing bullshit and are quickly trying to cover your crap in the tray ... we don't use sun spot numbers as a proxy for sunspots numbers ... you know you're wrong, so you quickly changed the subject to something marginally related ... close enough to fool most of the people, but not all ... like Gandalf sending a half-pint shrimp into Mordor with Sauron's magic ring ... that's not saving the universe, that's called "hedging your bets" ...

It's official denier dogma that changing solar output is causing the current warming. By denying that solar output changes, you're attacking official denier dogma. You're all alone here with your brand of lunacy.

I'm told I'm officially a Climate Change Denier of the Third Order, and being hated by both sides is a good thing, science never takes sides ... I agree the globe is warming, and I agree man-kind* is contributing to this effect ... but there's no place on the face of the planet where a slight increase in temperature changes the climate: Continental Humid climates remain Continent Humid, Polar Deserts remain Polar Deserts, etc etc etc ... every single claim of climate catastrophe can be shown to violate one or more Laws of Nature ... in some cases to a felon level (hypercanes and hockey sticks) ...

Oh, I see the Satanic Temple website concurs with you ... a group predicated on evil and human sacrifice, lovely company you keep there, bozo ... I'm sure they like having a little titty-boy like you hanging around ...

* = I hold woman-kind completely innocent, in our patriarchal society only the men decided to ruin the environment, women had no say in the matter ... and I'm not just shamelessly pandering for the women's vote ... not entirely ... I do have a vague feeling of shame I think, but then again maybe not ...
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
25,326
Reaction score
7,612
Points
360
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
So once again you've been caught spewing bullshit

You're doing that thing again where, after I point out how clueless you were on a topic, you scream insults as a deflection.

This isn't a debate. You're just wrong. Total Solar Irradiance has gone down a little over the past 40 years. You're the only person anywhere that I've ever seen who claims that solar output is measured in sunspots.

and are quickly trying to cover your crap in the tray ... we don't use sun spot numbers as a proxy for sunspots numbers ...

You're the only one claiming sunspot numbers are being used as a proxy for sunspot numbers, which makes no sense. I pointed out that they've been used as a proxy for TSI.

Let's get more basic. Do you even know what TSI is? Is the energy shining down on earth measured in units of "sunspots", or in units of "watts per square meter"? You seem to think it's measured in units of "sunspots", which makes you look deranged.

being hated by both sides is a good thing,

Being independently stupid, like you, is still being stupid, so it's a bad thing.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top