The Sun: The World Is Ending In Ten Years

Post Reply New Topic

Well considering how scary the IPCC UN report that's coming out in Paris on Friday is going to be, no-one's laughing about climate change now, not even people like Bush who originally were skeptical about it.

Global warming geeks are short of fact and logic. No one had instrumentation to generate records until recently. (Just because I just noticed it does not mean that it had not been there) The Little ice Age was pretty recent. (Our local temp rise is probably our extended climb out of it) Water holds more CO2 cold than hot. (causality may be the reverse of Gore's interpretation) The sun does change. (fewer sun spots during little ice age: fewer "burps"n pea soup over a smaller fire) The temp rise does not correspond to CO2 levels psot approximately 1945. (the temp rise has been going on for quite a while) The graph they show to demonstrate correlation: temp/CO2 is actually two graphs drawn on one sheet and with carefully chosen vertical scale.

And it is not at all "An Inconvenient Truth"
actually the "cure" given is more centralized government, higher taxes, greater globalization, and all the same old lot that "liberals" (Modern liberals have little in common with Jefferson or Voltaaire) crave all the time. For Gore and friends this "Truth" is very convenient indeed. And he'll ride all the way across a continent in a business jet to tell you how important it is too.

On the other hand. I do understand honest doomsayers (those not out to use a doom to instill fear trance and gain control) as I too get tired of looking at all the societal tomfoolery. Tear down the goalpsots! End the game! Light the wig! Anarchy!

I was reading an article recently that said this whole global warming thing is hogwash. It said the amount of CO2 that humans generate is insignificant compared to volcanic eruptions. That is to say, the global climate is a self-correcting system, and can absorb amounts of 'pollution' that would stagger us. Research Krakatoa sometime. It was a huge volcanic explosion. All this nonsense about humans destroying the climate is comparable to peeing in the ocean, and worrying that you're warming it ! !! !

Nope, I'm quite the sceptic. You can ask my Missus about that ! !!

You youngsters don't recall how we were told back in the 70's that the world was heading into another ice age.

Is that a reference to the "nuclear winter"?

No, not 'nunclear winter'. Back in the bad old 70's it was the rage to predict that the climate was cooling. Predictions of another ice age, and all that. I don't get excited anymore when I hear the climate is doing 'this' or 'that'. The global climate is far too complex for us to decipher.

Didn't these scientists also predict the world was going to end in 2000?

There were a bunch of predictions made, beginning mainly in the late 60s, that the world would "run out" of things like food and water by the 1980s and massive famine would result in Europe, North America, ect.... The most famous book in this area was Paul Ehrich's The Population Bomb.

This predictions turned out to be faulty and food production in fact became more efficient. The prices of food have gone down. Famines are occurring less often in Africa as more African countries adopt better agricultural methods, and economic systems (this is not to say the situation is anything near perfect because it's not).

Back in the 60s and 70s we faced doom due to global cooling. Articles were everywhere and there was general agreement that the Earth was going to cool to the point of crop failures and famine and all that. The logic was that man was adding a lot af gasses to the atmosphere, and that the albedo (atmospheric reflectance) was rising and so more of the insolation (energy from the sun as received by Earth) woud be reflected back into space without heating the Earth biosphere. The vast majority of "scientists" were all behind this idea, and suggested global treaties, lesser consumption of everything, and more government to insure that this would happen.

I also recall my college class in geology wherein a student asjked the instructor (one of the few good ones I ever had) about this golbal cooling. He replied that global cooling is hogwash and explained: 1. We are not far enough in years past the last real ice age to be ccooling yet, 2. there is permanent ice near the equator on Mt. Kilimanjaro (sic?), and this ought not be there at peak temp - or in his opinion - for very long, 3. Every major glacier in the world has been receeding for thousands of years (hence the stacked terminal morraines below them in valleys), and are still receeding even now.

This instructor thought for himself, independently, logically, creatively, instead of joining the herd. I wonder if he was an Aspie? No idea on that, but he was right.

We are also warming as we continue to leave behind the "little ice age" that caused (for real) crop failures throughout Europe and Asia, and was partial motivation for people comming to the new world (no idea back than that it would be just as bad here - just certainty of how bad it was there).

Fact is that Earth is not statically, but dymanically stable. As is the sun. Static stability is what everyone understands. Three legs on a stool and it stays up. But a bicycle needs only two wheels and forward motion. Static stability is in the long term more robust.

If the sun shrinks its pressure and termperature rise in accordance with Boyle's law. this increases the fusdion reactivity at its core. this causes more heat generation and soon the sun swells. that lowers densits and pressure and temperature, and reactivity falls. So long as it has sufficient fuel it oscillates between poles of largest and smallest size, between poles of greatest and least reactions per second. Between poles of least and most thermal (and otrher radiation) output. When a lot of heat is radiated so is a lot of other radiation. And just like pea soup on the stove; it burps more. these burps are solar flares. During the little ice age solar activity was very low. it is high now. the sun isn't necessarily at a higgher temperature, but more total heat is radiated.

Where does the majority of Earth's heat come from? The sun! If we noticve a temp rise, to which would we naturally attach that causal relationship? There is more, but I don't want to be pedantic. (!) I will abide a time.