Fragile Earth is, well, fragile

Much is made of various topics concerning Earth. Chemtrails, Global warming, Weather Manipulation and Fracking have all made headlines over the years concerning their effects on Earth and her very fragile ecosystem.

All of them have been purported to be of a human hand in being utilized.

My issue today is with the theories concerning Global warming.

There is very little doubt that Global warming is real, the question remains why? Sure some of the habits we have contribute, but do you really think carbon emissions are the reason? There are many possibilities and they begin with Nature and the habits and patterns of the galaxy, Universe and Earth herself.

If we are to believe all that we have been taught by the scientific community, then the Earth has 2 poles, one North and one South, that are magnetically charged, positive and negative, with the iron core in the center being neutral. This creates a protective barrier around the Earth. If the poles flip, like it has been suspected to many times, then at the time it is processing said flip it will leave the Earth more vulnerable to the radiation of the Sun, thus allowing for more heat to enter our atmosphere and become trapped in pockets of the ozone.

The Earth rotates on an axis and changes positions frequently, while traveling through this galaxy and is effected by other magnetic interference which would also cause global warming to be exacerbated at certain times depending on the pole flips and when they occur.

The Earth has experienced many events over the 4 billion years it has existed, what is different now about these occurrences, where the Earth is changes by the second and has since time immemorial, so that is not different, the difference is now we have the Internet and technology we use to track these changes and much hype has been made about global warming.

Weather patterns are not new, they change all the time because the Earth never stays in one place. Global warming is just as normal as Global cooling. There are places that have become colder than normal and places that have become hotter. This is not new. In fact there have been just as many scientists that believe we are heading for a mini-ice age.

We just need to accept that this is a normal behavior of a planet that has been around 4 billion years and there may be some things we can change about our behavior, but we will never be able to stop the Earth from rotating and flying through space while flipping its poles.

I agree. I don't think anyone can say for a fact that the climate isn't changing, but, what is causing the change? How far back do our records go to prove it one way or the other?

I think we can all agree that we seem to be doing our best to destroy the Earth's environment though.

99 percent of all species that have existed on earth are extinct. Humans are not a special exemption.

global warming is due to Planet X!


/Burp

originally posted by: superman2012
I agree. I don't think anyone can say for a fact that the climate isn't changing, but, what is causing the change? How far back do our records go to prove it one way or the other?

Zero, in fact. You depend on the laws of physics, just like for the impact of CFC's on the ozone hole. Fortunately there is adequate historical instrumental data now in addition to strengthen the results, and the picture is clear what is causing most of the climate change: human alterations to the atmosphere. That is greenhouse gases and aerosols (soot pollution which can be cooling, but is also harmful to health and should be eliminated).

The origin of the mechanism "What is causing the change" has been specifically and explicitly verified extensively by experimental observations. This is a subject with physical mechanistic causation, just like say semiconductor physics, not arbitrary numerical correlations and "i dunnos, natural cycle?".

I think we can all agree that we seem to be doing our best to destroy the Earth's environment though.

Knowing the actual causes and magnitudes is very important to deciding on priorities and actions.

a reply to: mbkennel

Comparing the catalytic effect of chloro-fluoro-carbon compounds on the 2O3 -> 3O2 conversion to the carbon dioxide cycle and associated spectral reflectivity is akin to comparing a pool table to relativistic tunneling effects in a semiconductor.

The amount of historic instrumental data we have access to is extremely limited and even that is plagued by problems with reading calibration and unverified localized condition deviations. In order to accurately sample any cycle, it is necessary to sample at least one complete oscillation, and we are nowhere near that. We are not even completely sure the global temperature is rising; some scientists think it is, but the amount of reported change is orders of magnitude less than the noise level in the system under measurement. Annual temperatures here range between 15 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That's equivalent to a 47 C variation under normal conditions, compared to an 'observed' increase due to Global Warming of a few degrees C.

We know some glacial areas are receding short term. But others are advancing, and many of the receding areas can be accounted for by explanations that have nothing to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

We keep hearing about changes in sea level, but all of these are attributable to land subsidence and no known physical laws could explain localized absolute sea level rise... as a matter of fact, basic physics denies that possibility.

We do know that carbon dioxide levels are rising slightly, but none of the early predictions attributed to such a rise have materialized. Globally, storm frequency/severity is still within 'normal' range, sea level has not risen globally, and drought has not caused major food shortages.

In other words, there is no verifiable evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have had a major impact on our ecology. Neither is there enough evidence to assume a high probability that such will happen in the foreseeable future.

TheRedneck