Global warming doesn't exist at all. The reason we are noticing changes in the world is because of the moon. The moon is slowing down the earth's rotation, causing longer days. Longer days=longer time in the sun, which means stronger and more frequently occurring storms. This also is the reason for the melting of Kilimanjaro and all the other bull-shit Al Gore tried to spew at us.

Am I supposed to believe what you say over Al Gore?

Am I supposed to believe what you say over Al Gore?

obviously:)

Actually its because the sun is getting hotter, phule

Climate change is the least of the worlds worries.

May I remind you that "global warming" just means the fact that temperatures have, on average, gone up over the last 100 years. That's fact, and not disputed, hell all you have to do is look at thermometer readings.

The point of debate is whether this is caused by man.

Anyway, I think we might have a board for this...:rolleyes:

-deus-

Yeh, it's just another "big lie" that actually got pulled off. Its fucking sickening what people will believe. OMG! Stop global warming, buy a new car, new lightbulbs, fridges, TVs, stoves, washers/driers, more sunscreen, make Al Gore rich!

May I remind you that "global warming" just means the fact that temperatures have, on average, gone up over the last 100 years. That's fact, and not disputed, hell all you have to do is look at thermometer readings.

The point of debate is whether this is caused by man.

Anyway, I think we might have a board for this...:rolleyes:

-deus-

I'm referring to the chlorofluorocarbons that are supposedly ruining our earth as we know it.

Put it in a movie and i might believe it.

Everyone knows movies have to be factual.

Put it in a movie and i might believe it.

Everyone knows movies have to be factual.

I actually had a source for this info, but it was at 1am when I posted it, so I couldn't be bothered.

I'm referring to the chlorofluorocarbons that are supposedly ruining our earth as we know it.

CFCs were banned years ago man, nobody is allowed to use them anymore

CFCs were banned years ago man, nobody is allowed to use them anymore

Then greenhouse gasses, dammit:mad:

This is the dumbest theory I've ever heard.


Even if this were true, The longevity of the day is not evidence of global warming, but the INTENSITY of the UV rays, which are to a greater degreer because of a depleting o-zone layer.


Has shit to do with the moon. Nice job of also avoiding a source.

This is the dumbest theory I've ever heard.


Even if this were true, The longevity of the day is not evidence of global warming, but the INTENSITY of the UV rays, which are to a greater degreer because of a depleting o-zone layer.


Has shit to do with the moon. Nice job of also avoiding a source.

Google it you stupid fuck. Longer days means that the earth is exposed to a more concentrated sunlight than before.

Think about it to the extremes, what would be warmer:

A spot that the sun is always focused on?

Or a spot that the sun doesn't get much time to focus on?

Google it you stupid fuck. Longer days means that the earth is exposed to a more concentrated sunlight than before.

Think about it to the extremes, what would be warmer:

A spot that the sun is always focused on?

Or a spot that the sun doesn't get much time to focus on?

This:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0528earthshine.html

?



"Studies of Earthshine can be used to show how the Earth's cloud cover varies over time. Preliminary results show a 6.5% dip in cloud cover between 1985 and 1997 and a corresponding increase between 1997 and 2003. This has implications for climate research, especially with regards to global warming. Some clouds have a net warming effect because they trap heat, while others have a net cooling effect because they increase albedo, so the overall effect on global temperature remains unclear."


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


This could be a factor but the question is what is causing the increase/decrease cloud cover? That's what's allowing earthshine to penetrate the earth.

If increase causes warming because they trap heat could that not be due to pollution?

^are you supporting me? If so thanks, big guy.

^ Im a girl, and Im semi-supporting you.

^ Im a girl, and Im semi-supporting you.

ok, works for me.

ok, works for me.


Everythinz better now cuz a girl supportz me. Mankind is not doomed at all due to itz dependency on finite resources that create massive pollution and waste. Garbagez isn't real eiffer.


Pfft.

Pfft.

They are gonna turn greenhouse gas back into fuel soon.

They are gonna turn black people back into fuel soon.

Awesome!

Awesome!

Lol, I had to check and see if I actually wrote that.

this is the most retarded thread ever.

if the days are getting longer, why does my clock still show sunrise at the same time?

and how exactly does the moon slow the rotation of the earth?

this is the most retarded thread ever.


I'm surprised you aren't an acolyte, you fooled me.



if the days are getting longer, why does my clock still show sunrise at the same time?

And if the year is 365.25 days long how come we don't have a quarter day in the year?



and how exactly does the moon slow the rotation of the earth?Gravity

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr201/Motion/motion2.html


Eventually the Earth's rotation will slow until the bulges no longer lead the Moon -- the Earth will rotate in exactly the same time it takes for the Moon to orbit. When this happens (billions of years from now), the Earth's day will be 47 current days long. We would then say the Earth is "tidally locked" to the Moon.

"And if the year is 365.25 days long how come we don't have a quarter day in the year?"

it's the year that is messed up, not the time. leap years fix the quater problem, and everything works. since the calendar was invented, the equinoxes have been on their correct days. the calendar isn't slipping, just your grip on reality.

answer the question, why is sunrise and sunset still at the same time if the day is getting longer?

the sun doesn't go away at night time. even if the earth completely stopped it would still receive the exact same amount of solar energy. the average temperature would be the same. why would longer days cause global warming?

oh yeah, and fuck you. i was posting on totse when you were learning how to write your fucking name.

"And if the year is 365.25 days long how come we don't have a quarter day in the year?"

it's the year that is messed up, not the time. leap years fix the quater problem, and everything works. since the calendar was invented, the equinoxes have been on their correct days. the calendar isn't slipping, just your grip on reality.

answer the question, why is sunrise and sunset still at the same time if the day is getting longer?



Maybe because it is slowing down by 1 second every 50,000 years?

Did you not see how long its taking to make a difference? Oh yea, I forgot you're retarded.


the sun doesn't go away at night time. even if the earth completely stopped it would still receive the exact same amount of solar energy. the average temperature would be the same. why would longer days cause global warming?

Global warming doesn't exist at all..

Wow, once again proving how stupid you are. I was saying that there isn't global warming you fucking idiot.




oh yeah, and fuck you. i was posting on totse when you were learning how to write your fucking name.You are a spectral account, and if you're not...well either way you still are a complete idiot.

So a few extra milliseconds of sun are causing this? Its not out of the realm of believability but it is highly unlikely, unless you would like to offer forth some cold hard scientific data showing at least correlation between the two probabilities that both events actually are occurring then post this stupid idea again.

P.S. Want keep saying global warming isn't happening then prove that it isn't occurring, of you can't then shut the fuck up and go watch the O'Reily Factor you twiddling fucks.

So a few extra milliseconds of sun are causing this? Its not out of the realm of believability but it is highly unlikely, unless you would like to offer forth some cold hard scientific data showing at least correlation between the two probabilities that both events actually are occurring then post this stupid idea again.

We are seeing ice caps melt and stronger storms. This is from stronger concentration of suns rays on a certain spot. Maybe we are at the point where these extra seconds are starting to make a difference.

P.S. Want keep saying global warming isn't happening then prove that it isn't occurring, of you can't then shut the fuck up and go watch the O'Reily Factor you twiddling fucks.

Prove that global warming is happening.

global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)

global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)

I don't know who you are supporting, but lol at the size scale.

global warming is happening. the chart shows that. it's obviously not going to rise 10 degrees a year.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~koonin/

this guy is one of the leaders of the 'earthshine' project.

...In 1999 he received the prestigious E.O. Lawrence Award in Physics from the Department of Energy.

Koonin is a member of the Council for Foreign Relations and has served on a number of advisory committees for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense and...

vested interests maybe?

where was the funding for this "earthshine project" coming from?

I don't know who you are supporting, but lol at the size scale.

"lol at the size scale"?
You obviously know nothing about global warming.

These are average global temperatures. Even if the Earth was spinning slower it would still be getting the exact same amount of sunshine on average. It wouldn't effect the average temperature.

A single degree change is drastic when you are talking about the average temperature of the entire fucking planet.

The moon, on average, moves away from the Earth about an inch a year. If this was somehow making the Earth hotter why hasn't the Earth been getting hotter for all of fucking history? You have no sources and your entire theory is bullshit. End of story.

In fact, I would go as far to say that a slower rotation would have a moderating effect on climate. Back when a day was like 20 hours the planet was a lot less stable than it is today.

"lol at the size scale"?
You obviously know nothing about global warming.


That's because it doesn't exist


These are average global temperatures. Even if the Earth was spinning slower it would still be getting the exact same amount of sunshine on average. It wouldn't effect the average temperature.
Yes, it would. The sun shines on the oceans longer, which raises the oceanic temperature due to more exposure of sunlight.


A single degree change is drastic when you are talking about the average temperature of the entire fucking planet.
Prove that it came from global warming and not a slowed rotation.


The moon, on average, moves away from the Earth about an inch a year. If this was somehow making the Earth hotter why hasn't the Earth been getting hotter for all of fucking history?

Fast Fact: There is more than one factor that can change the earth's temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif






Try holding a torch directly to a basketball while it is twirling slowly. Now try holding a torch whilst a basketball is twirling fast. Let's see which one pops quicker.

That's because it doesn't exist

Yes, it would. The sun shines on the oceans longer, which raises the oceanic temperature due to more exposure of sunlight.

Prove that it came from global warming and not a slowed rotation.


Fast Fact: There is more than one factor that can change the earth's temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif






Try holding a torch directly to a basketball while it is twirling slowly. Now try holding a torch whilst a basketball is twirling fast. Let's see which one pops quicker.

Lets go through this step by step.

#1) Global warming doesn't exist? If the world is raising in temperature, I think a term calling it "global warming" would be appropriate.

#2) The sun wouldn't be shining as much on the oceans at night as well as shining more on the oceans during the day. The average sunshine received stays the same. This may as you say, cause storms somehow, but it would not effect the average temperature.

#3) "Prove that it came from global warming and not a slowed rotation."

Prove that the world is raising in temperature is global warming? Ummmm... The definition of warming is raising in temperature. That's all the proof I need. Additionally, if you are proposing a new theory usually it's up to you to prove it.

#4) "Fast Fact: There is more than one factor that can change the earth's temperature."

Yes, you are right. But, what does that have to do with anything? You are saying that the main factor in global warming has to do with the moon. I'm say that the idea is ridiculous.

#5) The basketball may pop, but the average temperature of the entire ball will stay the same. There is actually no warming in that circumstance whatsoever. The energy received by the ball would be the same in both instances.

Fast fact: If the sun is focused on the planet for a long time on one side, the other side will go just as long with out any sun at all. The average temperature STAYS THE SAME GODDAMMIT!

your wasting your time with this one, he is either just a very stupd kid, or a troll.

your wasting your time with this one, he is either just a very stupd kid, or a troll.

Well, I think he is just stupid and I'm just trying to shut him up.

If you whack someone over the head long enough with the truth, it eventually sinks in.

Oh yeah, ok. I will prove that global warming isn't coming from a slowed rotation.

There is a lesser known fact that there is something called global dimming going on. The Earth is actually receiving less sunshine that it did in the past, but somehow we are getting hotter. This is proven through experiments where sunshine was measured over the years.

What does all this mean? Well anyone with any common sense can deduce through easy logic that what sunshine we are receiving is somehow being more effective in heating up the world. How? I don't know for sure, but somehow heat energy is getting trapped in the planet. The greenhouse effect is the only thing I know of that would trap heat more than usual.

A slower rotation would do jack shit to the total energy received by the planet and would do jack shit in making the energy we receive more effective. End of story. This thread and theory is completely retarded.

Do you really think that some 15 year old like yourself has the grand answer that all of the scientists in the world overlooked? Sorry, but no.

^ I'm well past my way of giving a shit now.

Global warming doesn't exist at all. The reason we are noticing changes in the world is because of the moon. The moon is slowing down the earth's rotation, causing longer days. Longer days=longer time in the sun, which means stronger and more frequently occurring storms. This also is the reason for the melting of Kilimanjaro and all the other bull-shit Al Gore tried to spew at us.

A slower rotation of the Earth would have little effect on temperature averages.

We'd only have longer days during the summer. During the winter, we'd have longer nights. As a result, instead of having a general temperature increase, we'd only have more intense seasons.

We would probably still experience overall glacial melt, though, since glaciers aren't really a seasonal thing.

A slower rotation of the Earth would have little effect on temperature averages.

We'd only have longer days during the summer. During the winter, we'd have longer nights. As a result, instead of having a general temperature increase, we'd only have more intense seasons.

We would probably still experience overall glacial melt, though, since glaciers aren't really a seasonal thing.

This is a good explanation.

May I remind you that "global warming" just means the fact that temperatures have, on average, gone up over the last 100 years. That's fact, and not disputed, hell all you have to do is look at thermometer readings.

The point of debate is whether this is caused by man.

Anyway, I think we might have a board for this...:rolleyes:

-deus-

well we've done more harm in 100 years then the world done since existence , it has to be mankind lol their is no one else to blame!

well we've done more harm in 100 years then the world done since existence , it has to be mankind lol their is no one else to blame!

Naw, super volcanoes, asteroids, magnetic pole shifting, and other natural disasters have done far, far worse than we are capable of.

There is so much that we still don't know about the world. It could be literally be anything... Evidence does point to the greenhouse effect though.

There are no mass extinctions associated with magnetic pole shifting. That doesn't belong on the list.

Yeah, maybe. But, doesn't it still do a lot of damage? Migrating birds would get fucked up probably.

Anyways, the point was that changing of the poles would probably do more damage than we are capable of... I don't know much about pole shifting though.

But, what if a solar flare hit us while they were changing? I thought that the magnetic field actually comes down right before they change. Solar flare + no field = major shit happening.

Maybe we'll all get lucky and have some huge gas cloud choke the life out of our solar system. Then we won't have to deal with warming.

There's a thread about this in MS, but the gist of it is that we're going to have an extra 100,000 skin cancer fatalaties/year from the increased radiation. That sounds like a lot, but is a drop in the bucket as far as cancer rates go. We'll have northern lights all over. Will take maybe 1,000 years for the new arangement to stabalize, and in the mean time, the poles will flip rapidly, several times per month at least. And again, there are no mass extinctions on record that coincide with the poles shifting. The birds obviously have some way of coping.

Just saw An Inconvenient Truth this morning for the first time. There's some scary shit in there. Like how the West Antarctic ice shelf could boost sea levels 20 feet, and Greenland can stack another 20 on top of that.

A better argument would be that humans aren't the cause of global warming. Saying the world isn't getting warmer is just retarded. It's been getting warming for going on 20 years now.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10153296#post10153296

There's a thread about this in MS, but the gist of it is that we're going to have an extra 100,000 skin cancer fatalaties/year from the increased radiation. That sounds like a lot, but is a drop in the bucket as far as cancer rates go. We'll have northern lights all over. Will take maybe 1,000 years for the new arangement to stabalize, and in the mean time, the poles will flip rapidly, several times per month at least. And again, there are no mass extinctions on record that coincide with the poles shifting. The birds obviously have some way of coping.

Just saw An Inconvenient Truth this morning for the first time. There's some scary shit in there. Like how the West Antarctic ice shelf could boost sea levels 20 feet, and Greenland can stack another 20 on top of that.


None of that is going to happen. Its all lies.

Care to back that up, or will that just be a "Nuh uh" arguement?

May I remind you that "global warming" just means the fact that temperatures have, on average, gone up over the last 100 years. That's fact, and not disputed, hell all you have to do is look at thermometer readings.

The point of debate is whether this is caused by man.

Anyway, I think we might have a board for this...:rolleyes:

-deus-

*looks* It's 74.... in fucking July.
Where the fuck is my 90 Degree weather??!?!?!?!?!

Lol, this is one of the most obscene global warming debate I've ever seen.

With 50 posts and counting.......I wish to add mine :

Has it ever occur to you that this global warming is actually a natural process ?

Have any of you ever think that these "ice cap" in the north/south pole are actually a form of earth's cancer ? something that earth shouldn't have normally ? And now that the ice are about to melt away is actually a sign that earth is "healing" rather than getting sicker ?

I mean none of the other 7 planets have ice caps on them, right ?

Lol, this is one of the most obscene global warming debate I've ever seen.

With 50 posts and counting.......I wish to add mine :

Has it ever occur to you that this global warming is actually a natural process ?

Have any of you ever think that these "ice cap" in the north/south pole are actually a form of earth's cancer ? something that earth shouldn't have normally ? And now that the ice are about to melt away is actually a sign that earth is "healing" rather than getting sicker ?

I mean none of the other 7 planets have ice caps on them, right ?

Mars. But, then again Mars is dead. Just like the other 7 planets.

I do believe that global warming is a natural process... we may be helping it along a bit though. Anyways, anything that isn't maintaining the status quo will have some sort of "growing pains".

Well, in the broadest sense of things, having an ice cap isn't exactly crucial to the planet itself, but neither is it detremental.

However, having it melt would be absolutely devistating to the current status of the world. Then a new equilibrium would settle until the next environmental shift.

As for it being a natural process, CO2 levels have tracked fairly consistantly with the global temperature for hundreds of thousands of years (data derived from ice core samples). And current levels of CO2 waaaaay off the charts, even compared to the highest peaks during that period.

Well, in the broadest sense of things, having an ice cap isn't exactly crucial to the planet itself, but neither is it detremental.

Hold on right there. The ice cap *IS* the most crucial thing when it comes to this so-called global warming. WHY ? Because all of our current so-called "global temperature data"
came from it. YES, you might not think of it like this before, but then, these ice-caps are the mother of all "charts" that scientist use to support/deny their global warming/cooling hypothesis.

Without those ice caps, what are those "scientist" gonna drill to make some funny charts ?

However, having it melt would be absolutely devistating to the current status of the world. Then a new equilibrium would settle until the next environmental shift.


Yea, it surely would be devastating for us humans, but then, my point is that there's nothing that says all planet should have "at least a pair of ice caps"

As for it being a natural process, CO2 levels have tracked fairly consistantly with the global temperature for hundreds of thousands of years (data derived from ice core samples). And current levels of CO2 waaaaay off the charts, even compared to the highest peaks during that period.

How do you know this for sure ? You have no record what-so-ever before the formation of the ice caps. Take a look at venus, it's something like 99% co2. Maybe the initial earth's atmospheric content is 20-30% co2. Nobody knows for sure.

Then the abnormality happens when there's too much plants around, releasing too much o2, causing global cooling to "kill" off excess plants to bring down the o2 level. So now, the earth is going back to what it was before the cooling process.

As for no record existing before the ice caps, that's true. Which is why the record only goes back about 600,000 years. That's still enough to track a mean releationship between CO2 and temperature.

And earth's initial atmospheric composition was almost entirely CO2, with a splash of water vapor. Far more than your suggested 20%-30%.

I never said that the ice cap wasn't important in relationship to global warming. I am saying that the dinosaurs seemed to do just fine without one. Yeah, we'll live if the thing melts, but we'll be minus a lot of land area, resourses, and species, and packed to the rafters with refugees.

And your final statement just makes me want to smack the stupid out of you. Planetary environments and ecology are always in flux. Doesn't make one state inherently better or "more natural" than another. The rising CO2 levels are only "abnormal" compared to the relitively recent geological history. But that still encompasses the the entire span of the human species up to this point.

As for no record existing before the ice caps, that's true. Which is why the record only goes back about 600,000 years. That's still enough to track a mean releationship between CO2 and temperature.

Look, I'm not saying that there's no relationship between co2 level and atmospheric temperature. What I'm postulating is that earth is/should be much warmer than it is today. And there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

The argument here is HOW WARM SHOULD EARTH BE. Your beloved ice core seems to suggest earth should be cooler than it is now. But those ice cores are only a mere 600,000 years old.

And if we think about K3 era, which happen some time between 150,000,000 to 70,000,000 years ago which we will never be able to know how warm it is back then,....half a million years of records saying "earth is cool" meant nothing.

Which brings me to the question : If earth was hot(warmer than it is now) for half a billion years, and cool(cooler than it is now)for only half a million years, what would you consider as "NORMAL" temperature for earth ?

And earth's initial atmospheric composition was almost entirely CO2, with a splash of water vapor. Far more than your suggested 20%-30%.

Well, if you take "initial" as the time when the earth is a puddle of hot molten rock and boiling sea, sure. But my term "initial" was referring more to the time when they are living creatures running around, you know.

I never said that the ice cap wasn't important in relationship to global warming. I am saying that the dinosaurs seemed to do just fine without one. Yeah, we'll live if the thing melts, but we'll be minus a lot of land area, resourses, and species, and packed to the rafters with refugees.

It doesn't matter really, all I said is that this "global warming" is a natural process, and will happen eventually no matter what we do. And the ice cap that formed on the poles are actually an abnormality, some thing that happened due to earth's unnatural cooling for the past 600,000 years.

And your final statement just makes me want to smack the stupid out of you. Planetary environments and ecology are always in flux. Doesn't make one state inherently better or "more natural" than another. The rising CO2 levels are only "abnormal" compared to the relitively recent geological history. But that still encompasses the the entire span of the human species up to this point.

Yes,yes, planetary environment are always in flux, but eventually these fluctuation will somehow come to a point where they cancel each other out, hit equilibrium, hence a new normality, until an outside influence were introduced, and chaos ensues and the struggle for a new equation to equilibrium repeats itself....

Since you didn't quite get my last point, I will repeat them again, in point-by-point mode.

---for 1/2 billion years, earth has been warm(normal). Which is why reptiles(cold blooded) were "in fashion" in those days. Mammals would overheat them selfs easily in those days.

---Shits happened, K3 extinction began. Plant eaters died en-mass. Plants survived better than animals, and over populate the earth. O2 became saturated in the atmosphere.

---Earth cooling began, either to counter and/or as a direct result of plants over-population due to laws of physics/God/nature. Hi saturation of o2 caused earth's temperature to fall, cooling of earth had accumulated ice on the poles, lowering sea level, and cutting fresh water supply to hi land areas. And dividing earth into seasonal lands. Thus, turning large part of africa into wastelands. This lasted for almost 600,000 years. (which can be considered as abnormal)

---And here we are in the 50,000 years junction between these 2 phases of major climate change. But due to our short human history and lacked full knowledge of earth's history, we perceived these changes as an abnormality.

To put it into metaphor would be, if a man you know has been a man for a long time, say ever since he was a kid till he's 30, then suddenly decided to go for a sex change and became a trans-v, which form of him would you consider to be ab-normal ? the man part of his life, or the trans part ? :D

Global warming doesn't exist at all. The reason we are noticing changes in the world is because of the moon. The moon is slowing down the earth's rotation, causing longer days. Longer days=longer time in the sun, which means stronger and more frequently occurring storms. This also is the reason for the melting of Kilimanjaro and all the other bull-shit Al Gore tried to spew at us.

Wrong. Youre not very wise, right?

Global warming is true, but not as they put it.

Its not gonna turn the world into a fuckin desert. In fact, whole way around. Increased heat and water levels (polar ice melting) is going to cause hell more numerous and stronger storms and hurricains, killing thousans of people, destroying coastal cities and spoiling food supplies.

The increased heat and humidity, the lots of people fleeing inland and the lack of food also means a severe outbreak of disease, killing millions and making medicine a fuckload more expensive.

Food, medicine and energy will be too expensive for most of the people and its likely to be a big war for it.

I may sound grim, but I give it something around 10 years counting now, and yes, millions of people will perish.

Still I say, use and do while you still can. Do try to protect your planet, but use you car and shit and enjoy while thins still last.

OK.

1. Al Gore is not a scientist. ACTUAL scientists from Duke university have done research investigating Gore's claims, and they say he's bullshitting us all.

2. He is a douchebag who wants only money.

3. The graphs he used in his movie, when looked at closely, actually reflect that the temperature change occured BEFORE the CO2 changed, which means our pollution is not the cause of the rise in temp.

4. What about the polar bears?

their population is at its best ever (and rising)





How do I know this stuff?

I watch FOX News and listen to conservative talk radio.

^^^

I just want to verify that I agree the temperature is rising, I just say it won't do anything major.

Wrong. Global temperature increase might be caused by better, more precise thermometer we use today to measure the air temperature compared to the thermometer we used a hundred years ago.

Or maybe the boiling point of water today are much lower.

I actually had a source for this info, but it was at 1am when I posted it, so I couldn't be bothered.

#
Speed of Earth's Rotation Slowing?
I heard that the rate of Earth's spin is decreasing. How much is the Earth slowing down? Has it always been slowing down? Ask an Astrophysicist said that the Earth spins like a figure skater, but they can only spin for so long!

The Earth's spin is slowing down by about 1.5 - 2 milliseconds per century, and that angular momentum is moving into the Moon's orbit, which is getting larger. The reason for this, and the reason a figure skater can only spin for so long, is friction. In the case of the skater, it's air resistance and friction with the ice. In the case of the Earth, it's the friction due to tides moving around the Earth.

Dr. Eric Christian
(June 2000)

OK.

1. Al Gore is not a scientist. ACTUAL scientists from Duke university have done research investigating Gore's claims, and they say he's bullshitting us all.

2. He is a douchebag who wants only money.

3. The graphs he used in his movie, when looked at closely, actually reflect that the temperature change occured BEFORE the CO2 changed, which means our pollution is not the cause of the rise in temp.

4. What about the polar bears?

their population is at its best ever (and rising)





How do I know this stuff?

I watch FOX News and listen to conservative talk radio.


1. Media will always say what is best for them.
2. Public studies form a single source are always biased.
3. Polar bears and gobal warming have nothing to do with each other.
4. Everything from car engines, to industry machinery or even smacking someone in the head is exothermic (which means it produces heat).
5. I didnt see the Al Gore video and dont give a fuck about it, as I know for sure what he must say. Global warming is true, but it is nothing close to what people say about it.
6. Start to think for yourself and stop being the media's whore.

Wrong. Global temperature increase might be caused by better, more precise thermometer we use today to measure the air temperature compared to the thermometer we used a hundred years ago.

Or maybe the boiling point of water today are much lower.

Boiling point of something does not change. It would require the energy between the particles to drop, which cant happen.

And about the thermometers, there were none two thousand years ago. they know the average temperatures of each specific period in history by studying fossils or formations and the bonding of the particles. They can tell the pressure hey were put into, temperature and time it took to form from that. Nothing to do with the thermometer thing.

Hey Prometheus, no counter argument coming from you ? Or are you recovering from the "global warming" delusion ?

Or out of words perhaps ?

Anyway, for the rest of you motherfuckers who,...still fucking believe global is fucking warming up, NASA has said otherwise. How true is this....I'll let you be the judge.

GLOBAL *IS* COOLING !!! (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-066)

Boiling point of something does not change. It would require the energy between the particles to drop, which cant happen.

Never heard of pressure cooker huh ?
Do : Wikipedia--->pressure cooker.

If earth was cooler back then, the air will be definitely be much denser, ie, earth's atmosphere have a wee bit higher pressure. The higher atmospheric pressure will cause water to boil at higher temperature.

As the warmer the atmosphere gets, it will becomes less dense, thereby reducing boiling temperature. Yes, my idea seems too far fetched at first, but there are not entirely without basis or impossible.

And about the thermometers, there were none two thousand years ago. they know the average temperatures of each specific period in history by studying fossils or formations and the bonding of the particles. They can tell the pressure hey were put into, temperature and time it took to form from that. Nothing to do with the thermometer thing.

You sure they got it from studying fossiled rocks and not ice-cores ? Hmmm...I've never heard of that, need to yahoo it first....

Never heard of pressure cooker huh ?
Do : Wikipedia--->pressure cooker.


1. The pressure change has not been big enough to make a fuckin ant feel it.
2. The bigger amount of heavier gases in the atmosphere compensate the for the pressure-heat.
3. The boiling point of water changing does not change the point where thermometers show each temperature.
4. Scientists do not conclude the Earth is warming up from water boiling faster, retard.
5. Earth is not a pressure cooker. Pressure cookers heat water very fast and are sealed so steam is trapped inside making pressure. Pressure in the Earth is caused by gases in the atmosphere pressing down as they are attracted by gravity. In any case, the pressure of the Earth should be bigger now than never as there is a much larger quantity of gases these days.
6. Youre a moron.

#
Speed of Earth's Rotation Slowing?
I heard that the rate of Earth's spin is decreasing. How much is the Earth slowing down? Has it always been slowing down? Ask an Astrophysicist said that the Earth spins like a figure skater, but they can only spin for so long!

The Earth's spin is slowing down by about 1.5 - 2 milliseconds per century, and that angular momentum is moving into the Moon's orbit, which is getting larger. The reason for this, and the reason a figure skater can only spin for so long, is friction. In the case of the skater, it's air resistance and friction with the ice. In the case of the Earth, it's the friction due to tides moving around the Earth.

Dr. Eric Christian
(June 2000)

If its said by a Doctor, not much can be discussed. I only add tides cant do much. This doesnt have much to do with global warming.

Ill just add one more thing.

The greenhouse gas shit doesnt work how they tell it.

Heavy gases only have more mass to catch the heat. They also have more ability to retain heat, taking more time to cool down, sometimes gaining more heat than losing it. They dont reflect heat back to the surface, its rather just a mass of hot gas irradiating heat.
Also remember, most of the time, these gases are produced with heat already from industry and car engines.

Asphalt from the cities also retains much of the energy from sunlight, now asphalt cant retain or reflect light energy. This energy is transformed into heat. You can try touch dark asphalt and then white concrete just some time after sunset. Asphalt will be a lot warmer.

1. The pressure change has not been big enough to make a fuckin ant feel it.

Ants can't feel, they don't have skin like us humans...anyway, a tiny amount of pressure change could snowballed into a gigantic effect on earth tho...

2. The bigger amount of heavier gases in the atmosphere compensate the for the pressure-heat.

Say again,...this time type slowly...

3. The boiling point of water changing does not change the point where thermometers show each temperature.


Duh...where we write 100*C and 0*C on a blank thermometer depends entirely on freezing and boiling point of water...duh...

4. Scientists do not conclude the Earth is warming up from water boiling faster, retard.


Duhhh.....I'm talking about higher/lower boiling point of water here, not the time it took for water to boil.....asstard....re-read my fucking post, and this time, try to understand them...assssssstard.

5. Earth is not a pressure cooker. Pressure cookers heat water very fast and are sealed so steam is trapped inside making pressure. Pressure in the Earth is caused by gases in the atmosphere pressing down as they are attracted by gravity. In any case, the pressure of the Earth should be bigger now than never as there is a much larger quantity of gases these days.

So, essentially you are saying that indeed, atmospheric pressure had built up right ? And if so, then certainly the BOILING AND FREEZING POINT of water had been affected,...right. [read-boiling/freezing point, not time it takes for water to freeze/boil]

Side note; you have a very poor ability to understand/comprehend complicated metaphors and/or analogies.

6. Youre a moron.

you're a retard,

Duh...where we write 100*C and 0*C on a blank thermometer depends entirely on freezing and boiling point of water...duh...



No it doesnt. Thermometers are already industry made with such conditions previously considered. The volume of methanol or mercury (in analog) and the sensitivity of the sensors in digital thermometers is zeroed into a laboratory controlled standard (of pressure, vacuum and temperature). The freezing and boiling points were set decades ago.

Furthermore, scientists dont only use Centigrade nor Fahrenheit scales for such studies. They use the Kelvin scale for absolute temperatures, which doesnt change, as it is the definitive measure of energy in matter, and the absolute zero ( 0° K) being the limit how cold matter can get, when its atoms and subatomic particles dont move anymore (therefore unreachable) is unchangeable. Pressure does not change the energy inside the atom.

Ps. If you dont get what I mean by the whole ant thing, you are badly retarded.

Now, whatever you, or other people say, you cant deny the FACT that the Earth has heated up an average of 1° to 2°C in the last decade; when in nature (without the Human factor), it would take over a hundred years for so, or it would rather drop than rise.

No it doesnt. Thermometers are already industry made with such conditions previously considered. The volume of methanol or mercury (in analog) and the sensitivity of the sensors in digital thermometers is zeroed into a laboratory controlled standard (of pressure, vacuum and temperature). The freezing and boiling points were set decades ago.

And how do you suggest they do that in the 1850s ? And please be aware that if you couldn't prove that the thermometer they used back in 1850s were JUST AS PRECISE as the thermometer in use today, you are actually agreeing to my first point(the post where I suggested boiling point of water has changed overtime) that we observed global warming today because of thermometer in the 1850s were imprecise, therefore under-recorded global temperature....and global warming that we witnessed today are solely due to the fact that modern thermometer are more precise are recording a much higher temperature, making us to think that earth is warming up...

Furthermore, scientists dont only use Centigrade nor Fahrenheit scales for such studies. They use the Kelvin scale for absolute temperatures, which doesnt change, as it is the definitive measure of energy in matter, and the absolute zero ( 0° K) being the limit how cold matter can get, when its atoms and subatomic particles dont move anymore (therefore unreachable) is unchangeable.

http://forums.mvgroup.org/style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif

You tard !!! The scale Kevin is derived from degree celsius *AND* water, all the way from it's inception up till maybe 1970s. LOL, you arseeee phaltsssszz

Pressure does not change the energy inside the atom.

What ?!?! Where the fuck did that came from ??? Since when were we discussing pressure INSIDE AN ATOM ? Very much out of context isn't ?

Ps. If you dont get what I mean by the whole ant thing, you are badly retarded.

PPS : On the contrary,..I do understand everything you've said well beyond the ant-thingy, which is why I'm convinced that your sets of beliefs are extremely flawed and irreconcilable with logic and rational thinking....

Now, whatever you, or other people say, you cant deny the FACT that the Earth has heated up an average of 1° to 2°C in the last decade; when in nature (without the Human factor), it would take over a hundred years for so, or it would rather drop than rise.

Further LIES !!! All credible sources of global atmospheric temperature (from NASA and such) shows *ONLY* an increase of 1(one) degree C from the period of 1850-2008. The 1-2*C increase you mentioned were certainly something cooked up by Al-Gore or some other looser or shit talkers. Unless that is,...you have something to back up your claim,...and until then....have a nice day, ass_phalt

And btw, about the "Earth has heated up an average of 1° to 2°C in the last decade", it doesn't seem right to use the word AVERAGE when you don't have the PER thing.(per-day/per-decade/and such)

You tard !!! The scale Kevin is derived from degree celsius *AND* water, all the way from it's inception up till maybe 1970s. LOL, you arseeee phaltsssszz




No its not. Its based on the celsius scale, but it never uses water. Baron Kelvin calculated the zero from an equation using the gas molar temperature-volume constant, get a book and read, moron.

Oh, and by the way, we are not in 1850, its 2008 already.

And no, they dont need the day per day, they just need the average temperature (measured per back then) from 10 years ago and the average now (measured per too). Youre not very wise

Its ridiculous how people think of global warming as if they believe in it or not. Like its a JFK conspiracy theory or God.

Its ridiculous how people think of global warming as if they believe in it or not. Like its a JFK conspiracy theory or God.

youre actually right. At last somebody brought this up.

fuck this thread already.

youre actually right. At last somebody brought this up.

fuck this thread already.

You are the reason it hasn't died yet.

:mad:

You are the reason it hasn't died yet.

:mad:

I stand by my point, but lets kill it already.

NO... I say live and let live !


No its not. Its based on the celsius scale, but it never uses water. Baron Kelvin calculated the zero from an equation using the gas molar temperature-volume constant, get a book and read, moron.

LOLOOLOLOL ! let'me put it in a very simple way so that you could understand it better.

[1] :
If celsius scale = derived from water,
and kelvin scale = derived from celsius scale,
THEN, kelvin scale = derived from water.

[2] : from wikipedia,...

"......unit of thermodynamic temperature, is equal to the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water"


[QUOTE]Oh, and by the way, we are not in 1850, its 2008 already.

Yes,...yes...but the temperature data that they used to show us the "global warming" are collected from 1850s to this day that showed a rising trend. Therefore they are relevant to this discussion.


And no, they dont need the day per day, they just need the average temperature (measured per back then) from 10 years ago and the average now (measured per too). Youre not very wise

You certainly didn't understand the concept of "average" very well. You just can't say you earned an average of X dollars without saying the per-period of time involved.

Eg : I earned an average of $5 for the past year. ---> It meant nothing.

I would reply to this thread if I wasn't auto-moderated. In closing, I would like to say,..you needed more schoooll.

NO... I say live and let live !


[QUOTE=Mc. Black;10234957]No its not. Its based on the celsius scale, but it never uses water. Baron Kelvin calculated the zero from an equation using the gas molar temperature-volume constant, get a book and read, moron.

LOLOOLOLOL ! let'me put it in a very simple way so that you could understand it better.

[1] :
If celsius scale = derived from water,
and kelvin scale = derived from celsius scale,
THEN, kelvin scale = derived from water.

[2] : from wikipedia,...

"......unit of thermodynamic temperature, is equal to the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water"




Yes,...yes...but the temperature data that they used to show us the "global warming" are collected from 1850s to this day that showed a rising trend. Therefore they are relevant to this discussion.




You certainly didn't understand the concept of "average" very well. You just can't say you earned an average of X dollars without saying the per-period of time involved.

Eg : I earned an average of $5 for the past year. ---> It meant nothing.

I would reply to this thread if I wasn't auto-moderated. In closing, I would like to say,..you needed more schoooll.

Isnt this the problem of discussing with women and with young kids, they just wont give up no matter how evident is their fail. I guess this is the problem with retards as well.

A man with the inteligence of a 5 year old.... I shouldnt be surprised.

Isnt this the problem of discussing with women and with young kids, they just wont give up no matter how evident is their fail. I guess this is the problem with retards as well.

A man with the inteligence of a 5 year old.... I shouldnt be surprised.

That must mean those ongoing lengthily trials in courts, ICJ, as well as the argument about the validity of special relativity theory and not to mention the membrane vs. string theory about our universe must be conducted by women and kids and tards.

wait...they are not...

*tsking-tsking + shakes head on z-axis*

Hey Prometheus, no counter argument coming from you ? Or are you recovering from the "global warming" delusion ?

Or out of words perhaps ?

Sorry to disappoint. I got a raging double eye infection starting about the same time as my last post in this thread, and I've spent the last 2 weeks effectively blind.

You'll get your rebuttal, be patient.

Sorry to disappoint. I got a raging double eye infection starting about the same time as my last post in this thread, and I've spent the last 2 weeks effectively blind.

You'll get your rebuttal, be patient.

I'm pretty sure they're caused by "global warming-powerpoint poisoning".

Stop exposing yourself to Al-Gore's charts for a while... XD

Sorry to disappoint. I got a raging double eye infection starting about the same time as my last post in this thread, and I've spent the last 2 weeks effectively blind.

You'll get your rebuttal, be patient.


Eye infection ? Must be caused by global warming related powerpoint-poisoning...you better stay from Al-Gore and his presentation... :D


p/s : Damn,...some mod aren't doing their job right since my previous reply didn't get thru auto-moderation,

p/s : Damn,...some mod aren't doing their job right since my previous reply didn't get thru auto-moderation,

Deus is doing his job just fine, which makes me think he might be part of that secret anti-Methematician cabal I was telling you about in Conspiracy. :D

you know what doesn't make sense? they say that when the ice caps melt the sea level will rise. ice is more dense than water. if you froze a cup of water the water level would go up and when you melted it it would go down. so wouldn't the sea level drop if the ice caps melted? i don't know just a crazy thought

you know what doesn't make sense? they say that when the ice caps melt the sea level will rise. ice is more dense than water. if you froze a cup of water the water level would go up and when you melted it it would go down. so wouldn't the sea level drop if the ice caps melted? i don't know just a crazy thought
Ice isn't more dense than water, Why do you think ice floats. It has the same density as water, because it IS water.

Ice isn't more dense than water, Why do you think ice floats. It has the same density as water, because it IS water.

What you're trying to say and what you've just said aren't the same thing.

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

read characteristics

Ice is the only known non-metallic substance to expand when it freezes.

bringing me back to my point why would the sea level go up if ice takes up more space. once the ice melts sea level should go down

shithead

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

read characteristics

Ice is the only known non-metallic substance to expand when it freezes.

bringing me back to my point why would the sea level go up if ice takes up more space. once the ice melts sea level should go down

shithead

Yes...yes....which is why what you said :

... ice is more dense than water. ...

doesn't makes sense cos : density = mass/volume, therefore when ice froze and expand while still having the same mass, it became less dense....therefore it floats...

Which is why Gator Warrior is an ass too, cos if like he said, if the density of ice is the *same* as water, then it wouldn't float or sink in water, it would become suspended in water, neither float nor sink.....

Conclusion : BOTH of you are assholes just like that Son on the Bitch......

Bottom line is that the sea level will rise *WITH OR WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING* eventually as each and everyday, billion upon billion tons of star dusts and debris and ice keep falling down to earth and slowly, they are filling up the ocean.......

Everyone knows that global warming is being caused by niggers.

Yes...yes....which is why what you said :



doesn't makes sense cos : density = mass/volume, therefore when ice froze and expand while still having the same mass, it became less dense....therefore it floats...

Which is why Gator Warrior is an ass too, cos if like he said, if the density of ice is the *same* as water, then it wouldn't float or sink in water, it would become suspended in water, neither float nor sink.....

Conclusion : BOTH of you are assholes just like that Son on the Bitch......

Bottom line is that the sea level will rise *WITH OR WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING* eventually as each and everyday, billion upon billion tons of star dusts and debris and ice keep falling down to earth and slowly, they are filling up the ocean.......
Regardless of the whether the ice expands or not, it is still H2O, and the density of a material NEVER changes.

Regardless of the whether the ice expands or not, it is still H2O, and the density of a material NEVER changes.

Yea..yea...I guess that explains why hot air balloon goes up,... didn't it ????

I bet every time you went swimming you have difficulty diving....cos your low density brain is trying to float itself up.....

ahhh hahahahahahahah !!!!

Regardless of the whether the ice expands or not, it is still H2O, and the density of a material NEVER changes.

Are you trolling Methtroll? Be careful, 'cause that's a bit like dividing by zero.

Everyone knows that global warming is being caused by niggers.

There's a kernel of truth to this; their darker skin would reduce plantery albedo.

Bit harsh to make them shoulder all the blame, though. :o

Yea..yea...I guess that explains why hot air balloon goes up,... didn't it ????

I bet every time you went swimming you have difficulty diving....cos your low density brain is trying to float itself up.....

ahhh hahahahahahahah !!!!

That failed so hard I won't even dignify that with an answer.

I failed so hard I won't even dignify you with an answer.

Corrected....

P/S : oh btw...since you'd quoted and replied to my post, that in itself ... is an answer to my post, tho a very-verryy retarded...and that alone....is dignifying me enough already...

lolololololollll ! you phail...hard. And stop dignifying me.

Are you trolling Methtroll? Be careful, 'cause that's a bit like dividing by zero.



There's a kernel of truth to this; their darker skin would reduce plantery albedo.

Bit harsh to make them shoulder all the blame, though. :o


Okay.

I guess the spics and gooks are kind of at fault as well.

Corrected....

P/S : oh btw...since you'd quoted and replied to my post, that in itself ... is an answer to my post, tho a very-verryy retarded...and that alone....is dignifying me enough already...

lolololololollll ! you phail...hard. And stop dignifying me.

You do realize, that gas and solids are completely different, and use different laws. Charles law states that as heat goes up, so does the volume of a gas. If a volume goes up, so does the density. When heat goes down, volume goes down. That's why your tires are flatter in the winter than the summer.

.... as heat goes up, so does the volume of a gas. If a volume goes up, so does the density. When heat goes down, volume goes down. .....

Arrrrr......bwhahahahahaahahhha !!! Go read something about density on wikipedia first, then,..and only then come back and talk to me.

And like I said, stop dignifying me and making me look good....really good....

May I remind you that "global warming" just means the fact that temperatures have, on average, gone up over the last 100 years. That's fact, and not disputed, hell all you have to do is look at thermometer readings.

The point of debate is whether this is caused by man.

Anyway, I think we might have a board for this...:rolleyes:

-deus-

Now this is serious its caused by more hot breathes comeing into the world