The Earth Should Be Cooling. My Question to ATS: Why Isn't It?

Carbon dioxyde emissions et all

originally posted by: pikestaff
I once read that the earth's interior is kept hot by radio activity, as good a theory as any, nuclear reactors get damn hot, and the 'fuel' is extracted from granite, I think, which I also think is a product of volcanic eruptions. ( a species of lava?)

The reason is simple the core was very hot and the only way it can lose the heat is through convection which is a slow process. At the current rate of cooling should take around 90 billion years. Good News right?? Well no the earth will be consumed by the sun in about 5 billion.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: superman2012

There is plenty of data available.

Okay, I'll play with your claim.

Can you please link to me April 1726? Australia, China, Mexico, Canada and France? An approximation of location (middle of country) will do. Thanks!

Temperature extremes (from low to high) in any country where humans lived, ranging from the year 30 AD to 1700 AD would be useful too in determining whether the weather should be swinging one way or the other right now.

a reply to: superman2012

Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere annual temperature since 1671 based on high latitude tree -ring data from North America

The data is out there in droves, you just have to look.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: superman2012

Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere annual temperature since 1671 based on high latitude tree -ring data from North America

The data is out there in droves, you just have to look.

If I wanted a good guess based on tree ring data, or ice core data, or rock data, yes, it is out there. I asked for temperature. Not reconstructed temperature based on tree ring data since 1671...

a reply to: superman2012

What's wrong with reconstructed temperature from tree rings and ice cores?

Lemme rephrase because there's nothing wrong... what's your issue with it?

a reply to: Kali74

It's hardly definitive. I'm assuming you read your link?

Edit: Let me rephrase that: Did you understand what it is you linked?

a reply to: superman2012

I asked for temperature. Not reconstructed temperature based on tree ring data since 1671.

Not available.
Now what? *hands over ears* "la la la"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

I asked for temperature. Not reconstructed temperature based on tree ring data since 1671.

Not available.
Now what? *hands over ears* "la la la"

Well obviously that points to the weather acting more weird than ever in recorded history. If that was the claim, I might be willing to agree.

a reply to: superman2012

It provides a good picture. I understand it, do you?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: superman2012

It provides a good picture. I understand it, do you?

Yes I do, you, however, might just be pretending to understand. It's alright though. It was most likely the first link you found and can be forgiven for rushing to post. I've done it too. From your link:

This geographic coverage is believed to be adequate for a useful representation of hemispheric-scale temperature trends

"Believed", "adequate". Seems like it is 100% proof to me!

Edit: "A good picture", is not definitive proof. I asked for science and you gave me a best guess...

a reply to: superman2012
The "claim" is that more solar energy is being retained due primarily to increasing levels of CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. The "claim" is that the physics of radiative forcing say that this is the inevitable result of increasing CO2 levels.

The fact that climate variability occurs because of other factors is not really relevant, nor is it denied. The primary variable right now is the increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. An increase which is directly attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels. Solar irradiance has not increased over the past 100 years. CO2 levels and temperatures have. While it is true that correlation does not imply causation, when there is a causative principle involved (radiative forcing) it is indeed implied, if not specified.

The idea that the world was warmer before is not relevant because we are here now, not then. Big deal you say? We can deal with it? Sure we can. But think about this: you know those migrants across the Med in the news now? Multiply that by 10 times, or 100, or 1000 because of a changing climate instead of politics.

It's way too late to stop the changes that are occurring. The best we can do now is plan for them and perhaps (unlikely I think) to slow them a bit. To bury our heads is foolish and all too human.

Wow!!!! Everything presented so far says it should be cooling but instead it is warming so the sun isn't the driving factor with the temp so what can it be?


There must be an undefined species of homo sapiens that will go down in history as the complete an utter moron of the genus.

I have zero patience with stupid.

a reply to: Phage

Sorry, I'll always find it hard to accept that because something happens at, or near, the incident, that it is the direct cause of the event.
If I did believe that, I might have to join the anti-vaxxers.

a reply to: superman2012

I suppose you have a hard time "believing" that when you flip a switch your light will come on. I suppose you have a hard time "believing" that when you click reply your post will appear here. No causation involved, just "sunspots."

The difference between this and "anti-vaxers" is that there is a causative principle, one which is well established.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

I suppose you have a hard time "believing" that when you flip a switch your light will come on. I suppose you have a hard time "believing" that when you click reply your post will appear here. No causation involved, just "sunspots."

You should know more than others that yesterdays science, becomes tomorrows folly.

Obviously, your "analogies" are direct cause and effect. Able to be witnessed and verified. Not correlation equals causation.

Good thing they "fixed" the ozone layer. Rember that 1980s scare?

The anti-vaxxers believe that as well. From proven (now)junk science.

a reply to: superman2012

You should know more than others that yesterdays science, becomes tomorrows folly.

Not so much. "Science" changes, yes. When evidence give reason for it to change. That's why it works so much better than "belief."

Obviously, your "analogies" are direct cause and effect. Able to be witnessed and verified. Not correlation equals causation.

Really? Do you see the electrons start to flow when you click the switch? That is the primary effect after all. The light turning on is secondary.

In case you missed it, I did point out that correlation does not imply causality. It takes more than correlation, it takes a mechanism. In the case of our current climate, that mechanism is radiative forcing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

You should know more than others that yesterdays science, becomes tomorrows folly.

Not so much. "Science" changes, yes. When evidence give reason for it to change. That's why it works so much better than "belief."

Obviously, your "analogies" are direct cause and effect. Able to be witnessed and verified. Not correlation equals causation.

Really? Do you see the electrons start to flow when you click the switch? That is the primary effect after all. The light turning on is secondary.

In case you missed it, I did point out that correlation does not imply causality. It takes more than correlation, it takes a mechanism. In the case of our current climate, that mechanism is radiative forcing.

I need to see the electrons flowing, or am I able to just measure it? Either way it was a forced analogy.

We don't know for sure that human even are causing the CO2 emissions to stay up! We don't know for sure but they believe that the oceans absorb a lot of the CO2.

My original point still stands. There is not enough information to declare "what the Earth should be doing".

Anyone want to keep arguing that there is, go right ahead. I can't convince someone who's made up their mind, that there are other ways to view things.

a reply to: superman2012

We don't know for sure but they believe that the oceans absorb a lot of the CO2.

Indeed they do. And they change their pH levels in the process. Acidic oceans are probably not a good thing.

My original point still stands. There is not enough information to declare "what the Earth should be doing".

As does my point; stick our collective head in the sand and ignore it. Maybe it will go away. Very human of you. Seems to work for ostriches.