[pasala (OP)]

                       GLOBAL WARMING


Well, it is the hottest topic among our politicians and Scientists. It is true that temperature is raising continuously.  The Intergovernmental panel on global warming were more than 95% certain that Global warming is raising due to concentrations of Greenhouse gases and other human activities. Scientists are estimating that it will result in raising sea levels, increase in desert areas. They are also estimating that it may also result in extreme weather conditions such as floods,heavy rains in some parts and in some other parts drought. 

Scientists are estimating that all these are due to human mistakes i.e., increase in green house gases.

WHAT EXACTLY GLOBAL WARMING IS:
Suppose let us take one poor family from rural area in UK.  During severe winter how they protect themselves.  They burn fire wood to raise temperature in the house.  It gives warm, wet and dry, comfortable climate within the house.  Suppose, let us assume that one person within the house lighted a cigarette.  What happens, it causes pollution only and it has no capacity to increase temperature within the house.

Let us take this example for earth.  Actually they have used fire wood to raise temperature in the house.  Here on this earth also, earth is still burning deep inside and is releasing lot of energy into the open area. I had already discussed about existence of "ENERGY BASE" on this earth.

Any raise of temperature on the earth means:
01  It is mainly due to two things.
    a)  Increase in the amount of energy released by earth.  In   
         the example, suppose if the family uses more firewood, 
         what happens, it becomes discomfort.  Here on this earth
        also key role is played by energy from earth.
    b)  The other important thing influencing climate on earth is
        sun.  However influence  of sun is limited.  Here we have to
        remember one important point that energy from  sun is
        shared by universe and the earth is very small one in the
        universe.  So impact  falls on total universe.  However even
        small change in the temperature can cause lot  of effect on
        the "ENERGY BASE".
These two things are playing key role on global warming.  Actually our scientists are not aware of "ENERGY BASE" on this earth and are taking existing things as base.  This is not correct.  If we do not know how this energy base is created than it is impossible for us to understand Global warming.

CREATION OF ENERGY BASE:
Once our earth is also a ball of fire only.  Due to heavy concentration of hydrosphere it rained for quiet long period and earth started cooling.  Initially it started cooling from poles and paved way for nature.  Strong hydrosphere paved way for creation of "ENERGY BASE" on this earth.  Certain amount of energy permanently remained on this earth.  We are all living in this and this can compared to mother's womb which gives far better protection than anything.

While calculating GLOBAL WARMING we must keep in mind about this energy base.  Without any idea about this, any calculations misleads us.  Impact of global warming can be divided into two periods, short and long.

SHORT PERIOD:
In the short period raise of temperature influences hydrosphere on this earth.  It results in melting of ice, however more evaporation of water balances it.  But due to its influence
it results in heavy rains and floods at some places and drought at some other places.  This is of course short phenomena and remains short period up to 10 to 20 years.

LONG PERIOD:
We must remember one important point that earth started cooling from poles and it is a continuous phenomena. Interior part of earth i.e., core cannot burn permanently. At times it may release extra energy, for so many reasons and this is only short phenomena only. But in the long run it is cooling and ENERGY BASE on this earth is also weakening.  It is like slow poison never affect directly and changes will take place slowly without the
knowledge of human beings.
01  In all the European countries and some of the northern states of USA where temperature never raises above 30 degrees.  In all these areas its effect is direct.  Here human in habitation and nature existence is in question.  Its effect is direct on reproductive capacity of nature including human beings.  For measuring these changes 100 years can    be taken as minimum period.
02  In the long period, ice covers completely USSR,European countries,Canada and Northern  states of America.  Human existence stretches towards center of the earth.
03  In my view, when climate on earth was volatile, and Energy base was developed is taken   for 100%.  Present situation on earth is taken for 45% and it will continue upto 25%.  Thereafter it will collapse suddenly and sudden changes in the climate will rock the  earth.

Actually our scientists are moving around short phenomena changes only.  Actually we have to keep in mind that earth is having extra ordinary capacity to absorb all these changes.
Carbon-DI-oxide, Carbon-monoxide released by factories and vehicles can influence climate to some extent only. Here we have to note one important point that burning cigarette in the
house never raises temperature but only causes pollution.

Our focus must be on all the industries causing pollution.  If they are indispensable than they may be moved to places where there is no human existence i.e., barren lands.

Yours
psreddy

[alancalverd]

Global warming is unfashionable. It's now called climate change because sensible people have realised that it's a cyclic phenomenon, principally driven by water (which the IPCC recognises is (a) difficult to model, (b) difficult to tax, and (c) can't be blamed on the USA, so they ignore it)  and has very little to do with carbon dioxide.

And a burning cigarette does indeed increase the temperature of the world, but since it also shortens your life, the net efect on CO2 emission may be well negative.

[ulladulla-flower]

Thank you. It is a useful information. []

[Ethos_]

                       GLOBAL WARMING

A new religion contrived by the global elitists to extract greater sums of revenue, in the form of use taxes, from the illiterate masses.

[tkadm30]

                       GLOBAL WARMING

A pretext to manipulate the climate with chemtrails....

[Rodin1880]

Noooo...
Once upon a time, the earth was covered with ice, spinning and moving around the sun... At some point the temperature at the equator, the most constant point to the sun and friction line of the spin, got above freezing and began to melt... Due to it's melting, it lost reflectivity from it's share of the white ice that use to cover it... This, above freezing iceless portion of earth bordered on more ice, and continued to spin at 1,000 MPH, expanding the friction and warmth onto the iced portions melting them, 40,000 years ago, half the U.S. was still covered with ice and the regression of ice continued to where it is today, and is still continuing...
It seems to me that if Humans are responsible for this, we should blame the Humans from 40,000 years ago for continuing their industrial dreams after so much devastation had already and was obviously continuing...
But I digress... Eventually, all the ice will be gone and water will cover most if not all the land.. without any present cooling affect, the waters will increase in temperature until evaporation becomes as consistent as the current melting is... Eventually, clouds will block the sun, the clouds will cool, rain, snow and ice will fall, and the earth will be covered with ice, until such a time that the clouds are gone, the sun shines through and the temperature at the equatorial line will exceed freezing...
So blaming the internal warmth for global warming, really doesn't add up, it was hot when the earth was covered in ice, and will be again... Global warming has more to due with movement friction and the resulting thermal transfer within our atmosphere...
Some would suggest that WE, who have been industrialized for hundreds of the hundreds of millions of years that the ice has been melting are speeding up that process... 70% of the surface of the earth is water... we don't live there... on the 30% left, we occupy about 10% of that... So 3% occupancy, for .0000000014% of the time of the melting...
That said, it seems to me there is little we can do to fight 1,000 MPH friction on our surface, the earth has to spin, and little we can do to cool the border between the melted and the frozen from continuing the melt... We could, however increase our reflectivity by simply making everything we can, white... white roads with black lines, white roofs, white cars, white clothes...
So those huge-ego'd-maniacs that think WE can affect global warming may want to consider completely whitening their portion of our world, and, of course, stop doing all the things they believe contribute, like driving and flying, cooking and breathing...

[opportunity]

We are all familiar with the "canary in the coal mine" phrase.


So, what are a few of the reasons for these species becoming extinct in the past century?:

https://www.davidwolfe.com/animals-extinct-in-100-years/

Perhaps its all a part of a type of footprint, a systemic effect by one species and its attempt to do what?

[opportunity]

In the simplest of terms, people equate global warming with rising seas:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/fiji-villages-move-due-climate-change-180213155519717.html


...polar ice-cap melting..

The question is what is responsible for rising sea levels and an apprent increase in sea/atmosphere temperature.

CO2 emissions?

Deforestation?

What "is" happening to the planet bears all the marks of human intervention, right? Yet do we equate that in to our global decison making re. natural resources use?

[Bored chemist]

That said, it seems to me there is little we can do to fight 1,000 MPH friction on our surface,

Among the problems in your post is the idea that there's friction associated with the 1000 mph tangential velocity of the Earth.
But there isn't because it's all moving at more or less the same speed.

[pasala (OP)]

Well, it is surprise to me how an EMF raises/increases Global warming.  Suppose you have switched on a light bulb, EMF raises and radiation within short area increases.  Do this activity increases Global warming.  Here we are not producing any energy.  We are drawing electrons from the open area, making them to  flow in a particular area.  In fact no additional energy is released into open area.

At present we are of the opinion that Sun energy is alone responsible for raising temperature.  Ok, if it is true, climate on Earth must be different.  During day time temperature must raise extra-ordinarily and similarly it must drop suddenly during night time, which is happening on some of the planets.  But it is not happening so.  Ozone layer is protecting us from this.  It is not allowing energy on this Earth to move away freely. 

So, there is strong energy base on this Earth.  We are taking existing conditions as base, which is not so correct.  If we take 'base' without energy on this Earth, it will be different.  Basically it is this Energy base that is causing water particles to raise, dust particles to move sharply.  "Climate" appearing before us is due to this Energy base only.  Here rotation of Earth has no influence on all this.

Suppose let us presume that there is no energy base on this Earth, things will act differently.  If we burn firewood small amount of energy coming out into the open area moves out freely and it causes no radiation at all.  For that if we switch on an Electric Bulb, electrons moves out freely unabated and causes no radiation.

As a matter of fact, if we detonate an atom bomb, small amount of energy released there from moves out freely. 

Here in all these things Energy base is aiding them.  Ok, let us see how it works.

Ok, let us see, if an atom bomb releases 20 mega tons of energy where it is coming from.  Actually it is not packed within atoms.  Small amount of energy coming from the atoms due to detonation/destruction, pushes or creates pressure on the existing Energy base.  It causes radiation within that area.  In fact total 20 mega tons of energy is not coming from the atoms. 

In the case of Electrical bulb also, small amount of energy coming from the bulb, pushes energy base.  The more push, the more radiation and light.

Yours
Psreddy

[Petrochemicals]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

[The Spoon]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

Thus betraying the fact that you have as much understanding of the subject as Donald Trump. 

[Kryptid]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

[Petrochemicals]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

Thus betraying the fact that you have as much understanding of the subject as Donald Trump. 

I thought  this was the naked >SCIENTISTS<, ie ones who look at the data and make logically sound arguments based on research and experimentation ? Rather than just shouting people down on the internet. It is a forum of ideas not, and I use the asterisks very deliberatley, a s**t throwing platform ? There are plenty of areas on the web for biggotted, unreasoning statements lacking any evidence for the weight of argument for people to go and just make inflamitory statements for their own necessity.

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.hirestation.co.uk/tool-hire/Access/Cherry-Picker-Hire/

[The Spoon]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

Thus betraying the fact that you have as much understanding of the subject as Donald Trump. 

I thought  this was the naked >SCIENTISTS<, ie ones who look at the data and make logically sound arguments based on research and experimentation ? Rather than just shouting people down on the internet. It is a forum of ideas not, and I use the asterisks very deliberatley, a s**t throwing platform ? There are plenty of areas on the web for biggotted, unreasoning statements lacking any evidence for the weight of argument for people to go and just make inflamitory statements for their own necessity.

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.hirestation.co.uk/tool-hire/Access/Cherry-Picker-Hire/

But the point is that you are cherry picking data. The clue is in the name global warming, with the first word being operative - not European warming, or local warming etc. You talk about cooling as if this invalidates global warming when the cooling you mention is localised. Hence my comparison to Trump. You also do not cite any sources with regard to 'long term sustained snow in Europe' or indeed mention temperatures - only precipitation. Therefore, my comparison stands.

[Petrochemicals]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

Thus betraying the fact that you have as much understanding of the subject as Donald Trump. 

I thought  this was the naked >SCIENTISTS<, ie ones who look at the data and make logically sound arguments based on research and experimentation ? Rather than just shouting people down on the internet. It is a forum of ideas not, and I use the asterisks very deliberatley, a s**t throwing platform ? There are plenty of areas on the web for biggotted, unreasoning statements lacking any evidence for the weight of argument for people to go and just make inflamitory statements for their own necessity.

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.hirestation.co.uk/tool-hire/Access/Cherry-Picker-Hire/

But the point is that you are cherry picking data. The clue is in the name global warming, with the first word being operative - not European warming, or local warming etc. You talk about cooling as if this invalidates global warming when the cooling you mention is localised. Hence my comparison to Trump. You also do not cite any sources with regard to 'long term sustained snow in Europe' or indeed mention temperatures - only precipitation. Therefore, my comparison stands.

Let me put it in terms that will better illustrate the positions

1) i do not talk at all of cooling as a) localised or b) as if it invalitates such and such.

2).- -... ... - .-. .- -.-. - / -- . ... ... .- --. . ... / .-- .. - .... / -. --- / -... .- ... .. ... / .- .-. . / -. --- - / -- .. -. . / - --- / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- .

3) nuhhuh you're Trump

4) I dont post on what its like to be an indiginous south american indian as i am not very well up on it. If I did stray into such territory I would be wary of telling anyone about being aformentioned person. Same with global cooling.

5) hithero incompence hippo green ethereal

[The Spoon]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

Thus betraying the fact that you have as much understanding of the subject as Donald Trump. 

I thought  this was the naked >SCIENTISTS<, ie ones who look at the data and make logically sound arguments based on research and experimentation ? Rather than just shouting people down on the internet. It is a forum of ideas not, and I use the asterisks very deliberatley, a s**t throwing platform ? There are plenty of areas on the web for biggotted, unreasoning statements lacking any evidence for the weight of argument for people to go and just make inflamitory statements for their own necessity.

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.hirestation.co.uk/tool-hire/Access/Cherry-Picker-Hire/

But the point is that you are cherry picking data. The clue is in the name global warming, with the first word being operative - not European warming, or local warming etc. You talk about cooling as if this invalidates global warming when the cooling you mention is localised. Hence my comparison to Trump. You also do not cite any sources with regard to 'long term sustained snow in Europe' or indeed mention temperatures - only precipitation. Therefore, my comparison stands.

Let me put it in terms that will better illustrate the positions

1) i do not talk at all of cooling as a) localised or b) as if it invalitates such and such.

2).- -... ... - .-. .- -.-. - / -- . ... ... .- --. . ... / .-- .. - .... / -. --- / -... .- ... .. ... / .- .-. . / -. --- - / -- .. -. . / - --- / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- .

3) nuhhuh you're Trump

4) I dont post on what its like to be an indiginous south american indian as i am not very well up on it. If I did stray into such territory I would be wary of telling anyone about being aformentioned person. Same with global cooling.

5) hithero incompence hippo green ethereal

So when asked for evidence to back up your claim, your response is to post idiotic nonsense? Great work.

[Petrochemicals]

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

Thus betraying the fact that you have as much understanding of the subject as Donald Trump. 

I thought  this was the naked >SCIENTISTS<, ie ones who look at the data and make logically sound arguments based on research and experimentation ? Rather than just shouting people down on the internet. It is a forum of ideas not, and I use the asterisks very deliberatley, a s**t throwing platform ? There are plenty of areas on the web for biggotted, unreasoning statements lacking any evidence for the weight of argument for people to go and just make inflamitory statements for their own necessity.

Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change. This sort of snowfall had not been seen since the 1980s, yet know one seemed to notice this large period of snowfall and cooling in the middle of all the talk about global warming.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.hirestation.co.uk/tool-hire/Access/Cherry-Picker-Hire/

But the point is that you are cherry picking data. The clue is in the name global warming, with the first word being operative - not European warming, or local warming etc. You talk about cooling as if this invalidates global warming when the cooling you mention is localised. Hence my comparison to Trump. You also do not cite any sources with regard to 'long term sustained snow in Europe' or indeed mention temperatures - only precipitation. Therefore, my comparison stands.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=buffoon&FORM=HDRSC2


do dodge a simple yes/no question by overwhelming the opponent with meaningless demagoguery. I'm copyrighting this phrase.
"To pull a Trump": Dude, you just pulled a Trump

From

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=To%20pull%20a%20Trump

[The Spoon]

do dodge a simple yes/no question by overwhelming the opponent with meaningless demagoguery. I'm copyrighting this phrase.

Interesting argument. Your original question was:
'Have you ever wondered why in the years immediatley following the credit crunch we had long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change'
This is hardly a simple yes/no question if it is predicated on your assertion that we had 'long term sustained snow in europe in the midst of climate change' is it?
To answer that question we have to accept your assertion do we not?
To accept your assertion it is reasonable to request evidence is it not? I mean, after all, you did later in the thread state that:

'I thought  this was the naked >SCIENTISTS<, ie ones who look at the data and make logically sound arguments based on research and experimentation ?'

I therefore requested evidence - after all if you have a logically sound argument, you should have no problem finding this based on 'research and experimentation' should you?

Rather bizarrely, you accuse me of demagoguery which is defined as:

'political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.'

This definition rather reflects what you are doing  as you appear so unwilling to provide evidence but merely make assertions in the hope that you may appeal to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people...

[Petrochemicals]

https://www.englishforums.com/English/HidingInPlainSight/vvphr/post.htmo

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=To%20pull%20a%20Trump

Or perhaps a very very bad case

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias