Earth could become too hot for humans

[Remelic]

Both Jupiter and Saturn have undergone visible changes recently, what would you or the established view suggest is causing this? What is the catalyst for this change?

I agree with your stand with EU. I can see it's value in cosmology.

Also Mars has heated up and so has Mercury apparently. Earth has been hotter then this before and has gone through colder periods as well. I would say that it is a natural heating that will one day subside. Even if it is in a hundred years. We dont know anything about the long term climate changes except for that found in ice-cores. These show changes of all kinds. Warming periods are to be expected...

The only system capable of changing the solar temperature is the sun. So the sun is the logical reason for other solar bodies heating up as well.

[Mattshark]

No it is a theory Matt. It is not an idea but a perfectly valid hypothesis. The only way to evidence it is to direct funs specifically to research this area. Considering the other theories that get grants why not this? On what basis is it not conceivable because it would seem to aptly fit what we can observe in nature so why not the cosmos as a whole.

I believe it is the electricity that gives the universe the propulsion that it needs to exist. It would also give reasonable explanation to the nature of cycles as everything is part of a giant circuit. Having no background in science I should probably pipedown then again I have respect for guys like Veliskovsky despite his humiliation by academia. In two hundred years the situation should be resolved either way and we can all sleep easy. In the meantime might be worth observing climate changes on the planets of the solar system. Both Jupiter and Saturn have undergone visible changes recently, what would you or the established view suggest is causing this? What is the catalyst for this change?

No, sorry mate, but it isn't a theory or a hypothesis. Sorry but that is simply fact, it doesn't fit the criteria for either of those terms. No observation = no hypothesis, no evidence and no facts = no theory.

It doesn't get grants because it is bad science. It is the make it up as you go along approach and that is not science. Scientific theory is just something made up to fit a problem.

Veliskovsky is not respected because he lets his religous views and Zionism get in the way of his claims, which he made about fields he had no understanding of what he was promoting and he simply wanted his ideas to be taken seriously without justification. It is basically like you telling a surgeon or a plumber or an electrician how to do his job because it suited your belief.

As far as I know Jupiter's and Saturn's change is hypothesised to be around climate cycles.

[Mattshark]

I agree with your stand with EU. I can see it's value in cosmology.

Also Mars has heated up and so has Mercury apparently. Earth has been hotter then this before and has gone through colder periods as well. I would say that it is a natural heating that will one day subside. Even if it is in a hundred years. We dont know anything about the long term climate changes except for that found in ice-cores. These show changes of all kinds. Warming periods are to be expected...

The only system capable of changing the solar temperature is the sun. So the sun is the logical reason for other solar bodies heating up as well.

You are simply tacking on an explanation here that simply suits your belief, not basing it on science. That is not science and deserves no respect in science.

[SlimJim22]

No, sorry mate, but it isn't a theory or a hypothesis. Sorry but that is simply fact, it doesn't fit the criteria for either of those terms. No observation = no hypothesis, no evidence and no facts = no theory.

It doesn't get grants because it is bad science. It is the make it up as you go along approach and that is not science. Scientific theory is just something made up to fit a problem.

Veliskovsky is not respected because he lets his religous views and Zionism get in the way of his claims, which he made about fields he had no understanding of what he was promoting and he simply wanted his ideas to be taken seriously without justification. It is basically like you telling a surgeon or a plumber or an electrician how to do his job because it suited your belief.

As far as I know Jupiter's and Saturn's change is hypothesised to be around climate cycles.

Ok so he's not a bona fide scientist but he was best chums with Einstein. This doesn't exactly lend him credibility on astrophysics but his area of study was comparative mythologies and consciousness from a psychiatric POV. I doubt zionism ever came in to it but if you know of something then please tell me.

http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/index.htm'>http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/index.htm

http://www.varchive.org/

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/

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

... And I think it does qualify as a theory but I will need to look deeper.

[SlimJim22]

So dr scott has got more critics than he has fans and it does seem like the initial hypothesis is flawed but still a hypothesis it be, he just needs to make a new one.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sQIrCWtk1nwJ:homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf+electric+sky+theory+%2Bevidence%2Bmagnetism&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShJNY6b-zjptOUi3EOgBE7CqcqfDSByvuD9-rm57vmawi8Ax7tmJk9uuLNOX1XOKEPC6xff63ny7IuZ3bwYr-gd80F-R1K4mdtFa-5KefYu6GkhSMF1JIG6hWacYt2Q89lojcBA&sig=AHIEtbQ2UwsCgKQc69dLJVPONvG6LscRDA

Mars is warming

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

How about cosmoclimatology? That's a new one on me.

Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth's cloudiness. A recent experiment has shown how electrons liberated by cosmic rays assist in making aerosols, the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei, while anomalous climatic trends in Antarctica confirm the role of clouds in helping to drive climate change. Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth episodes. A new contribution to the faint young Sun paradox is also on offer.

[Wickian]

You are simply tacking on an explanation here that simply suits your belief, not basing it on science. That is not science and deserves no respect in science.

So you're saying that the concept of fluctuations in the Sun causing temperature shifts across the solar system, that the Sun itself warms, deserves no respect and is not based on science? That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

[Guest]

So you're saying that the concept of fluctuations in the Sun causing temperature shifts across the solar system, that the Sun itself warms, deserves no respect and is not based on science? That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

But as far as I am aware there is no such evidence of changes in the solar constant, and if there are any significant climate changes on other planets are they all in the same direction and without any planets which have not changed.

This is the sort of evidence you would need to support your belief.

Br Cornelius

[Wickian]

But as far as I am aware there is no such evidence of changes in the solar constant, and if there are any significant climate changes on other planets are they all in the same direction and without any planets which have not changed.

This is the sort of evidence you would need to support your belief.

Br Cornelius

The lack of evidence is due more to lack of understand and studies than the actual lack of evidence to be found. There is way too much we don't know about our climate system, extraterrestrial climate systems, the sun and how they are all influenced by the sun to try and claim that any correlation between the two "doesn't deserve the respect of science."

You might as say that "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

For lack of a better word(off the top of my head anyway) "belief" is what I would use to describe my belief that the sun is the main driving force of all climates and temperature fluctuations in our solar system. Atmospheres are secondary to it since without a sun, there would be no climate. The atmosphere would just be in an almost constant state of being.

[Mattshark]

So dr scott has got more critics than he has fans and it does seem like the initial hypothesis is flawed but still a hypothesis it be, he just needs to make a new one.

Sorry mate, that isn't actually a hypothesis. A hypothesis has to be more than just an idea, it needs to have a basis in previous research and evidence and observation. What Scott has is just some idea's that aren't based on anything but what he considers a nice idea.

Regarding Veliskovsky, my best mate is a legal professional, that doesn't give any credibility to legal work I tried, as it wouldn't to any biology he suggested, or in Veliskovsky's case, any psychiatry that Einstein tried.

[Mattshark]

The lack of evidence is due more to lack of understand and studies than the actual lack of evidence to be found. There is way too much we don't know about our climate system, extraterrestrial climate systems, the sun and how they are all influenced by the sun to try and claim that any correlation between the two "doesn't deserve the respect of science."

You might as say that "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

For lack of a better word(off the top of my head anyway) "belief" is what I would use to describe my belief that the sun is the main driving force of all climates and temperature fluctuations in our solar system. Atmospheres are secondary to it since without a sun, there would be no climate. The atmosphere would just be in an almost constant state of being.

Hang on, you are calling me ignorant when you are suggesting that conjecture is just as valid as evidence in science? Because that is what your first paragraph is suggesting.

Evidence is EVERYTHING in science, and saying we don't understand so we don't have evidence is conjecture and doesn't deserve the respect of science, whether you like it or not, that is just how it is. It is not the equivalent of saying "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

Belief, exactly. Don't call me ignorant when your argument is so scientifically baseless.

[Remelic]

Hang on, you are calling me ignorant when you are suggesting that conjecture is just as valid as evidence in science? Because that is what your first paragraph is suggesting.

Evidence is EVERYTHING in science, and saying we don't understand so we don't have evidence is conjecture and doesn't deserve the respect of science, whether you like it or not, that is just how it is. It is not the equivalent of saying "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

Belief, exactly. Don't call me ignorant when your argument is so scientifically baseless.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.

doesn't mean it is incorrect or not worth investigation/experimentation.

[Mattshark]

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.

doesn't mean it is incorrect or not worth investigation/experimentation.

It also means it is not science.

As I said, you don't prove anything in science. Science is all about EVIDENCE.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Mattshark

[J.B.]

so electricity and gravity really are connected? Hmm. . . lends credence to the old Searle disc legend in that case. Might try figuring out how to build one of those puppies if I find evidence backing that legend up. Also, for anyone who doesn't know about it, Searle and his disc project are actually entries in this site's encyclopedia, so you can see the basic info on them.

[Guest]

My point, which was missed I think, is that there is no credible evidence for a change in the solar constant to account for the current Climate change. This is my understanding, supported by Carbon Isotope data, and satellite's monitoring the suns output.

If anyone has got a published paper which shows that the solar constant has been on the move by a significant amount (enough to cause climate change) then present it here and the matter can be debated and laid to rest.

Otherwise its a belief which isn't worth a great deal.

Br Cornelius

[Legatus Legionis]

EVERYONE HOLD YOU HORSES! I think we strayed away from the main topic of which is "Earth could become too hot for humans." to a topic called, "Electric Universe / Plasma Universe, which is it?" interesting though the debate is, I would recommend that this argument would be continued in a proper way, which would be a proper new thread. Thank you.

On topic,

I would like to ask someone who is well versed in the topic answer my question,

Would we reach critical break point for wet-bulb limit before things will start to cool down?

-LL

[Guest]

On topic,

I would like to ask someone who is well versed in the topic answer my question,

Would we reach critical break point for wet-bulb limit before things will start to cool down?

-LL

According to the current models, and previous geological data, things peak out at about +8C and then everything ,carbon wise, is supersaturated and stable. Thats a bad place though.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 23, 2010 by Guest

[Legatus Legionis]

According to the current models, and previous geological data, things peak out at about +8C and then everything ,carbon wise, is supersaturated and stable. Thats a bad place though.

Br Cornelius

another +8? for crying out loud! isn't it too hot for us already?

[DONTEATUS]

Looks in and Dashes out!

[THE MATRIX]

[Guest]

Seen that before. Very funny.

Br Cornelius

[The Silver Thong]

According to the current models, and previous geological data, things peak out at about +8C and then everything ,carbon wise, is supersaturated and stable. Thats a bad place though.

Br Cornelius

I watched a documentry I think it was called 6 degrees and it pretty much said anything 6 or more degrees we would be toast, literally.