wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look Dave, water by definition retains energy!
> This is also why certain countries and islands
> around warm water streams are temperate! For
> example, the entire United Kingdom and Ireland
> would probably be frozen without the warm waters
> of the gulf stream...
>
> Also, it is becoming obvious now for most rational
> people that the ice is melting at the poles and
> also that temperatures and climates are changing
> rather rapidly around the world, but, at this
> early stage of evidence, to exclusively blame
> greenhouse gases as the main factor in these
> global Earth changes is what is naive at best!

Who exactly is it that is saying the 'greenhouse gases' are the exclusive cause of the temperature rise? I have seen where people show how these gases are adding to the problem but don' seem to remember the spot where it is the 'exclusive' cause.


> For example, it is very much possible that our
> solar system could be entering a much more
> energetic area/place in space as part of a large
> macro cycle! As a matter of fact, many of the new
> electro-magnetic (EM) Universe theories do suggest
> exactly that and this is also the main theories
> that some of us, including me, are
> investigating...

With "possible, could be, suggest" how is this supposed to prove anything either way? It is also possible that the Earth could be a closed system due to it's magnetic and atmospheric "shielding" and this could suggest that the "greenhouse gases" are to blame for the added effect seen in the temperature rise! A rise in temperature a small amount doesn't cause disasterous effects immediately but does have an accumulative effect just like how high up the side of the mountain you go before you let the proverbial snowball take off. A few yards further up might be just the amount needed to push it from funny to disasterous when the snowball reaches the end.


> IMHO, the greenhouse gases theories treat Earth
> pretty much as a closed system and there is, of
> course, no evidence of that! So, it is very much
> possible that the computer models are still wrong
> in assuming that greenhouse gases are the main
> cause!

And from all the evidence these people have and the simulations they have ran only one scenario matched up with a high pecentage of being right. So are you saying that this particular one is wrong and and that what these scientist know is all wrong too?
The water in the ocean is salty and you might be able to physically drink it but how much additional salt and pollutants could someone put into it before you couldn't hold it down anymore? Even a small amount of additional substance can have major efects. Why is it that tons of pollution into the atmosphere from an origin here on Earth supposedly does not have an effect on global warming situation but an outside source would have? Doesn't the magnetic field and stratosphere(??) contain, as well as protect, the Earth and it's enviroment from the majority of dangerous effects coming from space? We are talking about things pertinent to the global warming effect not how the universe outside the Earth's field of influence might work according to some new, but yet unproven theories.

There are ebbs and flows within all scenarios and this warming might just be one such occurance but this doesn't take into account outside influence like additional material added to the equation which might throw the balance too far off to recover back to the original level.

Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo



Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb