White /Blue/Green/Dwarf/Earth/Star ?

[The Code]

Yeah I know,,,, This one Is out there with the Unicorns..... But come on, humor me... Here is the Link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/scien ... wanted=all

And Here Are the Questions.... 1 How Can Our little Earth stay so hot for, 4.5 billion years ? 2 .... How Did this little planet get so hot ? (And don't give me the 1,2,3, heavy bombardment rubbish, I've read all that) (Its Nuke de-com-powered)
3 Why is the Core they talk about spinning faster than Earth ? Go on Answer that ?..... 4 If the space in our solar system is so vast.... and the emptiness, "now" is so wide spread, How could you conclude the last 3 questions ? 5 I know this is a stupid question....... but could the planet Earth be a dead core of a Star ?

tc

ps.... You know i ask these questions because there is no definite answer don't you.... xxxx

[Chris Peterson]

1 How Can Our little Earth stay so hot for, 4.5 billion years ?

The answer is probably still the same as always, radioactive decay. But the article gives several other possibilities, all reasonable.

2 .... How Did this little planet get so hot ?

Initially, it was simply the heat of formation. The planet was molten. Once it had differentiated and its outer surface solidified, it started losing its latent heat. But radioactive decay continued (and continues) to pump energy into the system, heating it.

3 Why is the Core they talk about spinning faster than Earth ?

The article suggests one possible answer.

5 I know this is a stupid question....... but could the planet Earth be a dead core of a Star ?

No.

[Beyond]

At last The source of global warming has been found.

[geckzilla]

I think some of the climate deniers do try to claim the earth's core as one of the culprits of climate change.

[BMAONE23]

I think some of the climate deniers do try to claim the earth's core as one of the culprits of climate change.

I think the term "Climate Denier" was quoted, during its original usage, purely to promote hatred (not by you Geck). It was originally a term coined from WWII "Holocaust Denier" and was utilized promote hatred of the Nazi Party (and rightly so) for their treatment of the Jewish People and as well as for anyone who would insist that the holocaust didn't happen.

Among those that oppose the belief that CO2 is the main and, as pushed by the MSM the only culprit for the current warming trend, They would refer to themselves as Climate Realists. They find it hard to believe that the main source for the warming climate, which has been warming since the Little Ice Age, is a trace gas when there are so many other factors at play.

Their reasoning is that CO2 comprises .0392 % of the atmosphere and man's contribution is .034% of that figure or .00133% of the total global annual CO2 production.

How would you convince someone, given their understanding of these figures, that their total combined contribution to rising CO2:
must be stopped
will destroy the world
will lead to global urban flooding and other catastrophes

[geckzilla]

I would not try to convince them that it will destroy the world. I would suggest that they not worry at all about the world because while we may go eventually extinct, many other species will survive. It'll be ok.

[BMAONE23]

I personally don't think it will destroy the world, just the opposite in fact. A little warming helps much more than a little cooling.
All papers that I had read on the subject like:
Wilson et al 2000 places the temp about 0.5C lower
Crowley and North 1991 and Grove 2005 both indicate 1.5C cooler temps.
With an average of about 1C or 1.5F colder than today, this had a cataclysmic effect on the growing season in Europe causing wide spread famine with millions of deaths.

Personally, I would vote for a warmer climate considering that the 'Green" alternatives, without government subsidies, would raise the cost of energy by over 300% and cause many nations and individuals to go bankrupt. The only thing to come from this would be to Force the world to eliminate the monitary system and become socialist or communist.

[Chris Peterson]

I think the term "Climate Denier" was quoted, during its original usage, purely to promote hatred (not by you Geck). It was originally a term coined from WWII "Holocaust Denier" and was utilized promote hatred of the Nazi Party (and rightly so) for their treatment of the Jewish People and as well as for anyone who would insist that the holocaust didn't happen.

A denier of AGW is a subset of science deniers. The term "science denier" is certainly a negative one, but not one of hatred.

Among those that oppose the belief that CO2 is the main and, as pushed by the MSM the only culprit for the current warming trend, They would refer to themselves as Climate Realists. They find it hard to believe that the main source for the warming climate, which has been warming since the Little Ice Age, is a trace gas when there are so many other factors at play.

There are essentially no climate scientists who take this position. It is, in fact, the position of a science denier. Anthropogenic CO₂ is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the primary driver of global warming over the last 150 years.

Their reasoning is that CO2 comprises .0392 % of the atmosphere and man's contribution is .034% of that figure or .00133% of the total global annual CO2 production.

Said "reasoning" being nothing of the kind, but rather betraying a deep lack of understanding of the subject.

How would you convince someone, given their understanding of these figures, that their total combined contribution to rising CO2:
must be stopped
will destroy the world
will lead to global urban flooding and other catastrophes

The problem is that the people who believe those figures are predisposed to listen to science deniers. They are usually motivated by completely non-scientific beliefs- like those who deny evolution, or that we went to the Moon, or many other conspiracy/crackpot ideas. It's usually impossible to change their minds, because science deniers actually entrench themselves deeper as the evidence against their position becomes stronger.

[Chris Peterson]

I personally don't think it will destroy the world, just the opposite in fact. A little warming helps much more than a little cooling.

A little warming is a bad thing for humans. Combined with increased CO₂ it reduces the yield of most important food crops. It drives extremes: deeper, longer droughts and longer, wetter rains. Its effects are amplified at higher latitudes, resulting in ice loss and resulting sea level increases (and a few centimeters is enough to be disastrous). It shifts growing zones to different latitudes and altitudes, creating the potential for resource wars (which are already happening in many parts of the world).

In short, for human society, any rapid change in global climate is a bad thing.