Because the neutrinos come from radioactive decay, and radioactive decay proceeds at a known pace. The half-life of thorium-232 is 14.1 billion years. That means if you have a bunch of it, you'll have half that much 14.1 billion years from now, and if you wait another 14.1 billion years you'll have half of the first half, and so on. These laws of radioactive decay have been well known for more than a century.
Sorry it is eco terrorism we are fearful of http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343768,00.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3899035.html http://www.targetofopportunity.com/elf.htm
And you still fail to explain why the heat is suddenly, after millions of years, INCREASING from the core
Until we know that the earths core has been stable for the past 150 years, global warming caused by CO2 is suspect. The changes in the magnetosphere point to the fact that the core has been changing since there is nothing else that could effect it.
We are not certain of that This is like finding a known mass murderer standing over a corpse with a knife in his hand and then not only finding him innocent but actually charging the police with the crime
I do not have a lot of time but if ou know if you read some wild ass speculation on some RW nut job blog you should at least do some simple calculations to see what kind of energies are involved. Energy produced by largest nuclear bomb ever detonated by US : 64x10^15 joules source Difference in OHC between 1990 and 2000: about 5x10^22 joules or the equivalent of about 780,000 nuclear bombs. So there would have had to have been an increase equivalent to about 780,000 nuclear bombs detonating between 1990 and 2000 to produce the extra amount energy that the ocean absorbed. 78,000 per year/ 200 per day / 9 per hour. Now tell me you think that is realistic.
The models are wrong as is the flawed so called science the GW community claims. The lies have made the GW community unbelievable and without any credibility or integrity
The magnetic field is generated in the liquid outer core by large eddies, which change slowly over long time periods. The Earth's magnetic field reverses about every half million years or so on an unpredictable basis. But it's not caused by heat, it's fluid dynamics.
The earth's core produces 44 Terawatts, or 44x10^12 joules/second. So that is ~1.4x10^22 joules in 10 years. So, yes I do think that the earths core plays an important role in the heating of the earth.
Fluid dynamics can be affected by heat and desnity changes caused by heat. The flow of magma is an example. The flow can also have an effect on cores ability to produce heat by reducing or increasing its abiltiy to release heat or by increasing its ablity to remove the smaller less dense nuclie that would slow the fission process. My larger concern is not the rotation of the magnetic field as much as the strength.
And since the ocean heat content has increased by 2.5 x 10^23 joules in the last 40 years, you're saying that since 1970 the Earth's core energy has increased by a factor of five? What accounts for this sudden rise?
1. Fission does not occur in the core. If it did, the core would have used up all its uranium a long time ago. 2. If heat affects the magnetic field, as you postulate, why has the sudden 5x increase in core heat (that you also postulate) not affected the magnetic field?
By 2050 we might have global cooling. What then? Build more greenhouses? As recently as the 1970's scientists were predicting global cooling. Most climatiologists agree that we are a mere 5000 years from the next ice age. The best approach is not to try to "outhink" mother nature. She will do what she does and we have to live with the results. That's how it works. Calm down.
We might also have all turned green and flown on wings to the moon Might may never happen - put it this way - if you saw a race where one horse was the favourite that had won every race it had ever been entered and his jockey was the best known and the other horse was a broken down nag being ridden by a fat man - which would you put money on?
When Asia begins to reduce particulate matter in the atmosphere the effect would be a sudden warming. Less paticulate matter in the atmosphere means less light reflected into space, and less absorbed by particulate matter. The only real way (that I know of) to tell how "clear" the air is...is to measure the evaporation of water in sunlight. If the evaporation rate increases the air is becoming clearer. If the air clears, the earth will warm at a faster pace. I have heard there have been studies done in Australia and Russia....I do not know if they are in process now.
What a crock. You chicken little's are so funny. Have you forgotten the excuse scientists like the late Dr. Schneider used when the global cooling scare flopped? It was because aerosols are not well mixed. You've been lying for too long and now you cant tell a lie without it contradicting your past lies.
oh ya name those scientist that predicted global cooling?..a handful at most and a couple of sensationalized magazine articles by journalist who zero knowledge of climate...the fact is even in the 70's the consensus was the planet was warming....the best approach is listen to the experts that actually know more than you do, that's how it really works...
What the global cooling scare showed is just what a few activist scientists can accomplish. Its no surprise that the few loons that were leading the global cooling scare like the late Dr. Schneider immediately started taking the lead on the global warming scare. Any young ideologue who wanted to change the world flocked to climate science.
Mixing has nothing to do with it. It's because aerosols have a short residence time in the atmosphere (and therefore must be constantly replenished to stay at a given level) while CO2 stays in the air for centuries. Please oh please keep using those pointless ad hominens. Maybe you'll get banned again.
Oh jesus its so funny reading your "science". The residence time of CO2 is only about 4 years. The argument that is stays in the atmosphere for centuries is because it is being "constantly replenished". While I can see the point of view you cant apply one point of view to aerosols and another to CO2. You have to apply the same point of view to both because both points of view can apply. Why do you even try and argue these things with me any more. You cant win. P.S. No you are still wrong its wasn't the residence time of aerosols it was because they are not well mixed. To quote Dr. Schneider. "We didn't know yet that such effects were so regionally located." ~ Dr. S. Schneider.