My global warming theory ..... please comment

What's correct about it?

Well, that's correct of course! But it's not the whole story...

I don't think it's an accumulation of "space dust".[/QUOTE]

Think whatever you wish. But in this case you are bucking a HUGE part of the scientific world including NASA.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They've been capturing space dust and analyzing it for many years - and also have calculated how much of it rains down on us every year.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Earth's mass is more or less the same. If one could throw every bit of oil out into space we're still talking around the order of billionths of the earth's mass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, well - here comes another one that doesn't understand about cosmic dust. Oil has practically nothing at all to do with it anyway, since it's combustion products stay with us. Most of the CO2 gets dissolved in the oceans, the water is just more water and the various other compounds settle onto the ground and in the water.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

cities and stuff gets buried due to changing landscapes.. abandoned cities get overgrown and surely years upon years of gorwth and undergrowth would slowly cover a city.. plus the wind and water can easily change a landscape dramatically in 1000 years.

man kind VS earth.. global warming is a problem to us .. the earth will be fine. it has a lifespan of god knows.. it has its own methods of dealing with problems (immune system).

 

Not right off hand, sorry. But I've read it on NASAs site and a few other places. Just try a quick Google on space dust or cosmic dust - you'll find links.

And I'm still rather amazed that you and several other people don't already know about it - it's really OLD news by now.

 

On, no! I never said that! Only that the mass of the Earth has always been constantly increasing - period. Ancient ruins were buried by overbuilding, being overrun by vegetative growth, blowing dust, etc. NOT by cosmic dust, though it may have contributed as much as a few inches in the case of VERY old buildings.

 

yeah, and don't forget about the increasing human population and the greater numbers of obese people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

his argument?!! I suggested it in the fist 5 replies to this thread. post#4

 

Your on his ignore list.

 

A lie.

No thanks. I have no patience for morons.

 

You were partly correct. Yes, indeed, gas molecules are lost into space - but that's more than made up by the accumulation of cosmic dust that falls to earth daily as Emos and I explained in other posts.

 

That's what I said. So I was fully correct.

 

No it wasn't. You said "...compared to the amount of mass sequestered back into sediments." without stating where that mass originated. And by including the word "back" gave the impression it was returning to where it came from.

Yes, I suppose it could be attributed to semantics but if you were implying that cosmic dust was the source of that mass, you really chose a poor way to word it.

 

It (the molecules freed from the crust from burning fossil fuels) did return where it came from: back into the earth's crust. Just in a different form.

It seems that your brain is prone to wrong impressions rather than that my statement was inaccurate.

 

Nope, NO wrong impressions on my end. I'm not at all disputing the return of those molecules, that's just elementary physics/chemistry! I'm pointing out that you still haven't said anything at all about the cosmic dust/debris - which is what's causing the mass of the Earth to increase.