Is Global Warming real?

nickname · 2007-03-23 05:53:43

RickSmith,

Sometimes the calculator is only as good as the input.
I looked for a useful source on ice sheets melting, i couldn't find anything useful on full melts at hypothetical temperatures.

All of the suns energy calculated in what season? for 5.7 years to prepare for melt.
That does take into account that ice is a poor medium for collecting sunlight i presume?
All of the sunlight on earth hitting Greenland would probably equate to around 1/4 its actual heating abilities.
About the same heat Mars receives.

A very tough calculation indeed as the ice melt itself causes a secondary decrease in sunlight from the release of local fog.

I would think that if all the sunlight that hits earth (with no clouds) hit Greenland, the reflective properties of the ice itself would drag that 5.7 years out to a much longer time scale to about 4x.

My guess at 100 years is because permafrost on days above 10c only melts
around 1cm in depth.

Deep ice being more exposed but less insulated than permafrost wouldn't be much different.
Permafrost isn't exposed to the sun, but the ground is a better heat retainer than ice, so they should be pretty similar.

The ice melt even in Southern Ontario takes weeks to melt a foot or two of winter ice with temperatures well above 10c, the melting quite often causes a fog.
If we guess at a similar process happening in Greenland the 2ft a week isn't improbable.
2 ft divided by 10,000 ft = 5,000 weeks or about 100 years at 10c 24/7/365.

QUOTE
"Something else occurred to me. As I have made clear in previous posts I am taking the long view. Will the extinction event that is now started, accelerate? Will civilization survive? Will, by 2200, we have large scale H2S eruptions?"

In my opinion we have little to worry about from greenhouse gas or eruptions etc.
In the few 100 thousand years mankind has been here, the climate has changed much more violently than anything we could expect in the near future.

We should be more worried about living in a world that we are the cause of the mass extinctions and we are the cause of polluted water and air.
We will probably endure whatever happens, but (will we want to) might be a better question.:)

John Creighton,

Actually i just took the earths average temperature and subtracted the location lat/long for Greenland to guess at the highest temperature Greenland could sustain.
That is if the earth stopped over Greenland with no clouds and no winter

Martian Republic · 2007-03-23 08:58:49

Occasionally I do throw out my sources, but usually I throw thing out that I have learned before and I am giving my opinion of what going on in the world. This searching out of what I have to say to see if it is true, is for your information as to what going on in the world and what the is truth. Everybody has to check out for themselves what being said so they can determine if it true or not.

I would rather be posting article on Terraforming but I have been destracted by some of the things people are saying about Climate Change. I spent more time than I wanted finding a really nice expose' of your must see TV show. I confess I don't feel like spending a bunch of my own time learning about Prince Phillip.

Prince Phillip set up the environmental movement for the express purpose of putting out these scare stories. Al Gore won't won't tell you this and real reason that he says he environmental cause, is because he works for Prince Phillip and not because he really believe what he is saying.

I understand your frustration very well of not being able to talk about Terraforming because we are getting so much junk science these day about what actually causing Global Warming. It would be nice if you could take a Government report at face value, on what ever area of science that you wanted to get into or talk about and know that it will be reasonable clear of errors or lie or propaganda, of what we call junk science. Unfortunately, that not so. So we have to know where the information came, if they have a history of telling lies or creating junk science in past. What are there political agenda, because often times what they claim to be science, is based on there political agenda of what they want to do and not based on real science. It unfortunate that this is so, but it is, so you have to question everything that being put out there and try to filter out the propaganda that there trying to pass out as science.

When you first recommended that other people check this show out on YouTube you didn't say that people shouldn't 'take everything that they say'. Perhaps you should check your sources better?

Do you really think that I need to tell everybody to keep an open mind of everything I post?

Why should you take anything at face value from anywhere or from any one, without checking it out?

I put it out there so you could make your mind up as to what your think and I don't hold such a tight standard here on any one else that post a link here either.

So why are you holding me to such a standard?

The question I wanted to ask was: "Perhaps you would like to comment on why Exxon is spending hundreds of millions of dollars opposing the Koyto accord?"

Koyto accord from what I understand is dealing with pollution. Exxon deal with refining oil and selling it, which make Exxon one of the major polluters, along with the use of there product in car and trucks. There opposition to the Koyto accord should be self evident as to why there opposing it.

I never said that we didn't have a pollution problem caused by human activity, because we do have one. What I said way, "We don't have a Global Warming Problem Caused by Human Activities. Don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say. It is what there calling the Global Warming Problem that I am refuting with my post and web link that I put out there.

I don't put labels on people by calling them liberals, conservatives etc. I find it a waste of time, because I find liars in all those groups and I find people that tell the truth in all these groups or at least make an attempt to tell the truth. My standard of determining whether I will lesson to them or not revolve around one question. Are they trying to be truthful with me with what there claiming to be science and scientific model.

Larry,

PS. The British Connection if you would like to check it that is.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_ … _gore.html

nickname · 2007-03-23 14:11:32

Martian Republic,

QUOTE"............
Occasionally I do throw out my sources, but usually I throw thing out that I have learned before and I am giving my opinion of what going on in the world. This searching out of what I have to say to see if it is true, is for your information as to what going on in the world and what the is truth. Everybody has to check out for themselves what being said so they can determine if it true or not.""

Nice to see that an open mind still exists
Money rules science, and money is seldom correct.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-23 17:07:16

Martian Republic,
QUOTE"............
Occasionally I do throw out my sources, but usually I throw thing out that I have learned before and I am giving my opinion of what going on in the world. This searching out of what I have to say to see if it is true, is for your information as to what going on in the world and what the is truth. Everybody has to check out for themselves what being said so they can determine if it true or not.""
Nice to see that an open mind still exists
Money rules science, and money is seldom correct.

Matter of fact, I would just assume that people challenge me if they are really looking for the truth and they can put there bias over to one side while there looking over what I have said. I am not afraid of what they will find when they look or that they will prove I am wrong. I already knew what there going find if there being honest when they make the search and come back with what they say they have found.

Some of the most opinionated people that I run into are on Political discussion boards. I have read the US Constitution several times to see what it says for myself instead of taking someones else opinion of what it says. I will get into a debate and tell people on web site and even print a section out so they can what the Constitutions say and they will respond, that not what it means and they wish that they wouldn't written that into Constitution. I will pull out another section of the Constitution and put it out there in front of there face, and they respond that it doesn't mean what says either and they wish that had not written that either into the Constitution. Then I will go Federalist Papers and/or the Anti Federalist Papers to show them what the founding father said the Constitution means, which validates the Constitution does say. They don't accept that either and I ask for there sources of what they believe about US Constitution or what it says and send me to a Wall Street Journal to there opinion page and say that what it all about. I responded to him and said, you have to be kidding my that you using the Wall Street Journal opinion page for your decision of what the US Constitution means.

I actually did get into discussion with someone in the political discussion and this is where it went. He letting someone else do his thinking for him and he just repeating back what he hears like parrot does.

If someone does take me up on my challenge to check out what I say. I have a pretty good idea what they should come back with if there trying to be honest about it.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2007-03-23 20:12:58

I am now sure that you have not studied my calculations.

Oh, sorry I didn't realize you posted them. I may expand upon them later.

nickname · 2007-03-24 07:23:05

Martian Republic,

I like to keep an open mind also and try not to quote to many facts from papers or the latest scientific opinion.

Most of the really interesting ideas come from people that are not worried about career or funding or don't have a science degree at all.

Its a sad realism that openly talking about science that is outside the general opinion usually results in a label of uninformed or troll or worse.

I like to think that if Steven H and Einstein can be wrong, then who of us should dare think they are immovably right even if something looks painfully correct.

I've been called a troll for discussing my belief that gravity and time are linked, the reason black holes don't collapse forever is time compression from gravity.
I feel in good company though

Martian Republic · 2007-03-24 09:09:51

nickname,

The reason the problem exit with people with science degree that you mentioned is, because there jobs is on the line. If they try to express what they really think or do any real investigation and then put it in a report to the scientific community, they will fired for doing that. There are actually people out there that hate a modern technological society and they want to destroy it. That unfortunate, and has a tendency to swash free and open debate which generally promote the sciences along with the development of mankind as race. There are a group of financial Oligarchs that fear scientific development and free exchange of ideas, because they will lose there control over the world, which they don't want to do. Until people are ready to admit that they exist and that they were the real authors or culprit of the Earth getting hotter or Global Warming lie and not because there was never any real science behind it. Even this environmental movement was a political game of Prince Phillip right from the beginning and was intended to shut down scientific debate or free exchange of ideas and to limit the population of the Earth. The reason for the scare of Global Warming is to justify destroying a technologically advanced society for the purpose of saving the Ecological System of the Earth as there stated goal, without revealing there real agenda or purposes.

As long as the above condition exist, we will never see free and independent exchange of ideas and then take the idea that fit the modal best and run with it. This junk science that being thrown out there has a purpose and it purpose is to swash the real science and discoveries under a pile of GORE!

Larry,

dicktice · 2007-03-26 16:45:35

MR: Re. "As long as the above condition exist, we will never see free and independent exchange of ideas and then take the idea that fit the modal best and run with it. This junk science that being thrown out there has a purpose and it purpose is to swash the real science and discoveries under a pile of GORE! "

I really tried to work out what the "above condition" is, but had to give up. How about breaking down your undoubtedly well reasoned points in list form, so I/we can at least respond and keep the topic going, eh?

nickname · 2007-03-26 17:04:09

dicktice,

My list
1- $
2 thru 1 million? *lol*

Bet M R has a better list than me

Martian Republic · 2007-03-26 18:04:14

MR: Re. "As long as the above condition exist, we will never see free and independent exchange of ideas and then take the idea that fit the modal best and run with it. This junk science that being thrown out there has a purpose and it purpose is to swash the real science and discoveries under a pile of GORE! "
I really tried to work out what the "above condition" is, but had to give up. How about breaking down your undoubtedly well reasoned points in list form, so I/we can at least respond and keep the topic going, eh?

Junk science is anything that someone is trying to pass off as science, but is based on a lie.

If they are trying to pass off Junk science, it usually because they have hidden agenda that there trying to keep secrete with there junk science claim.

In very general terms, I was referring to a group of people that are behind this lying that going on or the junk science.

"A pile of GORE".

Was a play on words or had a double meaning:

1. GORE is the guy's name that peddling there lies or this Global Warming Scare.
2. Second use of GORE as in Blood and Gore or big mess, but not being used as a man name.

I hope that cleared up what I was saying.

Larry,

RickSmith · 2007-03-27 00:02:40

I looked for a useful source on ice sheets melting, i couldn't find anything useful on full melts at hypothetical temperatures.
All of the suns energy calculated in what season? ...

For no season at all. As shown in my calculations I took the area of the Earth as seen from the sun and used the amount of energy being intercepted as the value for "all the sun's energy" intercepting the Earth.

for 5.7 years to prepare for melt.
That does take into account that ice is a poor medium for collecting sunlight i presume?

As shown in my calculations this is ignored. However, the dark water in the Gulf Stream is fine at collecting solar energy and that is the main source of heating in the atmosphere near Greenland.

A very tough calculation indeed as the ice melt itself causes a secondary decrease in sunlight from the release of local fog.

There are far more important points that you are not considering if you are trying to take my calculations and figure out how long it will take Greenland to melt. These include the fact that only a tiny fraction of the sunlight hitting Earth ends up melting ice in Greenland.

I would think that if all the sunlight that hits earth (with no clouds) hit Greenland, the reflective properties of the ice itself would drag that 5.7 years out to a much longer time scale to about 4x.

As I said in another post, I think that assuming that most ot the heat that is melting Greenland is not the light that actually hits the white ice sheet but the waters that form the gulf stream. However if you want to make your own assumptions and answer John's question your own way I would look over your work with interest.

Deep ice being more exposed but less insulated than permafrost wouldn't be much different.
Permafrost isn't exposed to the sun, but the ground is a better heat retainer than ice, so they should be pretty similar.

For order of magnitude calculations this estimate sounds reasonable.

My guess at 100 years is because permafrost on days above 10c only melts around 1cm in depth.
The ice melt even in Southern Ontario takes weeks to melt a foot or two of winter ice with temperatures well above 10c, the melting quite often causes a fog.
If we guess at a similar process happening in Greenland the 2ft a week isn't improbable.
2 ft divided by 10,000 ft = 5,000 weeks or about 100 years at 10c 24/7/365.

Your estimate seems reasonable. However the average depth of the ice in Greenland that I got (shown in the references in my calculation post) was 2.1 km deep. Using the conversion factor of:
1 foot = 0.3048 meters
this means that you are saying that the Greenland ice cap averages over 3 km high. Your sources say that Greenland has 3 km of ice?

In my opinion we have little to worry about from greenhouse gas or eruptions etc. ...

I am not the only person concerned about this.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4608&tip=1

This is a URL to an essay written by Proffessor Rowland. Professor Rowland is Bren Research Professor, Earth System Science, School of Physical Sciences at the University of California. In 1995 he shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for work in atmospheric chemistry. This piece was written in April 2006.

I have seen claims that scientists "must lie" because otherwise they will be out of work. I assure you that Professor Rowland has tenure as well as a Nobel Prize. He gets paid no matter what. Something to think about...

Warm regards, Rick

RickSmith · 2007-03-27 02:01:21

I understand your frustration very well of not being able to talk about Terraforming because we are getting so much junk science these day about what actually causing Global Warming. ....

The above is a neat propaganda trick to make it seem that we are on the same side and to further your agenda that there is a lot of junk science on climate change. Actually there is very little junk science on the subject apart from what Exxon and its siblings are funding. See below.

In a propaganda war one side says "True, true, true" the other side says "False, False, False" with neither side expecting to convert the other. The purpose is to sway people who are not converted to one side of the other.

I have better things to do with my time.

A rational or scientific debate works on a different principle. People explicitly create a thesis, and show the evidence and logical interference that supports their case. They do calculations showing where all data has been gotten and showing each step of the process. And when something that their argument depends on is attacked they either defend it or admit they are wrong and change their mind or modify their thesis to take into account the better data.

Let me give an example. I did a calculation in another post and I showed,
a) where I got my data...
b) the assumptions that this calculation is based on...
c) each step of the calculation was done in the open.

Doing it this way puts myself at risk. If I multiply instead of divide then I look stupid, publicly. However the advantage of this method is that peer review has the highest chance to find mistakes.

You championed this bogus documentary. I spent some of my all too rare free time and found very strong evidence that this show is BS. If we are really in a rational debate and not just trying out yell each other, then you have to either say, "so sorry, it was full of BS. I'll edit or delete my post so as not to deceive others" or DEFEND the sorry thing.

So are you willing to either delete the link to that vile propaganda or are you willing to defend it? If you are not willing to do either than in my own mind you are not worth wasting time on; you are some one undeserving of my respect. I give people in this forum the benefit of a doubt and ASSUME that we are actually are in a rational debate. So far I've singled you out because you have chosen to support a spectacularly shoddy bit of propaganda. (It makes shooting fish in the barrel easy.)

Another principle that is used in rational debates is Ockham's razor. This says that if you have two hypothesis that explain a phenomenon, the simpler one is likely to be true.

Rick's theory: "The consensus of thousands of scientists is that we have, human caused, climate change. This is very dangerous in the long term. A few scientists who are largely funded by Exxon and other fossil fuel corporations dispute this."

Martian Republic's theory: "Prince Phillip has created this environmental movement to scare people. And he controls Gore. And scientists, hundreds maybe thousands of them, are all lying because they know that they get more funding that way. Sure, Exxon is funding the good scientists but hey, good for them, they are supporting the truth!"

I put it out there so you could make your mind up as to what your think and I don't hold such a tight standard here on any one else that post a link here either.

If you honestly want me to revise what I understand about meteorology, physics, chemistry, history, what is happening in my own province and country, what I see with my own senses and what I believe about the effectiveness of the scientific method and rational thought, then I suggest you do not champion such nonsense. Going to some effort to gain back my respect would help.

So why are you holding me to such a standard?

See above. Are we in a rational debate?

Humans construct stories to explain the world in their own minds. This is how I see the climate change story:

Tthe USA body politic has been polarized into two camps. Bush & the Republicans say that global climate change is not happening / might be happening but scientists can't agree / is happening but is not caused by humans and in any case is nothing to worry about. (Pick a month in the last year to get their spin at that time.)

The Republicans have a very easy to understand reason to do this. They have major ties to big oil. Bush has personal ties with the House of Saud.

Human beings have evolved to collect into tribes. We see it in gangs in the inner city, clans in virtual worlds and political parties and nationalism. (I find it interesting how quickly and easily clans form with strangers in a virtual world.)

I have people in my extended family. Some voted Socred. Everything that they read was run thru the Socred filter. Socreds basically told the truth. When the media reported something good about the Socreds it was true. When the media reported something bad about the Socreds it was an exception / exaggerated / a media lie. They were part of the Socred tribe and viewed the world that way.

Other members of my family belong to the NPD tribe and likewise filter their data to conform to their world view.

Now we are seeing the Liberal world view springing up.

These people can't talk to each other because they can't agree on the data, social values or the processes of political thought. Anytime they talk about politics there is a fight.

(As for myself I dislike ALL of the political parties. None of them represent my views so I usually vote for the underdog to keep the politico's on top nervous.)

This is what I see happening in the USA. I think that the progressively nastier and dirtier political tactics that are being employed will result in a fight, especially if people feel that they are being prevented from getting a voice in their government.

Back to my main thesis. There are lots of people who are in the Bush tribe and if some Exxon funded 'scientists' say we don't have anything to worry about then by damn they are ready to believe it.

Others are in the Democrat tribe. If Al Gore says that Global Warming is a problem then, no shit, they are ready to believe that!

I am in the Rationalist / Scientist tribe. When someone says that thousands of scientists all over the world for the past 6 decades have been falsifying data and lying, well it pisses me off.

If the stakes were not so high I could easily ignore it. But I think that the world that my grand kids will be living in will be significantly worse than if we tackled this problem now.

There are other worries. Humans are causing the 6th great extinction event in the Earth's history. That is very troubling. I think that climate change will make this worse as we are already seeing species undergoing environment stress because spring is coming earlier and the like.

(e.g. Caterpillar eggs hatch when it gets warm. A species of bird migrates and eats these caterpillars. However the bugs are hatching 3 to 4 weeks early and the birds are not finding the food source for their young when they arrive and lay eggs. Significant drop in the population of birds.)

There is a very good book called "Collapse" by Jerad Diamond. He documents several civilizations that have collapsed because they over exploited their environment. Interestingly, all of these civilizations collapsed just after they were at their richest, most populous and most 'efficiently' exploiting their environments.

I think that people don't realize how good we have got it now. If our civilization collapses the few survivors will have a very miserable existence. Furthermore, we have burnt the easy to access petroleum deposits that have such concentrated energy that they can raise civilizations.

I think it is a distinct possibility that Humans may face extinction in the next 500, 2000 or 5000 years or so. If we can keep a high technology (avoid collapse of our global high tech civilization) then this is a non-issue.

If humans can get off Earth and colonize Mars the chance of our species surviving the next 50,000 years more than triples in my estimate. The USA over the last 40 years has totally dropped the ball on space development. However, Europe, India, China and Japan all have aggressively growing space programs and all (except perhaps Europe) have stated that a long term goal is colonizing Mars. (China has damn near said when they land on Mars they own it.)

Good for them! The most important, absolutely vital thing, is that humans get off this planet.

Anyway, this is the story in my head that drives me to waste my time in a Mars Forum.

Sincerely Rick.

nickname · 2007-03-27 07:55:14

RickSmith,

I'm happy to agree that the average ice depth on Greenland is 2.1 km.
If that is what the facts say then 2.1 km average is it.

If we are talking about a realistic time for Greenland to melt even if the earth was an average 2 or 3c warmer than it is now (the worst case man made greenhouse scenario) then we need to multiply the 3 degrees from the 10 degrees or 3/10 my guess at melting speeds.

3/10 - fog temperature light decrease of 1c or 2c/10c x 1.5 miles x 2ft week melt.
+ addition anal snow cover increase with increased humidity and warmer temperatures and normal snow deposits.

or 7500ft divided by 2.4 inches a week not including increased snow cover due to warmer climate.

5 weeks a foot or 37500 weeks + additional anual snow fall?.

With some pretty simple math we can work out that a melting Greenland even in a greenhouse scenario will take a very long time.

You can see why i question most of the facts that come from the nay sayers of greenhouse doom.

As for frozen methane ice , i agree its one of the biggest potential extinction event potentials, and probably the reason for a few of earths big extinction events.

The last guess for eruptions of it were when the planet was about 6c warmer than current temperatures due to massive volcanic eruptions for eons, when methane ice erupted from the ocean it pushed temperatures up another 4c.

I cannot in any manmade scenario see temperatures rising 6c, or lasting long enough to warm the water a similar temperature to begin eruptions of this nature.

With all the information i have seen on global warming through the epochs the C02 just isn't the reason for warming, it seems to follow the warming by 500 to 600 years.
A very simple reason for might exit i believe, after an extinction event or heavy volcanic activity global plant mass takes this long or longer to recover.
It might be that simple.

Greenhouse doom sayers also never point out that C02 levels we are increasing are more than canceled out but fine light blocking particles we are introducing into the atmosphere.

When you look at potential C02 heating vs light decrease from fine persistent smog, we are actually cooling the planet a small percentage.

Just my 2 cents though.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-27 13:59:16

RickSmith,

I am not questioning the motive of many of the people that are in the environmental movement and that they may have a genuine desire to save the planet and such. There are many people in the environmental who are sincere in what there saying or doing and there may even be some leader in the environmental movement that are sincere too. I am not disputing that. It the people at the top like Prince Phillip and now Prince Charles and Al Gore I am challenging and that there not being honest with the people that are following them. I put two links out there that you find offensive, which is OK. I do a lot of things that offend people. I interested in putting out there what I believe to be true and if it offends people then so be it.

They are:

http://www.youtube.com/

I was just there and did not see the video there. I don’t know any other place that has this video or where it could be.

This link go over much of the information that was in that video that was on youtube.com. This link is still good, you can’t get it on youtube.com, but you can still get some of the information that was on youtube.com web broadcast.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 … cience.pdf

I didn’t see that either one of them as being objectionable to a free and independent thinker. For someone that claims to have an open mind, you sure did bend sideways real quick. I am not arguing that there isn’t pollution that caused by the human race and that it is destroying the planet. The issue was, is human activities causing Global Warming? No! Do I believe that we should deal with the pollution problem. Absolutely, but I am not going to keep silent when they peddling lie that we causing Global Warming. I do have a question for you though.

I think it is a distinct possibility that Humans may face extinction in the next 500, 2000 or 5000 years or so. If we can keep a high technology (avoid collapse of our global high tech civilization) then this is a non-issue.

Are an environmentalist?

You make an assertion that there are two primary sides to this Environmentalist issue with George Bush along with the oil companies on one side and with Al Gore with supposedly with the people and a view to saving the planet on the other side.

Is that reasonable summation of your assertion of who on the two side that you claim exist?

Prince Charles and Al Gore and there connection to the environmental movement and to each other. The web site show the history of the environmental movement. I didn’t read the whole thing. I skip read it and I suggest you do too, because it lengthy and parts of it don’t apply to what we are talking about. But, it does have some interesting information on the Environmental movement that I didn’t know about too. I was interested in when Environmental movement was created and why it was created or it purpose. It was started in England over two hundred years ago during the British Empire. The reason Environmentalism was started was for population control and that industrializing was evil and why eugenics or elimination of useless eaters was necessary. Although George Bush did not go to the Environmental meeting himself, he did sent Collon Powell in his place to the Environmental meeting. They went a little bit into religion which I skip over. However there was a lot of useful information there on the Environmental Movement and it real purpose and not what just being told to the masses.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1695.cfm

This web site shows Al Gore being employed by Prince Phillip and what the true nature of who Al Gore is and what he is really peddling.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_ … _gore.html

The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush Sr. Although is dealing with his father and family history, it show where George Bush Jr. came from and there family values. The family fortune was made by Prescott Bush in the Union Bank with IG Farbin that put Adolph Hitler into power. Prescott Bush was getting his profits off the Concentration/work camps. His funds were seized in 1942 for trading with the enemy of the United States and they were released after the death of FDR and the end of World War II. Mussolini said that the best way to explain Fascism is to understand that that is where government and Corporation are merged together into one, which is what George Bush supports. There was also a greenie movement in fascist movement that took over Germany under Hitler too. When you see those German Panzer Tiger Tanks, you might have a problem accepting that idea, but it true. Most of this information is in this book, which I have read by the way and I still have a copy of it too.

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

Even I will admit that this is a round about sort of way of showing that the same people who are behind Al Gore are also behind George Bush. On the Conservative Republican side, there pushing globalism through war and terrorism. On the Liberal Democrat side, there pushing globalism through the Environmentalism of trying to save the planet. Both George Bush and Al Gore are working for the same people and the three other sites I put out there should make that connection. There just working different side of the street, but trying to accomplish the same goals for the same master. Now I do believe that there are genuinely other side to this Environmental issue who have a real voice on this issue, but not by these two people or the people they represent.

You seem to have a problem of me calling most of the science out there and what is being portrayed science as junk science. Let take a look at that for a minute. If even part of what I have said is true, then there is a big problem with there being lies reported in the US Media. We also have a problem with them suppressing information also. Of the last three web sites that I put up there, should pretty much dispel the idea that I don’t know what I am talking about. If you or anybody else want to learn American History in a way that nobody else knows American History, then go to the last two web site I put up.

Maybe you agree with the above or maybe you don’t that OK. You remind me that I have not said anything about how you can determine which modal scientific modal was correct by taking the more simple modal and saying it is correct because it was more simple modal. But, for the sake of the argument, let deal with your concept that the simpler answer that address all the fact is probably the right answer. Matter fact non of the answers of what going in the universe have to be right whether simple or complex answers. Matter of fact, there are some process going on in the universe that just by observing them, you would never figure them out and come up with all kinds of wired conclusion and stay within the facts that you were given. I know what I just wrote violets what you consider to be reality, but be patient with me and I will explain why that so.

Let go back to when they were deciding or trying to figure out how our solar system functioned. We have three modal of how our solar system functioned and they all fit the mathematical data that they had at the time. They all three had modal as to how this solar system was put together and they could show that they could work too. Non of the three can disprove the other two. I apologize for not giving you the three examples and three people to who were pushing those models, because without those modal it loses a little bit, because it harder to see what I am getting at. But, bear with me.

According to your idea of how you can determine which one is right: Who would it be?

But, now we have a late comer called Kepler who has no a mathematical modal that fit our facts of how the solar system functions and is just carried under his arm modal of the Platonic Solids and a musical scale of Classical Music and states there a missing orbit between Mars and Jupiter where the asteroid belt is which he could not see. He talk about the busted planet that makes up what we call the asteroid belt now. He lay out the elliptical orbits of all the different planets that we know about, because he knew orbit weren’t round, the other three did not figure that out nor could they have figured that out using there mathematic models.

Using your idea of the simplest modal is usually the right modal of how things work with anyone of the three modals.

You would be wrong!

But, you say you didn’t give me Kepler as a choice and if you would have given me Kepler then I could have made the right choice then. No you wouldn’t have, because it goes outside your simplest modal to figure out how the solar system actually functions and then he throw stuff in that can't be proved for over two years. So you would have picked the same guy that you already would have picked, because Kepler failed your test for deciding who was right. If that so and that is in fact what happened. That where the busted planet theory came from, I have two more question for you. There is no way that you could have come up with what Kepler said the solar system had to look like by looking at facts they know at that time or using mathematical equations.

How did Kepler come up with the right answer?

And how did he know that there was an asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter?

He did know there was one too.

He didn’t have a telescopes to prove what he was saying true and the telescopes weren’t invented until two hundred years or so later. Which shows that you can work stuff out mathematically and be wrong three times with three different models, but be mathematically correct all three times and not get the right answer.

I would like to know what happened here or if you would like to defend your idea of how you determine which modal is correct by use of mathematics and why it would fail when it comes to Kepler and it would have failed too.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2007-03-27 23:14:27

RickSmith,
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1695.cfm
....
Larry,

The Illuminati??????????????

Do I dare even ask you to defend this?

Martian Republic · 2007-03-28 00:10:24

RickSmith,
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1695.cfm
....
Larry,
The Illuminati??????????????
Do I dare even ask you to defend this?

Actually, I picked it up on a Google Search. It was mostly a response to RickSmith. RickSmith challenge me to defend my position or he thought I should withdraw my post from thread, because he found it offensive. As far as to what really going on in the world, these people pretty much got it right. But, I had no intention of defending everything in this article and stated that on the post that I put this web site entry on. I mostly posted it to show you that the information that I am giving you is out there if you look for it. I am not just spouting off to be spouting off. However I did go a little deeper into this than I really wanted to go.

As to the Illuminati, I have heard that term, but that about it. So I am going to leave that alone.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2007-06-07 07:59:15

scientists at UC Irvine have determined that a lesser-known mechanism Dirty snow may warm Arctic as much as greenhouse gases
Dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, while bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling.

Antius · 2007-06-07 09:49:03

Coal is easily the dirtiest form of energy production on the planet. A single 1,000 Megawatt coal plant releases approximately 600 pounds of carbon dioxide and 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere each SECOND.
In one second it releases as much nitrogen oxides as 200,000 automobiles. These polutants are estimated to cause 25 premature fatalities and 60,000 cases of respiratory complaints per year / power plant.
Additionally, this plant has to get rid of 30,000 truckloads of ash annually. (This amount would cover a square mile 60 feet deep.) The ash is full of carcinogens, highly acidic (or sometimes highly alkaline depending on the type of coal).
Run off from these dumps have sterilized streams and devistated communities.
Coal is a very dirty form of energy. All sorts of stuff is mixed up with it. I quote:
In short, naturally occurring radioactive species released by coal combustion are accumulating in the environment along with minerals such as mercury, arsenic, silicon, calcium, chlorine, and lead, sodium, as well as metals such as aluminum, iron, lead, magnesium, titanium, boron, chromium, and others that are continually dispersed in millions of tons of coal combustion by-products. The potential benefits and threats of these released materials will someday be of such significance that they should not now be ignored.--Alex Gabbard of the Metals and Ceramics Division
Furthermore the acid rain from the sulfur and nitric oxides damages the health of forests, sterilizes lakes and leaches heavy metals into the environment. (When Canada complained about the acid rain that was sterilzing lakes in Ontario, the USA basically told us to take a hike. In many ways the USA is not a very likable, social or fair neighbour.)
Finally, coal contains trace amounts of Uranium, Thorium and other radioactive elements. (Usually at least 2 to 3 parts per million, tho it ranges from 1 to 10 ppm.) A 1,000 MWatt coal plant produces 100 times MORE radioactivity than a equally powerful nuclear plant and it scatters the nuclear waste widely into the biosphere. If people were rationally concerned with radioactive wastes they would start by closing down coal plants.
(In fact, the uranium released by a coal burning plant has more energy in it than the energy got by burning the coal!)

For more information see:
// A site that discusses the radiation releases from coal plants
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev … lmain.html

// A discussion (With lots of references!) talking about nuclear power. It points out that there is a double standard between coal radioactivity and nuclear radioactivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
An essay in: "Catastrophes, Chaos & Convolutions" by James P. Hogan page 182. Much of the data on conventional wastes by coal burning plants.
// Website about acid rain.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/
// More on acid rain
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-584/sci … acid_rain/
J. O. Corbett, "The Radiation Dose From Coal Burning: A Review of Pathways and Data," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 4 (1): 5-19.
T. L. Thoem, et al., Coal Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, Volume 1: A Three Station Comparison, Radian Corp. for USEPA, Sept. 1975.
W. Torrey, "Coal Ash Utilization: Fly Ash, Bottom Ash and Slag," Pollution Technology Review, 48 (1978) 136.

Coal may not be as bad as most people think. When well-head and pipeline losses are taken into consideration, the greenhouse gas potential of natural gas is just as high if not greater than coal.

What's more, the dirtiest of coal plants relesae large amounts of sulphur dioxide and dust into the atmosphere, which actively reduce global heating.

Also, I would like to point out that global warming is not the only disaster with the potential to wreck human civilisation. The global peaking of oil and gas production could return us to the stone age in a much shorter timescale (~decades).

Spatula · 2007-06-08 15:53:52

What's more, the dirtiest of coal plants relesae large amounts of sulphur dioxide and dust into the atmosphere, which actively reduce global heating.

Can being the operative word, since these will still have a heating effect if they remain in the lower atmosphere. Ozone can also become a greenhouse gas when it's released from industrial processes and lingers in the lower atmosphere. Combined with its toxicity to organic systems, we generally consider it a pollutant when it's close to the ground.

Plus, y'know, mining coal has a whole bunch of environmental problems too. Mining natural gas is easy in comparison.

m1omg · 2007-07-05 15:20:07

Well we here in Europe know better....
Temperature records falls each summer...
Each summer there is more extreme weather...
In the areas of my country (Slovakia) where there was cold climate in the past, we are starting to seed small palmlike trees that thrive only in subtropical climate.
When it will arrive to USA write me.

m1omg · 2007-07-05 15:24:33

What's more, the dirtiest of coal plants relesae large amounts of sulphur dioxide and dust into the atmosphere, which actively reduce global heating.
Can being the operative word, since these will still have a heating effect if they remain in the lower atmosphere. Ozone can also become a greenhouse gas when it's released from industrial processes and lingers in the lower atmosphere. Combined with its toxicity to organic systems, we generally consider it a pollutant when it's close to the ground.
Plus, y'know, mining coal has a whole bunch of environmental problems too. Mining natural gas is easy in comparison.

Coal produce much more dangerous pollutants, like SO2 and particulates.
You don't know how bad are particulates for health?!

Terraformer · 2007-11-28 08:38:11

I'd like to see more than a correlation between Global Warming- Sorry, Climate Change- and CO2 levls.

noosfractal · 2008-01-03 07:59:29

Climate porn from ...

Cryosphere Today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

...

"View the updated high resolution animation of this year's sea ice retreat (01/01/2007 - 09/23/2007). WARNING - This quicktime animation is very large at 200Mb, but it illustrates nicely the temporal evolution of this year's sea ice."
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere … update.mov

Regardless of its cause, this year's Arctic minimum is a seminal event, and the satellite photo animation is really a wonder of modern technology.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-02 09:23:29

Of course there are many factors that influence climate but It appears some of the change in the climate could be man-made, its already making headlines early June and July

Shocking aerial photos reveal ‘warzone’ destruction in Canada’s hottest town after wildfire sparked by a train
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-c … 77088.html

Back in 2009 data from Aus. Bushfires and extreme heat in south-east Australia
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a … d-climate/

Siberia temperature surpassed that of Delhi India, the Heat wave in Russia brings record-breaking temperatures north of Arctic Circle
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57600077

WMO verifies record temperature for Antarctic continent
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/270 … -continent

Calliban · 2021-07-02 16:30:50

The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light and therefore results in radiative forcing, is quite basic physics. It is a greenhouse gas, as average surface temperature needs to rise to overcome the feedback effect resulting from reradiation from the atmosphere to the surface. Carbon dioxide is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, but is being released in enormous quantities. Human beings are burning gigatonnes of fossil carbon every year and dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere. So, the fact that human beings are responsible for some amount of global climate change, is not controversial as far as I am concerned and I am puzzled as to why anyone would doubt that. What is less certain, is how feed back effects will combine to reinforce or dampen the effects resulting from increased radiative forcing.

It often amazes me how many people think that they can change what is true simply by arguing it. As if the eloquence of their words will somehow change reality, like some kind of magic spell turning piss into wine simply by quoting eloquent Latin words in the right order. We see it on this board and we see it in the wider world wherever vested interests are threatened. Renewable energy fanatics and fossil fuel supporting lobbies are both guilty of it. The problem is, that truth doesn't change just because you contest it or bury it in eloquent arguments. It remains exactly what it was before, just hidden by lies and distortions.

I think part of the reason that so many people are sceptical of human induced climate change, is due to perceptual error. Standing on the ground and looking up on a clear day, the sky appears as a vast, unending ocean of air. The apparent scale of sky to a human standing on the ground, reinforces the impression that any human impacts upon it must be tiny. But it is an illusion. If that ocean of air were to be condensed onto the surface of the Earth as a liquid, it would be a puny thirty feet thick. That isn't much taller than the average house. Compare that to the depth of the oceans, which average almost 1 mile deep. The atmosphere is a puny skin of fluid in comparison. The illusion of the boundless atmosphere disappears when travelling on a jet aeroplane. At 33,000' some three quarters of the atmosphere is beneath you, a thin skin of gas hugging the surface of our little world, just 6 miles thick. It doesn't look boundless at all when you look at it from above. Given how evidently human beings have changed the surface of the planet, one wonders why human action changing the composition of the atmosphere would be a controversial proposition?

Last edited by Calliban (2021-07-02 16:47:46)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2007-03-23 05:53:43

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#52 2007-03-23 08:58:49

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#53 2007-03-23 14:11:32

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#54 2007-03-23 17:07:16

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#55 2007-03-23 20:12:58

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#56 2007-03-24 07:23:05

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#57 2007-03-24 09:09:51

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#58 2007-03-26 16:45:35

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#59 2007-03-26 17:04:09

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#60 2007-03-26 18:04:14

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#61 2007-03-27 00:02:40

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#62 2007-03-27 02:01:21

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#63 2007-03-27 07:55:14

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#64 2007-03-27 13:59:16

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#65 2007-03-27 23:14:27

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#66 2007-03-28 00:10:24

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#67 2007-06-07 07:59:15

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#68 2007-06-07 09:49:03

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#69 2007-06-08 15:53:52

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#70 2007-07-05 15:20:07

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#71 2007-07-05 15:24:33

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#72 2007-11-28 08:38:11

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#73 2008-01-03 07:59:29

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#74 2021-07-02 09:23:29

Re: Is Global Warming real?

#75 2021-07-02 16:30:50

Re: Is Global Warming real?

Board footer