mnealtx 0 #76 May 18, 2007 I'll keep looking for it... if I find it I'll post backMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #77 May 18, 2007 QuoteQuote>When you get to the point of exageration and putting words in other mouths . . . Are you now claiming that you did not post "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" ? You know full well that was the tittle of the article posted. So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic? Geebus Rush, ain't nothin' IN this thread that YOU'VE said comes close to the level of DEBATE. Ya wanna have a debate, let's have a debate, but I think you might wanna look up the word in the dictionary first.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #78 May 18, 2007 Quote ***And what other source is causing the carbon increase that we have seen? *** It is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. See, no need to participate in your liberally perverse world full of delusional cause and effect, empirically driven arguments. By the way stay on-topic and answer my statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #79 May 18, 2007 QuoteIt is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. Wow. That's just about the stupidest argument I've seen. Let me get this straight. Here's your paragraph dissected into functional units: A) Man is natural B) Therefore everything Man does is natural C) Therefore burning megatons of carbon is natural D) Therefore the crisis of burning megatons of carbon is not caused by man E) Therefore there's nothing to worry about. Care to think through some of these fallacies and try again? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #80 May 18, 2007 >It is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and >by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural >cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. That's very true! And the implications of that line of thinking are cool as well. After all, terrorists are human, humans are part of nature, therefore a terrorist who detonates a nuclear weapon in Manhattan is all part of a natural cycle as well. And to think we've been so worried about stuff like that. Solves a lot of other problems, too. Nuclear waste - natural! Sulfur dioxide pollution from coal power plants - natural! Urban sprawl - natural! 9/11 - natural! Looks like all our problems are solved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #81 May 18, 2007 Quote>It is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and >by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural >cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. That's very true! And the implications of that line of thinking are cool as well. After all, terrorists are human, humans are part of nature, therefore a terrorist who detonates a nuclear weapon in Manhattan is all part of a natural cycle as well. And to think we've been so worried about stuff like that. Solves a lot of other problems, too. Nuclear waste - natural! Sulfur dioxide pollution from coal power plants - natural! Urban sprawl - natural! 9/11 - natural! Looks like all our problems are solved. Don't forget: homicide, rape, assault, stealing, lying, envy, sloth, pride, gluttony, ..., all are natural.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #82 May 18, 2007 >Don't forget: homicide, rape, assault, stealing, lying, envy, sloth, >pride, gluttony, ..., all are natural. On the plus side, so are guns. On the minus side, so is crystal meth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yourmomma 0 #83 May 18, 2007 Quote That's very true! And the implications of that line of thinking are cool as well. After all, terrorists are human, humans are part of nature, therefore a terrorist who detonates a nuclear weapon in Manhattan is all part of a natural cycle as well. And to think we've been so worried about stuff like that. Solves a lot of other problems, too. Nuclear waste - natural! Sulfur dioxide pollution from coal power plants - natural! Urban sprawl - natural! 9/11 - natural! Looks like all our problems are solved. Billvon, Now you're seeing clearly. I knew you had it in ya. Oh by the by the heavy metals imbeded in the fine particulates actually make you healthy. I mean the government would never allow industry to emit pollutants which are harmful. That would be like arresting a civilian without sufficient proof of wrong doing. As for you Narci, well I'm sorry that you travel through life with pink coloured blinders on. Maybe one day you will see the intrinsic value of RIGHTeous thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #84 May 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA? Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical. And you don't consider that an insult? Wow American Heritage Dictionary - fanatical: adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal You outright claimed it didn't exist. Then scientific opinion opposing your view continued to mount and you were pretty much forced to retreat to the position that it existed ...but stopped in 1998! Backed against the wall by the world scientific community, you now seem to admit it exists but man had nothing to do with causing it. Your recent attempts at internet erudition basically boil down to 'I'm agin it, cause dem liberals is fur it.' You post prolifically and adamantly. Surely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #85 May 18, 2007 QuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #86 May 18, 2007 Bill - I *think* this is the presentation that I read .... but I'm not 100% sure. http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/day1/03_Solanki.pptMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #87 May 18, 2007 Interesting presentation, one that discusses an as-yet poorly understood phenomenon (solar wind mediated shielding from cosmic rays.) One such analysis indicates that increased solar activity generates more solar wind (and related magnetic activity) providing better heliospheric shielding from cosmic rays. We don't care about this much directly because our atmosphere provides pretty good shielding from such rays. However, higher up in the atmosphere, an increase in cosmic ray bombardment results in greater nucleation opportunities for clouds. So in this theory, more solar output = less cosmic radiation = less clouds. Fewer clouds during the day = warmer planet, fewer clouds at night = cooler planet. One preliminary conclusion one could draw from the research presented is that since they see a correlation between sunspot number and temperature increase that it is possible that we're seeing the "fewer clouds during the day" scenario. This whole process has recently been 'mucked up' a bit by our injection of high altitude aerosols that serve much the same function. Our aerosols create a similar effect to cosmic ray nuclei, but to a greater degree. In general this causes a _cooling_ effect since our larger amount of gunk in the upper atmosphere reflects more light than it absorbs, and induces the formation of 'whiter' (more reflective) clouds. The interplay between these two phenomena are among the least-well understood parts of climate modeling. Some caveats about this presentation is that they are not discussing solar _output_ i.e. how much sun gets to the earth and/or how much the sun is warming the planet; they are discussing a much more indirect effect caused by flux linkage in the heliosphere. In addition, they note that their analysis disregards the last 25 years, because they did not see a correlation between sunspot activity and climate during that time. This may be due to anthropogenic high altitude aerosols starting to have an effect (although they've been around a lot longer than 25 years!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #88 May 18, 2007 I appreciate the comments - do you think that this also ties in to the observed temperature increases on Mars and Neptune, and could those observed increases in temperature be proof of a primary forcing by solar activity?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #89 May 18, 2007 > I appreciate the comments - do you think that this also ties in to >the observed temperature increases on Mars and Neptune . . I very much doubt it! We barely understand the climate on our own planet, much less the climate on Mars - and we don't even know how the martian climate is changing. The evidence we do have: Using the Viking lander data from the 1970's, the planet has been cooling for the last 35 years (at least where the landers were, compared to measurements taken more recently by orbiters with IR temperature sensors.) Using telescope data, the south pole of the planet looks like it's warming, as evinced by evaporation of the southern ice cap. One possibility is, as you mentioned, an increase in solar irradiation. However, you'd think we'd see the same percentage increase here, and so far we haven't. A second possibility is that the 1970's saw a large number of planetary dust storms, and those dust storms have been gradually settling down. The dust storms sometimes cool the planet overall since the dust is considerably lighter (higher albedo) than the surface of the planet - but they also warm the planet paradoxically sometimes. We don't know enough about them to know if that's a factor or not. On the other hand, the poles of Jupiter are getting cooler. Again, this is likely not due to a change in solar irradiation, but rather a change in atmospheric dynamics that's reducing the number of storms - and storms generally transport heat from equator to pole. But we understand Jupiter's atmosphere even less than the atmosphere of Mars, since we have never landed a weather station there. We would likely get more meaningful results from a planet without weather (like Mercury) but I have yet to see good temperature studies done on that planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #90 May 19, 2007 Thanks, Bill - Would you agree that it's a fair summation to say that nobody really knows what affect this increased activity has, then? I admit - I poke fun at the "it's all because of Man" crowd, but the "it's all due to natural occurrences" crowd doesn't convince me, either.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #91 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians. I got to find those cameras and mind reading devices. How else could you have such a through understanding of my mind and positions. Got to get my tin foil hat back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #92 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA? Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical. And you don't consider that an insult? Wow American Heritage Dictionary - fanatical: adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal You outright claimed it didn't exist.God this get fucking old. I posted an articel/ op ed and you say this is my position? You and billvon working together now? You have completely missed my point and my position Then scientific opinion opposing your view continued to mount and you were pretty much forced to retreat to the position that it existed ...but stopped in 1998!See above. but I don't see any hope of you understanding my point or position Backed against the wall by the world scientific community, you now seem to admit it exists but man had nothing to do with causing it. I aint backed up against nothing. Strike three? Your recent attempts at internet erudition basically boil down to 'I'm agin it, cause dem liberals is fur it.' You post prolifically and adamantly. Surely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. It is only "exessive" if the point does not agree with you it seems to me. Mountian of data and research are creating serious questions as to whether man has an (any impact) on the current warming cycle. But you are so locked into the "how can anybody not see it the way I do" mentality you will not even consider my perspective. Difference between you and me? I think you might be wrong. You imply I am stupid for even considering the other side. See any difference??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 May 20, 2007 Quote>You know full well that was the title of the article posted. Yes, which is what I said. That's what YOU NO, that was the publishers title of the article!!titled YOUR post. If you do not mean the things you post, that's fine - just make that clear.[b >So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic? The only two people discussing the science of global warming here are nmealtx and I. You're defending your favorite political position. (Well, you were. You said "it's time to end the discussion" - but perhaps that was another thing you posted that you didn't mean.) But if you would like to debate the science, here's one. If you do not believe man is causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere - where is all the carbon we're burning going? And what other source is causing the carbon increase that we have seen? There a small insignificant CO2 increased being caused by man. My point all along however is that the CO2 in not a leading cause of temp increased. It is a following result. The oceans contain and hold more CO2 than anything. As the temp increases water can not hold the same amount of gas and it releases some of it. Because of the size of the oceans an extremely small percentage release would amount to measurable CO2 levels. Again, is the world warming? Yes. Is man causing or accelerating it? I don't think so. Today, many early GWing proponents have changed their minds. Even one of the first ones and the founder of Green Peace believe the "man made" GWing issue is now political not science based. And these once savers of the planet and now being ripped to shreds’ as deniers and ignored. Sorry Bill, but I once leaned toward man as being a cause. I have and I will continue to look at the issue and the science. But until the data makes a huge change you are the one on the political side of the issue, not me. I am not trying to change anybodies life style. Can you make the same claim?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #94 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. Science it putting out info today. The difference between my side and yours? Your side quotes a researcher and it is biblical in its truth. I post an opposing researcher, senator, org, group ect ect ect ect and they are evil ones bought out by the big oil companies. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #95 May 20, 2007 QuoteDifference between you and me? I think you might be wrong. You imply I am stupid for even considering the other side. See any difference?? Plus, you always write your own words -- not always true when Jennyfly makes a post. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #96 May 20, 2007 Quote The difference between my side and yours? Your side Talk about mind-reading! You keep announcing what "my side" is. But I DON'T HAVE A "SIDE"! In fact, it's complete inane bullshit to have a side. Science doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YOU have sides. And that proves you're thinking of this as a political debate, not a scientific investigation. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #97 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuote The difference between my side and yours? Your side Talk about mind-reading! You keep announcing what "my side" is. But I DON'T HAVE A "SIDE"! In fact, it's complete inane bullshit to have a side. Science doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YOU have sides. And that proves you're thinking of this as a political debate, not a scientific investigation. YYYyyyaaaaa right............."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #98 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 May 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. Ya, I noticed. Only you are on the political side. So, I have no choice but to play the same. There is no science that say or even indicates that man is a major influence when it comes to the warming of the planet. Since that is the truth, you, are playing politics. So, (if you are right) then I have no choice. Science can not in and of itself make major policy changes. Poloitics can. Get the point?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 May 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. By the way, not comment on "how you know me"? Sucks to get caught in that shit now doesn't it!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 17 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
narcimund 0 #79 May 18, 2007 QuoteIt is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. Wow. That's just about the stupidest argument I've seen. Let me get this straight. Here's your paragraph dissected into functional units: A) Man is natural B) Therefore everything Man does is natural C) Therefore burning megatons of carbon is natural D) Therefore the crisis of burning megatons of carbon is not caused by man E) Therefore there's nothing to worry about. Care to think through some of these fallacies and try again? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #80 May 18, 2007 >It is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and >by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural >cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. That's very true! And the implications of that line of thinking are cool as well. After all, terrorists are human, humans are part of nature, therefore a terrorist who detonates a nuclear weapon in Manhattan is all part of a natural cycle as well. And to think we've been so worried about stuff like that. Solves a lot of other problems, too. Nuclear waste - natural! Sulfur dioxide pollution from coal power plants - natural! Urban sprawl - natural! 9/11 - natural! Looks like all our problems are solved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #81 May 18, 2007 Quote>It is naturally occurring. I mean humans are part of nature and >by extension anything we do is natural. Therefore this is part of a natural >cycle not a "man made crisis", so nothing to worry about. That's very true! And the implications of that line of thinking are cool as well. After all, terrorists are human, humans are part of nature, therefore a terrorist who detonates a nuclear weapon in Manhattan is all part of a natural cycle as well. And to think we've been so worried about stuff like that. Solves a lot of other problems, too. Nuclear waste - natural! Sulfur dioxide pollution from coal power plants - natural! Urban sprawl - natural! 9/11 - natural! Looks like all our problems are solved. Don't forget: homicide, rape, assault, stealing, lying, envy, sloth, pride, gluttony, ..., all are natural.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #82 May 18, 2007 >Don't forget: homicide, rape, assault, stealing, lying, envy, sloth, >pride, gluttony, ..., all are natural. On the plus side, so are guns. On the minus side, so is crystal meth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #83 May 18, 2007 Quote That's very true! And the implications of that line of thinking are cool as well. After all, terrorists are human, humans are part of nature, therefore a terrorist who detonates a nuclear weapon in Manhattan is all part of a natural cycle as well. And to think we've been so worried about stuff like that. Solves a lot of other problems, too. Nuclear waste - natural! Sulfur dioxide pollution from coal power plants - natural! Urban sprawl - natural! 9/11 - natural! Looks like all our problems are solved. Billvon, Now you're seeing clearly. I knew you had it in ya. Oh by the by the heavy metals imbeded in the fine particulates actually make you healthy. I mean the government would never allow industry to emit pollutants which are harmful. That would be like arresting a civilian without sufficient proof of wrong doing. As for you Narci, well I'm sorry that you travel through life with pink coloured blinders on. Maybe one day you will see the intrinsic value of RIGHTeous thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #84 May 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA? Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical. And you don't consider that an insult? Wow American Heritage Dictionary - fanatical: adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal You outright claimed it didn't exist. Then scientific opinion opposing your view continued to mount and you were pretty much forced to retreat to the position that it existed ...but stopped in 1998! Backed against the wall by the world scientific community, you now seem to admit it exists but man had nothing to do with causing it. Your recent attempts at internet erudition basically boil down to 'I'm agin it, cause dem liberals is fur it.' You post prolifically and adamantly. Surely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #85 May 18, 2007 QuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #86 May 18, 2007 Bill - I *think* this is the presentation that I read .... but I'm not 100% sure. http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/day1/03_Solanki.pptMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #87 May 18, 2007 Interesting presentation, one that discusses an as-yet poorly understood phenomenon (solar wind mediated shielding from cosmic rays.) One such analysis indicates that increased solar activity generates more solar wind (and related magnetic activity) providing better heliospheric shielding from cosmic rays. We don't care about this much directly because our atmosphere provides pretty good shielding from such rays. However, higher up in the atmosphere, an increase in cosmic ray bombardment results in greater nucleation opportunities for clouds. So in this theory, more solar output = less cosmic radiation = less clouds. Fewer clouds during the day = warmer planet, fewer clouds at night = cooler planet. One preliminary conclusion one could draw from the research presented is that since they see a correlation between sunspot number and temperature increase that it is possible that we're seeing the "fewer clouds during the day" scenario. This whole process has recently been 'mucked up' a bit by our injection of high altitude aerosols that serve much the same function. Our aerosols create a similar effect to cosmic ray nuclei, but to a greater degree. In general this causes a _cooling_ effect since our larger amount of gunk in the upper atmosphere reflects more light than it absorbs, and induces the formation of 'whiter' (more reflective) clouds. The interplay between these two phenomena are among the least-well understood parts of climate modeling. Some caveats about this presentation is that they are not discussing solar _output_ i.e. how much sun gets to the earth and/or how much the sun is warming the planet; they are discussing a much more indirect effect caused by flux linkage in the heliosphere. In addition, they note that their analysis disregards the last 25 years, because they did not see a correlation between sunspot activity and climate during that time. This may be due to anthropogenic high altitude aerosols starting to have an effect (although they've been around a lot longer than 25 years!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #88 May 18, 2007 I appreciate the comments - do you think that this also ties in to the observed temperature increases on Mars and Neptune, and could those observed increases in temperature be proof of a primary forcing by solar activity?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #89 May 18, 2007 > I appreciate the comments - do you think that this also ties in to >the observed temperature increases on Mars and Neptune . . I very much doubt it! We barely understand the climate on our own planet, much less the climate on Mars - and we don't even know how the martian climate is changing. The evidence we do have: Using the Viking lander data from the 1970's, the planet has been cooling for the last 35 years (at least where the landers were, compared to measurements taken more recently by orbiters with IR temperature sensors.) Using telescope data, the south pole of the planet looks like it's warming, as evinced by evaporation of the southern ice cap. One possibility is, as you mentioned, an increase in solar irradiation. However, you'd think we'd see the same percentage increase here, and so far we haven't. A second possibility is that the 1970's saw a large number of planetary dust storms, and those dust storms have been gradually settling down. The dust storms sometimes cool the planet overall since the dust is considerably lighter (higher albedo) than the surface of the planet - but they also warm the planet paradoxically sometimes. We don't know enough about them to know if that's a factor or not. On the other hand, the poles of Jupiter are getting cooler. Again, this is likely not due to a change in solar irradiation, but rather a change in atmospheric dynamics that's reducing the number of storms - and storms generally transport heat from equator to pole. But we understand Jupiter's atmosphere even less than the atmosphere of Mars, since we have never landed a weather station there. We would likely get more meaningful results from a planet without weather (like Mercury) but I have yet to see good temperature studies done on that planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #90 May 19, 2007 Thanks, Bill - Would you agree that it's a fair summation to say that nobody really knows what affect this increased activity has, then? I admit - I poke fun at the "it's all because of Man" crowd, but the "it's all due to natural occurrences" crowd doesn't convince me, either.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #91 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians. I got to find those cameras and mind reading devices. How else could you have such a through understanding of my mind and positions. Got to get my tin foil hat back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #92 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA? Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical. And you don't consider that an insult? Wow American Heritage Dictionary - fanatical: adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal You outright claimed it didn't exist.God this get fucking old. I posted an articel/ op ed and you say this is my position? You and billvon working together now? You have completely missed my point and my position Then scientific opinion opposing your view continued to mount and you were pretty much forced to retreat to the position that it existed ...but stopped in 1998!See above. but I don't see any hope of you understanding my point or position Backed against the wall by the world scientific community, you now seem to admit it exists but man had nothing to do with causing it. I aint backed up against nothing. Strike three? Your recent attempts at internet erudition basically boil down to 'I'm agin it, cause dem liberals is fur it.' You post prolifically and adamantly. Surely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. It is only "exessive" if the point does not agree with you it seems to me. Mountian of data and research are creating serious questions as to whether man has an (any impact) on the current warming cycle. But you are so locked into the "how can anybody not see it the way I do" mentality you will not even consider my perspective. Difference between you and me? I think you might be wrong. You imply I am stupid for even considering the other side. See any difference??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 May 20, 2007 Quote>You know full well that was the title of the article posted. Yes, which is what I said. That's what YOU NO, that was the publishers title of the article!!titled YOUR post. If you do not mean the things you post, that's fine - just make that clear.[b >So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic? The only two people discussing the science of global warming here are nmealtx and I. You're defending your favorite political position. (Well, you were. You said "it's time to end the discussion" - but perhaps that was another thing you posted that you didn't mean.) But if you would like to debate the science, here's one. If you do not believe man is causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere - where is all the carbon we're burning going? And what other source is causing the carbon increase that we have seen? There a small insignificant CO2 increased being caused by man. My point all along however is that the CO2 in not a leading cause of temp increased. It is a following result. The oceans contain and hold more CO2 than anything. As the temp increases water can not hold the same amount of gas and it releases some of it. Because of the size of the oceans an extremely small percentage release would amount to measurable CO2 levels. Again, is the world warming? Yes. Is man causing or accelerating it? I don't think so. Today, many early GWing proponents have changed their minds. Even one of the first ones and the founder of Green Peace believe the "man made" GWing issue is now political not science based. And these once savers of the planet and now being ripped to shreds’ as deniers and ignored. Sorry Bill, but I once leaned toward man as being a cause. I have and I will continue to look at the issue and the science. But until the data makes a huge change you are the one on the political side of the issue, not me. I am not trying to change anybodies life style. Can you make the same claim?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #94 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. Science it putting out info today. The difference between my side and yours? Your side quotes a researcher and it is biblical in its truth. I post an opposing researcher, senator, org, group ect ect ect ect and they are evil ones bought out by the big oil companies. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #95 May 20, 2007 QuoteDifference between you and me? I think you might be wrong. You imply I am stupid for even considering the other side. See any difference?? Plus, you always write your own words -- not always true when Jennyfly makes a post. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #96 May 20, 2007 Quote The difference between my side and yours? Your side Talk about mind-reading! You keep announcing what "my side" is. But I DON'T HAVE A "SIDE"! In fact, it's complete inane bullshit to have a side. Science doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YOU have sides. And that proves you're thinking of this as a political debate, not a scientific investigation. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #97 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuote The difference between my side and yours? Your side Talk about mind-reading! You keep announcing what "my side" is. But I DON'T HAVE A "SIDE"! In fact, it's complete inane bullshit to have a side. Science doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YOU have sides. And that proves you're thinking of this as a political debate, not a scientific investigation. YYYyyyaaaaa right............."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #98 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 May 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. Ya, I noticed. Only you are on the political side. So, I have no choice but to play the same. There is no science that say or even indicates that man is a major influence when it comes to the warming of the planet. Since that is the truth, you, are playing politics. So, (if you are right) then I have no choice. Science can not in and of itself make major policy changes. Poloitics can. Get the point?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 May 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. By the way, not comment on "how you know me"? Sucks to get caught in that shit now doesn't it!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 17 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jenfly00 0 #84 May 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA? Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical. And you don't consider that an insult? Wow American Heritage Dictionary - fanatical: adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal You outright claimed it didn't exist. Then scientific opinion opposing your view continued to mount and you were pretty much forced to retreat to the position that it existed ...but stopped in 1998! Backed against the wall by the world scientific community, you now seem to admit it exists but man had nothing to do with causing it. Your recent attempts at internet erudition basically boil down to 'I'm agin it, cause dem liberals is fur it.' You post prolifically and adamantly. Surely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #85 May 18, 2007 QuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 May 18, 2007 Bill - I *think* this is the presentation that I read .... but I'm not 100% sure. http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/day1/03_Solanki.pptMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #87 May 18, 2007 Interesting presentation, one that discusses an as-yet poorly understood phenomenon (solar wind mediated shielding from cosmic rays.) One such analysis indicates that increased solar activity generates more solar wind (and related magnetic activity) providing better heliospheric shielding from cosmic rays. We don't care about this much directly because our atmosphere provides pretty good shielding from such rays. However, higher up in the atmosphere, an increase in cosmic ray bombardment results in greater nucleation opportunities for clouds. So in this theory, more solar output = less cosmic radiation = less clouds. Fewer clouds during the day = warmer planet, fewer clouds at night = cooler planet. One preliminary conclusion one could draw from the research presented is that since they see a correlation between sunspot number and temperature increase that it is possible that we're seeing the "fewer clouds during the day" scenario. This whole process has recently been 'mucked up' a bit by our injection of high altitude aerosols that serve much the same function. Our aerosols create a similar effect to cosmic ray nuclei, but to a greater degree. In general this causes a _cooling_ effect since our larger amount of gunk in the upper atmosphere reflects more light than it absorbs, and induces the formation of 'whiter' (more reflective) clouds. The interplay between these two phenomena are among the least-well understood parts of climate modeling. Some caveats about this presentation is that they are not discussing solar _output_ i.e. how much sun gets to the earth and/or how much the sun is warming the planet; they are discussing a much more indirect effect caused by flux linkage in the heliosphere. In addition, they note that their analysis disregards the last 25 years, because they did not see a correlation between sunspot activity and climate during that time. This may be due to anthropogenic high altitude aerosols starting to have an effect (although they've been around a lot longer than 25 years!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #88 May 18, 2007 I appreciate the comments - do you think that this also ties in to the observed temperature increases on Mars and Neptune, and could those observed increases in temperature be proof of a primary forcing by solar activity?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #89 May 18, 2007 > I appreciate the comments - do you think that this also ties in to >the observed temperature increases on Mars and Neptune . . I very much doubt it! We barely understand the climate on our own planet, much less the climate on Mars - and we don't even know how the martian climate is changing. The evidence we do have: Using the Viking lander data from the 1970's, the planet has been cooling for the last 35 years (at least where the landers were, compared to measurements taken more recently by orbiters with IR temperature sensors.) Using telescope data, the south pole of the planet looks like it's warming, as evinced by evaporation of the southern ice cap. One possibility is, as you mentioned, an increase in solar irradiation. However, you'd think we'd see the same percentage increase here, and so far we haven't. A second possibility is that the 1970's saw a large number of planetary dust storms, and those dust storms have been gradually settling down. The dust storms sometimes cool the planet overall since the dust is considerably lighter (higher albedo) than the surface of the planet - but they also warm the planet paradoxically sometimes. We don't know enough about them to know if that's a factor or not. On the other hand, the poles of Jupiter are getting cooler. Again, this is likely not due to a change in solar irradiation, but rather a change in atmospheric dynamics that's reducing the number of storms - and storms generally transport heat from equator to pole. But we understand Jupiter's atmosphere even less than the atmosphere of Mars, since we have never landed a weather station there. We would likely get more meaningful results from a planet without weather (like Mercury) but I have yet to see good temperature studies done on that planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #90 May 19, 2007 Thanks, Bill - Would you agree that it's a fair summation to say that nobody really knows what affect this increased activity has, then? I admit - I poke fun at the "it's all because of Man" crowd, but the "it's all due to natural occurrences" crowd doesn't convince me, either.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #91 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians. I got to find those cameras and mind reading devices. How else could you have such a through understanding of my mind and positions. Got to get my tin foil hat back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #92 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA? Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical. And you don't consider that an insult? Wow American Heritage Dictionary - fanatical: adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal You outright claimed it didn't exist.God this get fucking old. I posted an articel/ op ed and you say this is my position? You and billvon working together now? You have completely missed my point and my position Then scientific opinion opposing your view continued to mount and you were pretty much forced to retreat to the position that it existed ...but stopped in 1998!See above. but I don't see any hope of you understanding my point or position Backed against the wall by the world scientific community, you now seem to admit it exists but man had nothing to do with causing it. I aint backed up against nothing. Strike three? Your recent attempts at internet erudition basically boil down to 'I'm agin it, cause dem liberals is fur it.' You post prolifically and adamantly. Surely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. It is only "exessive" if the point does not agree with you it seems to me. Mountian of data and research are creating serious questions as to whether man has an (any impact) on the current warming cycle. But you are so locked into the "how can anybody not see it the way I do" mentality you will not even consider my perspective. Difference between you and me? I think you might be wrong. You imply I am stupid for even considering the other side. See any difference??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #93 May 20, 2007 Quote>You know full well that was the title of the article posted. Yes, which is what I said. That's what YOU NO, that was the publishers title of the article!!titled YOUR post. If you do not mean the things you post, that's fine - just make that clear.[b >So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic? The only two people discussing the science of global warming here are nmealtx and I. You're defending your favorite political position. (Well, you were. You said "it's time to end the discussion" - but perhaps that was another thing you posted that you didn't mean.) But if you would like to debate the science, here's one. If you do not believe man is causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere - where is all the carbon we're burning going? And what other source is causing the carbon increase that we have seen? There a small insignificant CO2 increased being caused by man. My point all along however is that the CO2 in not a leading cause of temp increased. It is a following result. The oceans contain and hold more CO2 than anything. As the temp increases water can not hold the same amount of gas and it releases some of it. Because of the size of the oceans an extremely small percentage release would amount to measurable CO2 levels. Again, is the world warming? Yes. Is man causing or accelerating it? I don't think so. Today, many early GWing proponents have changed their minds. Even one of the first ones and the founder of Green Peace believe the "man made" GWing issue is now political not science based. And these once savers of the planet and now being ripped to shreds’ as deniers and ignored. Sorry Bill, but I once leaned toward man as being a cause. I have and I will continue to look at the issue and the science. But until the data makes a huge change you are the one on the political side of the issue, not me. I am not trying to change anybodies life style. Can you make the same claim?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #94 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteSurely you understand that people would view that as an excessive, irrational zeal on the issue. Yes. Me for instance. And I've said so many times, but rushmc just won't have any of it. He's 110% certain that his political position will be validated by scientists eventually. Science it putting out info today. The difference between my side and yours? Your side quotes a researcher and it is biblical in its truth. I post an opposing researcher, senator, org, group ect ect ect ect and they are evil ones bought out by the big oil companies. I think this is a sign of a basic misunderstanding about the world. He thinks the opinions of good (republican) politicians create the reality that scientists discover -- unless they're corrupt in which case they discover the reality designed by the bad (democrat) politicians."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #95 May 20, 2007 QuoteDifference between you and me? I think you might be wrong. You imply I am stupid for even considering the other side. See any difference?? Plus, you always write your own words -- not always true when Jennyfly makes a post. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #96 May 20, 2007 Quote The difference between my side and yours? Your side Talk about mind-reading! You keep announcing what "my side" is. But I DON'T HAVE A "SIDE"! In fact, it's complete inane bullshit to have a side. Science doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YOU have sides. And that proves you're thinking of this as a political debate, not a scientific investigation. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #97 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuote The difference between my side and yours? Your side Talk about mind-reading! You keep announcing what "my side" is. But I DON'T HAVE A "SIDE"! In fact, it's complete inane bullshit to have a side. Science doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YOU have sides. And that proves you're thinking of this as a political debate, not a scientific investigation. YYYyyyaaaaa right............."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #98 May 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 May 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. Ya, I noticed. Only you are on the political side. So, I have no choice but to play the same. There is no science that say or even indicates that man is a major influence when it comes to the warming of the planet. Since that is the truth, you, are playing politics. So, (if you are right) then I have no choice. Science can not in and of itself make major policy changes. Poloitics can. Get the point?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 May 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteScience doesn't have "sides". POLITICS has sides. YYYyyyaaaaa right............. You might want to give my post a little more thought than that. I'm pointing out something important here. By the way, not comment on "how you know me"? Sucks to get caught in that shit now doesn't it!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
