|
|
|
|
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/29/2009 3:00:14 PM |
Also, and I'll say it again, I think it's time to look at energy usage beyond the AGW debate.
I completely agree. Pretty much everyone agrees the average global temperature is increasing, and whether that be through increased CO2 emissions, solar fluxes, or simply the earth recovering from the Little Ice Age is irrelevant, so let's move on and focus on what we can do: find an effective and affordable renewable energy so that we (take your pick) (1) decrease CO2 emissions or (2) have an alternative to fossil fuels before they run out. We might also start thinking about adapting to a changing climate. So let's stop the debate, stop spending money trying to find out the cause (because we need to stop using fossil fuels anyway), and use the research money where it can make a difference at this point. | |
|
| |
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:05:56 PM | honestyly .... the ice is melting worldwide.
the oceans will rise ...
the northwest passage will be open more
prepare for it .
it doesn't matter what the cause was.
Its happening and we need to learn to live with it. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:02:01 AM |
I think it's time to look at energy usage beyond the AGW debate.
Just when did this dawn on everyone? Was it some bureaucratic report? Its been blatently obvious at least my entire life. What have you done to reduce waste and have you helped your neighbors do better as well? Have you done your best to inspire youth to reduce their individual impact and search for knowledge?
Our society has, over the past 30 years, moved from emphasis on substance to valuing image. We glorify the waste exemplified by celebrities and the celebrity lawyers who keep them out of jail. The news is full of images of yet another oppulent Trump wedding and glorifying a dead drug abusing pop singer who had a special interest in young boys. We have celebrities lobbying for one of their own found guilty of raping a minor and fleeing the country. The lessons are not lost on the average citizen inspiring a need to show off their own "wealth" with giant SUVs and McMansions. Private jets have become the mainstay of celebrities and politicians including the prize winning guru of global warming. If you want to see who is guilty, look in the mirror. Instead of pursuing solutions, we turn to a president with absolutely no substance but great image and charisma and a cabinet of tax cheats who promises to punish those who can deliver solutions. Not to leave out the religious right, they are guilty of pooring resources into oppulant megachurches attended in their fine monster SUVs. The change that is needed is a change in what we value and that can't be legislated. We have to find in our own heart what really counts and be the example others emulate. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:18:05 AM |
Just when did this dawn on everyone? Was it some bureaucratic report? Its been blatently obvious at least my entire life. What have you done to reduce waste and have you helped your neighbors do better as well? Have you done your best to inspire youth to reduce their individual impact and search for knowledge?
I remember it as part of my school lessons in the '70s. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/30/2009 11:27:41 AM |
I remember it as part of my school lessons in the '70s.
Back when there would be no oil in twenty years but not to worry because the ice age will come first? Then disco happend and society has headed down ever since.
I was preparing for high school science fair with my last shot at going to national because I was a senior. I found out some professors had just been granted a patent in my project idea just as I had it working. I came up with a new project to improve fuel economy in vehicles using an untrasonic fuel injection system. The system enabled engines to use water with unleaded low octane gas to lower combustion temperatures but maintain complete combustion with a large increase in power and lower emissions. I won every award at the state science fair but was one place out of national. I chose the university where the wind energy researchers got their patent to attent college. In between, I worked as an engineer for IBM at 18. It wasn't until the professors' patent expired 20 years later that the generator technology from my original project began to be deployed in wind turbines. It allows the generator to turn at a variable speed but electronically stay in sync with the AC mains. This reduced the complexity and waste of the transmission and turbine pitch control systems in the turbines. One might get the impression energy conservation has been more than just a homework assignment for me. My version of the 70's show was quite eventful. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:49:34 PM |
Then disco happend and society has headed down ever since.
That's funny, and when I think about it, you're right. One could argue, though, that correlation does not prove causality on this one. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:17:25 PM | I wonder how much funding is directed toward cyclical climate research.....
Can't be much because science admits they still don't understand the first thing about cyclical climate (but they sure know everything about manmade Co2). Hell, they still don't even understand everything about that big fiery ball in the sky or the true effects/causation of ocean currents or the true effects/causation of upper and lower cloud formations or internal/external forcing..... the list goes on and on and on.
And yet the IPCC completely omitted any possibility of cyclical climate from the climate change equation and only considered CO2 as the primary driver. And why, you say ? Because they don't understand cyclical climate change (they clearly admitted this in their AR4 report), therefore it shouldn't be a part of the equation. WTF ?? Is this what's considered 'good science' nowadays ? Looking at one thing and saying "yup, that's what it has to be boys" and "let's make a whole bunch of computer prediction models for the next 100 years based on this one thing to prove it too". And wasn't the IPCC the ones who faithfully jumped feet first onto the uncritically non-peer reviewed 'hockey stick' graph to prove that AGW was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them gawd ?
And why the hell aren't people (especially scientists) asking/demanding that cyclical climate be intensely studied, understood, and scrutinized before it gets completely ruled out as a possible part (and/or whole) of the correlation/causation equation ?
The 1970's - John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich jumping up and down screaming mankind is causing a global ice age and demanding immediate action.
2009 - John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich jumping up and down screaming mankind is causing global warming and demanding immediate action.
Reducing pollutants, conserving energy, getting off of the fossil fuel 'nipple', saving our flora and fauna, embracing 'smart' technology..... makes perfect sense to me.
But cap and trade ?
And money exchanging hands in payment of 'carbon debt' ?
All because of an assumption of causation ??
We only have one chance to get this right folks....
Cross your fingers.
 | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:33:57 PM | Msg 97
Thought I would revive this thread, since another on global warming has limits to the number of posts we are allowed to make.
Yes. Nova. Those other threads became rife with the same old posters posting up the same old junk (all the while pretending they have not been refuted.) It is no wonder that the mods elected to limit the posts. Chances are, most people interested in these topics will be familiar with what posts are just repetitious tripe (as we see even this one is starting get the same way.) We, The Collective can easily supply a link to a thread that proves it is all argumentum ad nauseam (should some challenge us on this instead of sticking to the topic.)
Msg 97
I've found a couple of interesting articles recently on global warming, from opposing camps;
First, I've become a fan of Nir Shaviv, who inadvertently entered the AGW sceptics' camp when he discovered the effect of solar winds on clouds and therefore on global temperatures. Here's a great article on his story:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063707.html
If you are talking about his article, http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf it IS a very interesting read. There is a correlation between your Sun’s transit through the density waves and Ice Ages. However, the link to Cosmic Ray Flux is still tenuous (one could say a “coincidence”). Shaviv’s work is pretty thorough, and contrary to what most deniers want to believe (and as you have probably noticed) he doesn’t deny the appreciable contribution of GHG to the departure since heavy industrialization.
Recent studies have made the connection between Cosmic Rays and mean global temperature sketchy (or dodgy) at best. Even with “lag time”, the findings make the CRF (that’s Cosmic Ray Flux for those that haven’t read the article) an unlikely driver.
This still doesn’t detract from Shaviv’s discovery that there is a link between Sol’s position relative to the density waves. There is definitely a relationship. Whether the relationship is really due to say comet activity, cosmic rays, dust particles, dark matter, etc… is not determined. Many things are perturbed by density waves. However, there is a smoking gun there.
As you note, the period of perturbation by this intra-galactic positioning is on a scale far beyond the current GHG forcing. If not for the recent studies in Cosmic Ray Flux these rays could have been as he suggests. Hence the 30-70 split between GHG and CRF could be possible. However, the recent studies are less encouraging.
The problem with Shaviv lately is in his sensationalist statements in the article you noted. We have no doubts that it’s a combination of bravado, and a realization that it is a good way to earn some publicity (and potentially some extra income for movie rights etc.) His work is real, but the connection to climate change via CRF is not panning out.
Msg 97
The other is by a group of scientists who have found an arctic sediment core that they think shows that humans have had an effect on global temperature
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1771883/arctic_lake_sediments_show
_warming_unique_ecological_changes/index.html
Haven’t had a chance to read this in detail, but we do remember seeing it online. It’s Halloween. The queen summons. Will check on this article later.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
| |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:20:19 PM | Wow, Dave, I found a lot to agree with in your post. Especially this part:
Instead of pursuing solutions, we turn to a president with absolutely no substance but great image and charisma and a cabinet of tax cheats who promises to punish those who can deliver solutions.
I absolutely agree that Ronald Reagan marked a significant turning point to the worse in the U.S. Were it not for him we'd be global leaders in alternative energy, rather than buying our windmill parts from overseas.
Hey, if y'all wanna skip the climate change debate and go straight to sustainable living practices, I'm all for it! Good thing we finally have a president who is setting that as a priority.
Dave | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/1/2009 3:09:06 AM | CERN has an upcoming project that's finally underway.
It's called the CLOUD project and basically it's going to form clouds in a specially made chamber, testing the GCR cloud formation hypothesis (Svensmark 1997), ionization, condensation nuclei, etc.
Quote from Dr. Jasper Kirkby :
"I think the evidence for a link between reconstructions of past climate change and solar activity is too strong to ignore," explains Jasper Kirkby, "There are a lot of observations showing that variations of the sun seem to be affecting the climate, but we don’t yet know what the mechanism for this is."
It seems there are a number of solar physicists not yet ready to give up on the notion that the sun could be the driving factor in climate change.
This is a 9 million dollar endeavour, and a first of its kind. Exciting stuff.
I think we're finally getting down to the nitty gritty of solar science.
The project will begin near the end of 2009 and continue thru 2010 ++.
Link to CERN's colliquium seminar with a great video explaining everything from basic solar physics, to historical data and correlations with temperature/climate change, why CERN and other scientists are so interested in this project, etc etc :
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
And here's the link to more info about the CLOUD project :
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849
Note : Also scroll down to the bottom of this page to go to the CLOUD website were you can find a breakdown of the actual project, schedule, costs, etc.
This is a huge project undertaking, with scientists collaborating from all over the place ! I'm surprised it hasn't had more media coverage.
The big fiery ball in the sky and all its mysteries has not finished telling its story yet !
 | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:36:39 AM | Just watched this video. Very interesting. At the very end someone in the audience asked whether Shaviv's calculations were correct, and although Kirkby is not qualified to make that assessment, he indicated that he had spoken to a number of astrophysicists who had indicated that his calculations were correct.
Rather exciting to see a science developing like this (i.e., the cloud chamber); will be interesting to see the results of their work | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/1/2009 8:40:30 AM | Hey, Stargazer
I didn't respond to your post about Shaviv's cloud theory:
Well, I looked it up and, quite frankly, I find Shaviv's hypothesis dodgy at best. For one thing, in the sun's orbit of the Milky Way, the sun never strays that far from the disk.
A couple things about this:
1. Not sure we're on the same page on this one. Shaviv talks about the Earth traversing the spiral arms of the Milky Way, not the sun. Was that what you were referring to with your comment above? Here's what Shaviv had to say about the Milky Way:
"The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy with arms," Shaviv continues. "We traverse one of these arms every 145 million years. If the sun's cyclical changes translate into a shift of one degree on earth, then the changes when we traverse such an arm, close to supernovae, will be on the order of 10 degrees, which is a huge amount.
So, I think Shaviv is saying that every 145 million years, the earth goes into an ice age because of the amplification of the sun's affect when the Earth is at that location within the Milky Way (a 1 degree change would be amplified into a 10 degree change)
2.In addition, I disagree with your conclusion that Shaviv's hypothesis is dodgy, as his article was selected as "one of the year's 100 most important discoveries" by the science publication Discover.
In that same post you go on to talk about CO2 again, but, in fact, that does nothing to argue for or against the effect of the sun's activity on clouds and therefore temperature. True, the mechanism for the relationship between the sun and the earth's temp has not yet been proven, but if it had no validity, I'm sure the CLOUD experiment in CERN would not be proceeding without some support for the experts. This is no way negates the fact that we know that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse" gas, but it could add another variable into the AGW equation. Perhaps in a few years we will know how much of a contribution CO2 makes to AGW. I think right now it's overestimated, but I'm not sure by how much. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:58:44 AM |
Not sure we're on the same page on this one. Shaviv talks about the Earth traversing the spiral arms of the Milky Way, not the sun.
Same thing.
So, I think Shaviv is saying that every 145 million years, the earth goes into an ice age because of the amplification of the sun's affect when the Earth is at that location within the Milky Way (a 1 degree change would be amplified into a 10 degree change)
Which really means nothing. Sol's orbit around the Milky Way is roughly 250 million years. So, every 125 million years, it is either "above" or "below" the plane of the Milky Way. At present, the sun is preferentially above one "hemisphere" of the Milky Way's disk as evidenced by the fact that we see more of the bulge in one direction than the other. In other words, not anywhere near the ascending or descending node of the Sun's orbit of the Milky Way. For positioning and perspective purposes, the sun passes in the sky about six degrees away from the position of the center of the Milky Way.
That's the same reason why that 2012 "cosmic alignment" BS is BS...but that's another post.
I point that out because the inference is that the sun - and therefore Earth's - passage through the plane of the Milky Way is going to have an effect on climate. And it might. But it likely isn't a factor now.
There's more evidence that natural perturbation-induced variations in eccentricity in Earth's orbit has an effect on Earth's climate than the location of the sun's orbit of the Milky Way.
as his article was selected as "one of the year's 100 most important discoveries" by the science publication Discover.
And, not being a member of the Discover Magazine editorial board (one of my favourite mags, by the way), I'm not beholden to their conclusions.
In that same post you go on to talk about CO2 again, but, in fact, that does nothing to argue for or against the effect of the sun's activity on clouds and therefore temperature.
The question is over whether or not cosmic ray (and their subsequent secondary particle showers since the interaction between atmosphere and primary particles occur about 100 kms or more above the planet's surface) have an effect on Earth's cloud cover.
Perhaps they do...but how does that compare to the effect of normal cloud forming processes. I suspect its by orders of magnitude. Secondly, cosmic ray counts drop in period of high solar activity. Some of the warmest years on record occurred during the highest solar activity, rendering the effect even more questionable.
There is no question that the Earth's climate is warming. The only contention is the contribution of human activity.
if it had no validity, I'm sure the CLOUD experiment in CERN would not be proceeding without some support for the experts.
It's worth examining, absolutely. Every experiment that expands our understanding of the natural processes around us is worth the effort. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 3:56:46 AM | Stargazer and Borg
You seem to agree on the following (quote from Borg):
Recent studies have made the connection between Cosmic Rays and mean global temperature sketchy (or dodgy) at best.
So, it will be interesting to see whether a causative relationship does exist. Time will tell I suppose.
I would never compare this science with that of the 2012 crowd, however. It's one thing to say the science is dodgy, but to compare the hypothesis of a legitimate academic with a fear-mongoring pseudoscience is more than unfair.
In any case, I don't agree with the concept of the op; climate is such a complex system. There's no reason to think there can't be a large number of factors that enter into the equation. It seems that we're finally getting past the idea that the science is settled and we're continuing to learn more. Not a bad thing, for sure. | |
|
| |
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:17:24 AM | And the tone of the thread decays, after all, Halloween is now a candy wrapper memory and there must be a sugar withdrawal.
The new scientific terms:
repetitious tripe…..argumentum ad nauseam…… sketchy (or dodgy)…….sensationalist……..bravado
This one is good in that it sums up the AGW argument:
tenuous (one could say a “coincidence”)
The science of solar emissions on cloud formation is pretty straight forward. Particulates and ionization tracks result from solar emissions and seed cloud formation. Any CO2 relationship is coincidental feed by the label “green house gas” that is blatantly misleading in that CO2 has nothing to do with green house temperatures. That is a result of the glass that reflects IR much like clouds do.
It is An Inconvenient Truth that making movies seems to the norm:
earn some publicity (and potentially some extra income for movie rights etc.)
If making movies are grounds to dismiss a hypothesis, then why not the AGW hypothesis? Gore has made millions from his fear mongering film and now flies around in a private jet getting paid to tell everyone to ride bicycles to reduce their carbon footprint. The nature of CO2 IR absorption is narrow band much like the IR absorption of Oxygen. There are a number of nice animations of chemical bonds out there but hardly ground breaking special effects. Not much plot for a movie without playing on fear or hate of evil oil companies. On the other hand, fear mongering for profit can lead to schemes to make billions off trading nothing but numbers between regulators at everyone’s expense. Fear mongering movies like An Inconvenient Truth and 2012 have been around a long time. There have even been some delving into changes in the sun’s radiation.
Ronald Reagan marked a significant turning point to the worse in the U.S.
I have to admit I voted against him and certainly did not favor his deficit spending but he did end the morass of the Carter years and ended the cold war. This ended new production of nuclear weapons, freed Eastern Europe and started a long economic growth period in the US and the world. I agree, there was way too much conspicuous consumption. The current president, like Reagan, was elected for his charisma but is clearly bringing back the morass of the Carter years and makes Reagan deficit spending appear paltry. His total lack of resolve in dealing with the world’s bad boys appears to be leading to a new nuclear arms race among terrorist states. I don’t recall Reagan’s cabinet being full of tax cheats. I hope Obama doesn’t bring back disco.
On Reagan:
Were it not for him we'd be global leaders in alternative energy, rather than buying our windmill parts from overseas.
Wind energy was a big deal when I started college prior to Carter. Carter actually campaigned on campus with alternative energy as his primary focus. I actually chose that university because of the alternative energy research. All OPEC had to do to shut it down was turn on the tap and the bird whackers would not be built. Some of the technologies I studied for wind energy were later classified for the Star Wars program and appear to remain classified. The biggest problems were safety related and I guess they were never solved. Although the greater risk was with storage systems, one the school’s big wind turbines exploded with shrapnel taking out another. There is a good video of one of several turbines in Europe that have exploded. For the most part, wind turbine safety issues are kept out of the press but this turbine kept spinning long enough to be caught on video and allow evacuation of the area.
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-exploding-wind-turbine
On the environmental front, it seems more military technology will be required to deploy early warning radar for these turbines so they can shut down when migratory birds are at risk.
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/using-radar-to-protect-birds-from-wind-farms/
Since the wind does not blow constantly, a full capacity fuel based generator network needs to be maintained with an expanded transmission grid to collect power from the disperse turbines. This too has run afoul of environmental concerns.
I drive past a factory not far from me that makes the big turbine blades. An irony is the factory used to make oil drilling rigs. They are shipped on the interstate in extra long trucks as these turbines have about the same wing span as a 747. The impact on wind currents down stream of a turbine expands in a cone but since the cone soon meets the ground, the impact is steered vertically in altitude. As thousands of these turbines are deployed, wind currents will be impacted. These currents distribute moisture from the ocean over land masses. When mountain ranges block similar wind currents, the result is often deserts. So what will be the impact of wind turbines on climate? Oh wait! There are links from the wind energy industry that say they don’t cause any problems for birds or climate. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:36:14 AM |
The science of solar emissions on cloud formation is pretty straight forward. Particulates and ionization tracks result from solar emissions and seed cloud formation. Any CO2 relationship is coincidental feed by the label “green house gas” that is blatantly misleading in that CO2 has nothing to do with green house temperatures. That is a result of the glass that reflects IR much like clouds do.
Except that such emissions don't make it through the Van Allen belts but but are, instead, directed by Earth's magnetic field toward the north and south pole. The only particles that have the "oomph" to punch through Earth's magnetic field and make it to the atmosphere are cosmic rays. However, their interactions occur many, manyKILOMETRES above the planet's surface, well above the troposphere. Secondary particles do make it down to the Earth, however, I would debate their efficacy in acting as nuclei for clouds. We have far, far more efficient nuclei for that...dust and other particulates. One could argue even meteoritic dust would be far more abundant and efficient.
Any CO2 relationship is coincidental feed by the label “green house gas” that is blatantly misleading in that CO2 has nothing to do with green house temperatures.
Well, that is certainly YOUR opinion and you're entitled to it. However, clearly not everyone is in agreement with you.
I have to admit I voted against him and certainly did not favor his deficit spending but he did end the morass of the Carter years and ended the cold war.
He "ended" the cold war only in that the social experiment that was the Soviet Union was rapidly running out of gas, anyway.
2012
*groan!* And on that, Dave, I'm sure we can both agree on. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 11:46:34 AM |
Except that such emissions don't make it through the Van Allen belts....
Odd how such interactions are the primary cause of soft errors in electronics I have to design for when it comes to military and aircraft systems. These interactions are measureable even underground. The whole process of most radiation detection equipment and soft errors is based on effects similar to cloud formation. The direct imact of ionoization on cloud formation is also of interest as these are like tiny contrails. The point of this thread concerns solar emissions. One aspect of this "solar wind" is its impact on space born dust. How this effects the formation of clouds would depend on dust concentration, composition, and locations of concentrations along with the nature of the solar emissions.
He "ended" the cold war only in that the social experiment that was the Soviet Union was rapidly running out of gas, anyway.
The economics of trying to match "starwars" was the key. the Soviets had oil resources etc. that could sustain an economy but not a military that could keep up with the Jones. A large part of starwars was hype specifically designed to appear very expensive to counter.
The label "green house gas" directly links the AGW theory to green houses. If you have an explanation of how CO2 is either responsible for green house heat or emulates the heating process of a green house, please share it. In reality, unless deliberately added, green houses have less CO2 inside than outside due to the plants. CO2 passes the vast majority of the IR spectrum without any interference no matter how dense. The radiated IR from the earth's surface does not change wavelength, therefor it will not be stopped by CO2 no matter how dense. This is not the case with the glass on a green house or clouds in the atmosphere that reflect and/or absorbe radiated IR over a broad band. At current density, the CO2 in the atmosphere will have absorbed all the IR it can from the earth within a few hundred feet of the surface. All the rest will be untouched unless reflected or absorbed by clouds. Assuming clouds (or CO2) absorb radiated heat in the form of IR, it will just as easily radiate it. Reflected IR will likely return to the surface and be re-absorbed. CO2 is significantly more dense than most atmospheric gasses causing it to be slightly more concentrated near the surface.
I will give ten to one odds on 2012 being the end of the earth. If it is, I will pay ten times your bet and if not, you only loose your bet at face value. Any takers?
As for the recent research on solar flux impacting the climate, it will not dispel manmade global warming hype any more than rational arguments change other religious beliefs. You could go back in my posts a couple of years back and find my comments about particulates from space being a factor in cloud formation. Then again I was dealing with such issues 25 years ago in dealing with soft errors in electronics. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 12:06:21 PM | Odd how such interactions are the primary cause of soft errors in electronics I have to design for when it comes to military and aircraft systems.
Okay, are we talking cosmic rays or solar emissions? Because problems with aircraft travelling through the arctic region would definitely make sense for solar emissions. However, as I pointed out, cosmic rays do come through the van Allen belts and are known to cause problems.
These interactions are measureable even underground.
How far underground? Since neutrino observatories like the one we have in Sudbury are located in old mines to filter out particle interactions and reduce "noise", it can't be very far.
One aspect of this "solar wind" is its impact on space born dust. How this effects the formation of clouds would depend on dust concentration, composition, and locations of concentrations along with the nature of the solar emissions.
Citation? This seems a tad vague.
The label "green house gas" directly links the AGW theory to green houses.
No, not really. Just a simple example of a much more complex process. A way to visualize the concept.
As for the recent research on solar flux impacting the climate, it will not dispel manmade global warming hype any more than rational arguments change other religious beliefs.
And one could counter that rational arguments won't sway the religion of the AGW deniers either. That's a he said/she said argument that leads nowhere but circles. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 1:58:43 PM | What arrives on this planet as a result of the sun and its emissions is both readily observable yet not well quantified. The impact on cloud cover is also not well understood. Ionizing high energy particles are quite capable of triggering precipitation into clouds. Dust particles are quite capable of precipitating clouds. The force on dust particles floating in space from solar emissions can have increases in atmospheric contact simply from increased velocity. What part[s] of this is so hard to grasp?
The issues with electronic soft errors are two fold. The safety issues with control systems in aircraft make fault tolorance very important. Second, the amount of soft errors increases with altitude. The obvious conclusion is that the particles with enough energy to flip bits are found everywhere and they must be interacting with the atmosphere at all levels for there to be an altitude factor.
If the name were not GREEN HOUSE gas then other implications of the mechanism and characteristics would be possible but there is that specific label GREEN HOUSE. It does not imply anything other than the gas has a direct relationship to the environment in a green house. Specifically that implies the heat of a GREEN HOUSE which is usually higher than ambient is a direct result of the gas. To many if not most people, this means green house gasses are what make green houses hot and therefor will make earth hotter. The problem is that the gases in a green house have nothing to do with its ambient temperature. It would appear that the term held so dearly is a deliberate deception of the public. That begs the question why? Al Gore make millions off selling the concept and he has been awarded the Nobel prize for it. That would seem to be reasonable motive for perpetuating a deception. Academics who live for grants are motivated by money to feed the political machine that makes such grants and that again is the selling of fear. Political powers benefit from needing to fix something and this provides an excellent marketing tool.
That's a he said/she said argument that leads nowhere but circles.
I have directly addressed the science that leads to my conclusions about the AGW theory and concerns over the environmental damage from the fixes for this non-problem. Where have I relied on any "he said" citations? The claims that this has been refuted by a few links to "he said" AGW web sites that do not address the specific points are hollow.
Do you feel CO2 is a pollution? I don't in that without it, we all die and with increase in it, plants, the true solar energy collectors, work that much better. things like Carbon monoxide are pollutants. Without any of them, we are better off. With even small amounts, we die.
The fossil fuels we burn sould be valued more highly but where did they come from? The carbon in them was once atmospheric CO2 when the atmosphere had a lot more CO2 than it does now. The fossil fuels are biofuels from life that relied on the CO2. There was a lot more CO2 that is permanently sequestered in rock we will likely never find a use for other than the rock itself. The long term CO2 trend for earth is down. If we loose much more, life on this planet will have to scale back. But then it has been doing that for millions of years. In the mean time, the earth goes through climate cycles as it always has. from my experience with spectral analysis, it appears there are both multiple cyclic forcing functions and a variety of harmonics. Nothing surprising. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:27:43 PM |
Specifically that implies the heat of a GREEN HOUSE which is usually higher than ambient is a direct result of the gas. To many if not most people, this means green house gasses are what make green houses hot and therefor will make earth hotter. The problem is that the gases in a green house have nothing to do with its ambient temperature. It would appear that the term held so dearly is a deliberate deception of the public.
Even way back in my high school youth when I first heard of "greenhouse gasses" in chemistry class, even when I didn't believe in/agree with AGW, or even GW for that matter, I wasn't dense enough to see the term in the manner you describe. A greenhouse is mostly glass; it lets radiation in, but is slow to let heat out. Hence, that is the metaphor with a greenhouse gas-- it acts like glass.
"To many if not most people" is highly speculative. There is no deliberate deception here, just a poor argument on your part. Some of your arguments seem fairly valid; the above isn't one of them. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 3:11:16 PM | Dave,
      
you backed up everything that I've said concerning this thread.!!!!!!!
With common sense AND Documented proof tooo!!!!!!
TYTYTYTYTYTYUTYYUTYTYTYTYTYTYTYTYTY...
Dale | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 5:03:24 PM |
Even way back in my high school youth.......
The term predates your schooling by decades. The theory expands on experiments in the 1800's that have since been debunked as the technology of the day was not adequate to deal with the physics. In your day, there is a good chance you were taught CO2 was the third most common gas in the atmosphere. It’s fourth behind Argon. I watched a recent tipping point science experiment used in high school to prove the danger of global warming. A constant rate of heat energy was added to a beaker of ice water and the temperature was monitored. The rate of temperature rise accelerated once the ice melted and therefor CO2 was causing global warming. CO2 was not part of the experiment and the conclusion did not connect with the experiment with anything but fear. That did not stop the "proof". This is happening in classrooms everywhere. Personally, I think religious beliefs in some kind of Armageddon should not be taught in science class.
Most people are not interested in science and accept terms on face value, generally from the most charismatic and/or authoritative people. They just want to survive the physics requirement by regurgitating just enough spoon-fed answers to pass. My high school physics teacher was primarily the basketball coach and probably could not model the physics of a three point shot. I could and was excused from class to study physics on my own. He didn't like me correcting him. I still broke the curve.
In reality, glass is NOT transparent to deep IR (thermal) and reflects it. This prevents radiant cooling. In thermal imaging equipment, lenses are made of Germanium or Sapphire that are transparent to most deep IR. Oddly enough, these lenses are not transparent to visible light. Prior to decent sensor devices, thermal imaging systems used exotic cooling systems to prevent the "noise" of the systems own heat getting in the way. These involved helium compressors etc. The early experiments predated refrigeration. Most night vision equipment uses near IR, not heat. IR illumination systems enhance light amplifying equipment but it doesn't need exotic lenses like deep IR. Helicopter pilots use near IR systems extensively with night vision goggles looking through the canopy. Thermal imaging can't do that. As a fly boy, you can get an idea of what's available from http://www.flir.com/US/
They have some decent cameras for private planes that are low enough resolution to not have ITAR license issues. Two different systems have been available on some high end cars with one being thermal and the other near IR. Thermal imaging can be used for medical diagnosis as well. Crowds of people can be scanned to pick out those with fever for disease control. Pretty cool stuff. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/2/2009 6:13:40 PM |
What part[s] of this is so hard to grasp?
Nice. Okay...
What arrives on this planet as a result of the sun and its emissions is both readily observable yet not well quantified. The impact on cloud cover is also not well understood. Ionizing high energy particles are quite capable of triggering precipitation into clouds. Dust particles are quite capable of precipitating clouds. The force on dust particles floating in space from solar emissions can have increases in atmospheric contact simply from increased velocity.
Hmm...impact on cloud cover not being well understood is the POINT I was trying to make. However, we do understand the interrelation between Earth and Sun pretty good. Years of study from the likes of SOHO and Ulysses (may he rest in peace). Astronomers can calculate the amount of matter in a CME, the amount of energy transferred to the upper atmosphere...
Oh, as for the "effects" of sunlight on interplanetary dust and even asteroids, again pretty well understood. Now, when you start talking dust, are you talking general interplanetary dust or are you talking cometary debris? Specifics, please.
You know, Dave, you want to start debating someone on their area of expertise, you might want to drop a bit of the superior attitude.
The obvious conclusion is that the particles with enough energy to flip bits are found everywhere and they must be interacting with the atmosphere at all levels for there to be an altitude factor.
However, clearly the question of the interaction between cosmic ray primary and secondary particles with the atmosphere and there impact on cloud production isn't well understood, otherwise they wouldn't be looking at setting up an experiment for that purpose.
Oh, and I'd say flyguy did a fine job with the whole "greenhouse" thing.
Do you feel CO2 is a pollution? I don't in that without it, we all die and with increase in it, plants, the true solar energy collectors, work that much better. things like Carbon monoxide are pollutants. Without any of them, we are better off. With even small amounts, we die.
Too much oxygen, we're dead. Everything in moderation. Which is kind of the point of the discussion, don't you think?
We know where all that carbon dioxide was...the question is what happens when it's all released again. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
