quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well they were all gloom and doom about the ozone at one time. They said that once those certain types of flourocarbons gets up there they are a catalyst, which means the emerge from the chemical reaction unscathed and will do it again. What happened to that ? What's more, there neer was an ozone layer. It is heavier so it always concentrated over the equator, and it is likely there was never any over the poles. But see the angle of incidence of the sunlight is so oblique up and down there they don't need ozone to protect them. Near the equator, you real DO need ozone up there. They also failed to mention that every time a rocket gets launched it is like releasing about a million pounds of Freon 12.

The ozone layer is getting smaller over Antarctica. While this is good for people with exposed skin and eyes down there, it's actually going to contribute to that area getting warmer, as ozone is itself a Greenhouse Gas.

So, we bend over backwards to stop releasing CFC's that eat away at the ozone layer, and 30-some years later, it's having a great effect (the life cycle of CFC's in the air is decades, so it's entirely reasonable that it's taken this long), and yet, it's also going to contribute to at least one area of the world getting warmer.

I think that demonstrates - and quite well - that we don't really know what impact we're having on the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
that was yesterdays bs, today we are concerned with another ice age. [8D]

Really? So where's the drop in average temperatures that's causing that, then?

[image]http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/wp-content/uploads/warming1.jpg[/image]

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but that graph shows a steady upwards growth in temperature since 1600. Were you looking at it upside down or something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BondageersT

I change my panties when I am hot.
is that CLIMATE CHANGE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

Sunspot activity affects the sun's gravitational field which acts to shield earth from cosmic (and other ) radiation. Weakening of the solar field results in greater radiation hitting the earth and earth's atmosphere. Svenmark showed those radiations were uniquely responsible for cloud formation, storm formation and increased temperature. For example, Svenmark et. al 2007.

The earth's magnetic field (also weakening) screens most of the equatorial regions. But just like you (should have) learned in elementary school the circular magnetic patterns result in greater radiation at the poles.

Guess where the only signs of "global" warming are occuring... Thats right.. at the poles.

That in fact reinforces the science that CO2 changes the radiant heat (IR waves) once [it] passes through the atmosphere.

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

I hope the doctor is correct. And I hope he is correct because the far superior profit motive in burning fossil fuels to that of the 'science' motive will in fact, have us humans burn every fucking gram of earth's fossil fuels into the atmosphere. HERE

Plus, earth's magnetic field is changing and could explain heat and drought in the SW US. To wit:

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past." HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've posted Evans paper here before.

If you know aught about co2 and greenhouse gasses, you would have to know that co2 must change the radiation, to have a greenhouse effect.

Co2 when it has absorbed energy can dissipate it through vibration, rotation, velocity, or reemission. Due to atmospheric pressure in the lower atmosphere the primary mechanism is via collision and momentum transfer. In the upper atmosphere, its predominantly through reemission, in co2's characteristic spectrum.

In other words, an incoming wavelength gets changed to co2's wavelength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

Sunspot activity affects the sun's gravitational field which acts to shield earth from cosmic (and other ) radiation. Weakening of the solar field results in greater radiation hitting the earth and earth's atmosphere. Svenmark showed those radiations were uniquely responsible for cloud formation, storm formation and increased temperature. For example, Svenmark et. al 2007.

The earth's magnetic field (also weakening) screens most of the equatorial regions. But just like you (should have) learned in elementary school the circular magnetic patterns result in greater radiation at the poles.

Guess where the only signs of "global" warming are occuring... Thats right.. at the poles.

That in fact reinforces the science that CO2 changes the radiant heat (IR waves) once [it] passes through the atmosphere.

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

I hope the doctor is correct. And I hope he is correct because the far superior profit motive in burning fossil fuels to that of the 'science' motive will in fact, have us humans burn every fucking gram of earth's fossil fuels into the atmosphere. HERE

Plus, earth's magnetic field is changing and could explain heat and drought in the SW US. To wit:

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past." HERE

So, you're admitting all of the climate histeria to date has, in affect, been histeria because, as I've consistently maintained, the climate models are full of sh*t?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've posted Evans paper here before.

If you know aught about co2 and greenhouse gasses, you would have to know that co2 must change the radiation, to have a greenhouse effect.

Co2 when it has absorbed energy can dissipate it through vibration, rotation, velocity, or reemission. Due to atmospheric pressure in the lower atmosphere the primary mechanism is via collision and momentum transfer. In the upper atmosphere, its predominantly through reemission, in co2's characteristic spectrum.

In other words, an incoming wavelength gets changed to co2's wavelength.

Ya, I recall in either partial or ordinary (forgotten which) Deferential equations I had to learn how to calculate the harmonic you're discussing.

My point is twofold.

All of the previous climate histeria that lead to the settle science of climate change is now shown to be wrong by a better understanding of the science which is still not really a settled science.

As is almost shown in this case, but not directly discussed, all of the "settled" science of climate change focuses on worst case scenerio. There is almost no discussion, that I'm aware of, of the earth having moderating systems in place. The earth is not a closed system where individual causes can be held and individual affects can be observed. Each cause will have multiple affects, the study of which I've not seen being modeled or investigated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've posted Evans paper here before.

If you know aught about co2 and greenhouse gasses, you would have to know that co2 must change the radiation, to have a greenhouse effect.

Co2 when it has absorbed energy can dissipate it through vibration, rotation, velocity, or reemission. Due to atmospheric pressure in the lower atmosphere the primary mechanism is via collision and momentum transfer. In the upper atmosphere, its predominantly through reemission, in co2's characteristic spectrum.

In other words, an incoming wavelength gets changed to co2's wavelength.

Ya, I recall in either partial or ordinary (forgotten which) Deferential equations I had to learn how to calculate the harmonic you're discussing.

My point is twofold.

All of the previous climate histeria that lead to the settle science of climate change is now shown to be wrong by a better understanding of the science which is still not really a settled science.

As is almost shown in this case, but not directly discussed, all of the "settled" science of climate change focuses on worst case scenerio. There is almost no discussion, that I'm aware of, of the earth having moderating systems in place. The earth is not a closed system where individual causes can be held and individual affects can be observed. Each cause will have multiple affects, the study of which I've not seen being modeled or investigated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

Sunspot activity affects the sun's gravitational field which acts to shield earth from cosmic (and other ) radiation. Weakening of the solar field results in greater radiation hitting the earth and earth's atmosphere. Svenmark showed those radiations were uniquely responsible for cloud formation, storm formation and increased temperature. For example, Svenmark et. al 2007.

The earth's magnetic field (also weakening) screens most of the equatorial regions. But just like you (should have) learned in elementary school the circular magnetic patterns result in greater radiation at the poles.

Guess where the only signs of "global" warming are occuring... Thats right.. at the poles.

That in fact reinforces the science that CO2 changes the radiant heat (IR waves) once [it] passes through the atmosphere.

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

I hope the doctor is correct. And I hope he is correct because the far superior profit motive in burning fossil fuels to that of the 'science' motive will in fact, have us humans burn every fucking gram of earth's fossil fuels into the atmosphere. HERE

Plus, earth's magnetic field is changing and could explain heat and drought in the SW US. To wit:

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past." HERE

So, you're admitting all of the climate histeria to date has, in affect, been histeria because, as I've consistently maintained, the climate models are full of sh*t?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

Sunspot activity affects the sun's gravitational field which acts to shield earth from cosmic (and other ) radiation. Weakening of the solar field results in greater radiation hitting the earth and earth's atmosphere. Svenmark showed those radiations were uniquely responsible for cloud formation, storm formation and increased temperature. For example, Svenmark et. al 2007.

The earth's magnetic field (also weakening) screens most of the equatorial regions. But just like you (should have) learned in elementary school the circular magnetic patterns result in greater radiation at the poles.

Guess where the only signs of "global" warming are occuring... Thats right.. at the poles.

That in fact reinforces the science that CO2 changes the radiant heat (IR waves) once [it] passes through the atmosphere.

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

I hope the doctor is correct. And I hope he is correct because the far superior profit motive in burning fossil fuels to that of the 'science' motive will in fact, have us humans burn every fucking gram of earth's fossil fuels into the atmosphere. HERE

Plus, earth's magnetic field is changing and could explain heat and drought in the SW US. To wit:

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past." HERE

So, you're admitting all of the climate histeria to date has, in affect, been histeria because, as I've consistently maintained, the climate models are full of sh*t?

Nnanja has "consistently maintained it".....I'd say that pretty well wraps things up.

I mean....when someone consistently maintain(s) something....I don't know what kind of legs anyone (really) has to stand on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

Sunspot activity affects the sun's gravitational field which acts to shield earth from cosmic (and other ) radiation. Weakening of the solar field results in greater radiation hitting the earth and earth's atmosphere. Svenmark showed those radiations were uniquely responsible for cloud formation, storm formation and increased temperature. For example, Svenmark et. al 2007.

The earth's magnetic field (also weakening) screens most of the equatorial regions. But just like you (should have) learned in elementary school the circular magnetic patterns result in greater radiation at the poles.

Guess where the only signs of "global" warming are occuring... Thats right.. at the poles.

That in fact reinforces the science that CO2 changes the radiant heat (IR waves) once [it] passes through the atmosphere.

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

I hope the doctor is correct. And I hope he is correct because the far superior profit motive in burning fossil fuels to that of the 'science' motive will in fact, have us humans burn every fucking gram of earth's fossil fuels into the atmosphere. HERE

Plus, earth's magnetic field is changing and could explain heat and drought in the SW US. To wit:

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past." HERE

So, you're admitting all of the climate histeria to date has, in affect, been histeria because, as I've consistently maintained, the climate models are full of sh*t?

Nnanja has "consistently maintained it".....I'd say that pretty well wraps things up.

I mean....when someone consistently maintain(s) something....I don't know what kind of legs anyone (really) has to stand on.

Well he and I have and bounty have consistently cited, yanno actual science. Whereas all you have are illmanners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've posted Evans paper here before.
If you know aught about co2 and greenhouse gasses, you would have to know that co2 must change the radiation, to have a greenhouse effect.
Co2 when it has absorbed energy can dissipate it through vibration, rotation, velocity, or reemission. Due to atmospheric pressure in the lower atmosphere the primary mechanism is via collision and momentum transfer. In the upper atmosphere, its predominantly through reemission, in co2's characteristic spectrum.
In other words, an incoming wavelength gets changed to co2's wavelength.

Ya, I recall in either partial or ordinary (forgotten which) Deferential equations I had to learn how to calculate the harmonic you're discussing.
My point is twofold.
All of the previous climate histeria that lead to the settle science of climate change is now shown to be wrong by a better understanding of the science which is still not really a settled science.
As is almost shown in this case, but not directly discussed, all of the "settled" science of climate change focuses on worst case scenerio. There is almost no discussion, that I'm aware of, of the earth having moderating systems in place. The earth is not a closed system where individual causes can be held and individual affects can be observed. Each cause will have multiple affects, the study of which I've not seen being modeled or investigated.

Hysteria.
Wisteria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I suppose it would be evil to hope that some of y'all came down with listeria???