IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Stephen Schneider, R.I.P.

elreb
post Aug 1 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #61





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Scientific theory is generally understood to refer to a “proposed explanation”, contemplation or a speculation of some observable occurrence.

With a back ground in mechanical engineering my beliefs are based upon my personal senses, my observations, experiences, and experiments.

I believe in Catastrophic Evolution or Change because of Change.

I believe in the “No Big Bang Theory” and a Universe with no beginning or end.

I believe that Stars turn into Planets…that is why we have radioactive decay

I believe that Planets expand when they cool off as part of an end product from being a Star

I do not believe in the Sothic cycle or Canicular period of dating. There are no dark ages.

Science itself is Evolving and changes its mind with advances in technology but you have to lay all the cards and options on the table and not “Rat Hole” your pet model because you are trying to sell a book you wrote. That’s what makes main stream science corrupt.

Proof and Truth are in the eye of the beholder…just like 911.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 3 2010, 12:39 PM
Post #62





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 26 2010, 11:48 AM) *
Just little about the solar activity. We have long time dispute about this with my friend from BNL who is Hansen's friend and has a very simmilar attitude to the whole issue as you have. (It doesn't mean we aren't friends anymore.)

That could not be Luboš Motl then? Ideology there if anywhere.whistle.gif
QUOTE
Now it looks like the sun activity reality is still off lower the latest predictions.

Yes. Indeedy!

Strewth Tume, I do wish you would break your comments up into paragraphs, so hard to read.

The fact that solar activity has been depressed during the course of the recent warming trend backs up the GHG forcing element in this phenomenum.

The radiative forcing from the combined effects of the GHGs CO2, CH4, N2O and Halocarbons is about 2.55 Wm-2 (note units and not the Wm-3 that you used in a post awhile back) with an error of understanding of about 0.4 whilst that for solar forcing is about 0.35 Wm-2 with a similar error of understanding. Thus the difference between the maximum probable solar forcing (at max on the error of understanding) and the lower limit of GHG understanding is 1.7, in otherwords nearly 5 times that of solar forcing giving the later its maximum at the present level of understanding.

Any attempt to convey the impression that climate scientists ignore the solar forcing aspect is shown to be at odds with reality if one studies some of the literature produced.

David Archer in his 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' on page 135 writes this (although yes it is s implified version and yes there have been heated discussions about some apsects since publication):

QUOTE
'Solar intensity varies over the 11-year sunspot cycle by about 0.2-0.5 Wm-2 (Fig. 11.16). Solar intensity in the post is estimated by the accumulation of isotopes that are produced by cosmic rays, such as 10Be and 14C. These are called cosmogenic isotopes. The idea is that a brighter Sun is a better shield to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays produce cosmogenic isotopes. So a high deposition rate of 10Be at some depth in an ice core tells us that the sun was weaker, unable to deflect cosmic rays, and so we infer that it was not verty bright at that time. Who made that story up, you may wonder. We do in fact observe a correlation between cosmic rays, 10Be production, and solar intensity over the 11-year sunspot cyclein recent times. (Fig. 11.7). There are times in the past such as the Maunder Minimum, from about 1650 ro 1700, when there were no sunspots. This was the coldest period in Europe in the last 1000 years, the glaciers advanced all over the world, including in the southern hemisphere, so it's pretty clear that the solar luminosity was less then than it is now. However, we have no direct solar measurements from a time when the sun acts like this, so we don't have a very solid constraint on how much lower the solar output was. You can see that there is a factor-of-two uncertainty in the solar forcing in the past, as the thickness of the gray region in Fig. 11.6. The time history of solar forcing variability is to drift up and down on a timescale of about 100 years.


William Burroughs in 'Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach' also has a good deal to write about Solar forcings, GCRs and Svensmark's conclusions where he (Burroughs on page 169) writes.
QUOTE
'The interannual variations in cloudiness are, however, difficult to distinguish from parallel changes caused by warm and cold ENSO events. Also the correlation with with cosmic-ray flux tends to reduce if when high-latitude data are included.


QUOTE
From the recent example of SC24 prediction it looks like the NASA is quite completely unable to predict next solar cycle, it looks like their solar model doesn't work at all, and they've had arbitrarily changing their prediction from SC24 maximum at 140 spots in 2010-2011 made in 2006 many times to the latest at half of it in 2013-2014. But the reality looks even gloomier. It quite clearly now looks like SC24 would be at average 50-60 spots maximum in 2014-2015 which means so lower PSI in the important spectres that the whole effect of the anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures not just would be erased but the cooling is very likely over next at least 15 years.

What you still have not grasped is that, particularly as temperature rises still lag that of the elevated CO2 levels, and will fall even further behind as natural GHG forcing factors such as methane in clathrates, permafrost and uncontrolable fires rev up, the GHG forcing is now in charge. We would be in real trouble if solar activity was at a maximum, and even more of earth's sun orbital and rotation axis parameters were near their forcing maxima.

The evidence for warming and its effects is clearly kicking in now.

QUOTE
We also now know thank's to the Czech researcher Vit Kremlik the IPCC hasn't any renowned solar scientist on the board at all, not one.

However climate scientists do not ignore solar forcings as I have just shown, neither to they ignore the effects of water vapour. These are two of the many myths that deniers and delayers cling to, or I should say try to ensure are viral enough to confuse the ignorant.

Whatever, just a quick look at the list in:

Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors


on page 4 I find this contributor:

Dr. Drew T. Shindell

who seems well aware of solar forcings:

QUOTE
Examples of such interactions are plentiful. Stratospheric ozone depletion allows more UV radiation into the troposphere, changing the rate at which greenhouse gases are oxidized. A warmer climate leads to increased methane emissions from wetlands, leading to further warming and increasing ozone pollution. Enhanced solar irradiance increases the production of stratospheric ozone, changing the climate. These types of interactions can be important on many time scales, so I have simulated times from 55 million years ago to the 17th century to the 20th century and in to the future.


I will have to continue in another post because of hitting the quote limit.

EDIT: grammatical

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Aug 4 2010, 07:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 3 2010, 02:27 PM
Post #63





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 26 2010, 11:48 AM) *
Hopefully it will change and somebody would finally start to pay attention to Niroma RIP (who exactly predicted the end of the SC23),

What peer reviewed journals has he published in?

QUOTE
Archibald, Svaalgaard etc. Because it is mainly a political problem

Sure there is a political, or rather finacial motivated power-brokering aspect to this but the emphasis in this area is very much with the deniers and delayers. Why else would Fox blowhards be so down on climate scientists?

More on Svalgaard to come - hitting the quote ceiling again!

Come on Tume, it isn't difficult to locate information on the ideology drive coming from the likes of Heartland, CATO, CEI etc and more in Canada. Do a little honest rersearch not just into the science but also who is paying for the gravy train that Monckton et. al. like to keep sucking at.

QUOTE
We don't know really, how serious the CAGW issue is,

CAGW? Could you expand that. I get the gist and doubt that it is Citizens Against Government Waste.
I became rather tired of trying to find the exact expansion over at Climate (Un)Realists.
QUOTE
I'm quite skeptical about it,

I had noticed.
QUOTE
the suspicious megalomaniac global socialist agenda around it.

And there you reveal your ideological colours as you did before with talk about 'warmist fairy tales'.
QUOTE
If indeed the climate is highly sensitive to the CO2 (which I seriously doubt from available mesurements,

The clues started with Tyndall so I don't know what measurements you are using - chalk marks are no good for this stuff.
QUOTE
On the other hand it can give us needed time to adaptation, mainly the major restructuralization in the energetics needed to booth develop the realy sustainable energy sources (I'm of the simmilar opinion in this as Hansen - 4th generation nuclear R&D is almost only option due to developing population and technology use in the 3rd world and my opinion from the praxis is it would be developed only if there would be deregulation not more regulation applied)

I agree with both points there and this is where I diverge from Joe Romm's take on nuclear. If done right it poses no threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.

I recently read Nuttall's Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power

I had great difficulty getting hold of this book via lending libraries as my local one made all sorts of moans about the charges for inter-library loans. This will only get worse as spending cuts take hold (thanks Goldman Sachs, Fanny Mac and Freddie May - or whatever they are called - daft names both). Sadly I cannot afford to buy my own copy at the moment - too many other pressures (also as a result of banker induced pain).

QUOTE
But politically the real cooling due to the very low solar activity very likely comming which is so scandalously disregarded and downplayed by IPCC and leading climatologists can considerably shaken the public belief in the climatology as a whole and the proposed policies, even some of them are vital ones without regards to if there is CAGW or not could not win the public support. That's why I consider the activist overstatements from the side of the ardent warmistas be so dangerous if one considers the real social and political dynamics and the possible direst consequences.

Oh! Please Tume. It is recognised, as I wrote before, that the GHG signature is now clearly in charge and cooling is very unlikely on a global basis and regionaly mostly if NOC is upset enough to cause a massive change in flow.

Anybody who has looked at IPCC AR4 knows well that solar influences ARE considered as this extract from Part 2 'Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing' of
'Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis'

QUOTE
2.7.1 Solar Variability
The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

and I don't see AR5 being any lesser supported on this topic.

More to come.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 4 2010, 07:22 AM
Post #64





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Peter Sinclair has released two more videos to add to his must see Climate Crock series:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Heatwave Edition Part 1

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Heatwave Edition Part 2

Cooling trend! What frigging cooling trend?

Now if you still think WUWT is a reliable source of information you should study this, and follow all links within you will learn much about the deliberate obfuscation that is taking place and why Watts hasn't a clue, or rather tries to make sure you don't:

WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with most discredited web metric (hits!) and keeps smearing scientists while demanding others “dial back the rhetoric” The NYT's Virginia Heffernan now "regrets" being duped by Watts
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 4 2010, 02:29 PM
Post #65





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 26 2010, 12:48 PM) *
We also now know thank's to the Czech researcher Vit Kremlik the IPCC hasn't any renowned solar scientist on the board at all, not one. So the climatology of the CAGW is clearly unable to work with the real solar science at all and if there are some predictions in this regard they're clearly off reality, prefering their black-box models.

Arguments about the IPCC having any renowned solar scientists aside, the solar irradiance effect on the atmosphere as GHG levels rise is a well understood area supported by data and logic. Although there may be some value in continuing research into the role of GCRs on CCN formation as the understanding of the science stands at the moment then GHG warming is now firmly in charge and will continue to be such short of any other negating factors that may ensue such as volcanic erruptions.

This issue of GCRs and CCNs, a hobby horse of Svensmark and clearly yourself, has been addressed as this article by the Rabett demonstrates:

Eli can retire: Part III - Svensmark circles the drain

as this excerpt makes clear

QUOTE
Back to Eli's post


Comment (3-36):
Many commenters (0153, 0245, 0509, 0591, 1017.1, 1187, 2953, 3722, 3729.1) claim that temperature is better correlated with solar activity patterns than with greenhouse forcing, some of whom reference researchers such as Svensmark or Shaviv that attribute the mechanism not to solar irradiance but rather solar wind or solar-magnetic flux (2917, 3205.1, 3324.1, 4632, 5058) and interactions with cosmic rays seeding low-lying clouds (0542, 0646, 0798, 1616.1), or length of solar cycles (0543) or sunspots (1219.1).

One commenter (7031) indicates that solar impacts on climate have received scant research attention and are minimized in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007a) and the climate model community, even though the IPCC authors rank the level of scientific understanding of solar-climate interactions as very low. The assumption is that variations in TSI are the only significant solar impact on global climate. The commenter also posits:

------------------------------------------
Recent studies have shown strong correlations between solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes and low-level cloud cover and its subsequent impact on global temperatures. Experimental verification of a cosmic-ray cloud seeding mechanism was recently completed by Svensmark et al. [1997], and the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) experiments at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) over the next few years will provide definitive measurements of cloud seeding by cosmic rays.
---------------------------------------

The commenter concludes it is clear that solar variations have much larger impacts on global climate than what is estimated based solely on TSI variations.

One commenter (3446.2) requests that the TSD include a rigorous presentation of sunspot activity and temperature over the past century, and notes objection to the lack of sunspot discussion in Karl et al. (2009). Another (3397) requests more discussion of solar activity as a climate forcer.

Response (3-36):
The contention that cosmic rays could provide the mechanism by which changes in solar activity affect climate is not supported by the literature. Solomon et al. (2007) address this topic, noting that “the cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994.” More recent research continues to question the ability of this mechanism to play a significant role in climate change. Pierce and Adams (2009) use calculations to show that potential impacts on clouds from cosmic rays and “conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.” Erlykin et al. (2009) found that the evidence showed that connections between solar variation and climate were more likely to be mediated by direct variation of insolation rather than cosmic rays, and concluded: “Hence within our assumptions, the effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07 ◦C since 1956, i.e. less than 14% of the observed global warming.” Carslaw (2009) and Pittock (2009) review the recent and historical literature in this field and continue to find that the link between cosmic rays and climate is tenuous, though they encourage continued research.

The CLOUD experiments at CERN are interesting research but do not provide conclusive evidence that cosmic rays can serve as a major source of cloud seeding. Preliminary results from the experiment (Duplissy et al., 2009) suggest that though there was some evidence of ion mediated nucleation, for most of the nucleation events observed the contribution of ion processes appeared to be minor. These experiments also showed the difficulty in maintaining sufficiently clean conditions and stable temperatures to prevent spurious aerosol bursts. There is no indication that the earlier Svensmark experiments could even have matched the controlled conditions of the CERN experiment. We find that the Svensmark results on cloud seeding have not yet been shown to be robust or sufficient to materially alter the conclusions of the assessment literature, especially given the abundance of recent literature that is skeptical of the cosmic ray-climate linkage reviewed in the previous paragraph.

Therefore the TSD summary of the assessment literature on this issue is well founded: that the lack of a proven physical mechanism and the plausibility of other causal factors make the association between galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation controversial.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 4 2010, 02:40 PM
Post #66





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Another 'on-the-fly' post but one that has direct relevance to the late Stephen Schneider.

There have been various smoke screens raised by the denier/delayer side in this 'debate', petition signatories being one and the status and relevance of protagonists qualifications and published research history another. This article addresses the latter and the opening note provides a flavour of content:

QUOTE
Note: Before Stephen Schneider’s untimely passing, he and his co-authors were working on a response to the conversation sparked by their recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on climate change expertise. One of Dr. Schneider’s final interviews also addresses and discusses many of the issues covered here.


Full article at:

Expert Credibility in Climate Change – Responses to Comments

here is another angle, linked to from the piece cited above:

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 15 2010, 12:28 PM
Post #67





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Bump.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Oct 7 2010, 10:51 AM
Post #68





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



"Bump"


get a life, Omega





This post has been edited by bill: Oct 7 2010, 10:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 28 2010, 08:05 AM
Post #69





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (bill @ Oct 5 2010, 12:51 PM) *
get a life, Omega

I been trying to hang on to this one thanks.

Yes that was a tacky video in the Monty Python tradition the nuances of which have been well thrashed out.

Inform yourself Bill and not with junk from the usual sources.

If you think kids exploding is bad, how about all the kids who are going to die for want of water and nutrition as heat waves become more widespread, the glaciers that feed the large rivers of the world vanish. How about all those washed away by increasing numbers of flood events as the hydrological cycle goes into overdrive.

Large Swaths of Earth Drying Up, Study Suggests

Oceans’ alarm: what the sea is trying to tell us

Can Our Forests Stand the Heat?

Masters: “Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records”


Brazil's Amazon region suffers severe drought

And check out what has happened to the Arctic ice this summer, despite all the crowing about growing over at WUWT. The Antarctic too is also losing ice mass as is Greenland.

You see, people like you can yell 'global warming is a hoax' as much as you want but nature ain't listening. Anybody who has employed a measure of honest attention to the real situation developing understands this.

Ask around in the US about how some of your national parks are getting on.

Make no mistake. Things are getting serious already and only fools pay attention to the likes of Monckton and Inhofe.

You may also like to check out what is playing out with the Wegman Report that so many deniers, including Fox pundits, have pinned their hats too. Hint; Rabbet Run and DeepClimate.

Come on numptys, get your heads out of the sand.

Bumpity bump!

EDIT Tpyo fixed.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 28 2010, 08:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 28 2010, 12:32 PM
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875





i issued this just for you Omega.

But feel free to print up copies and hand them out to anybody.

Hey, it's free!
But there may be a small annual renewal fee,
when this idea takes off, in the near future.

So i thought i should be the first, to issue them.

So best get your official lunk breathing license now!

all in good cheer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 29 2010, 07:51 AM
Post #71





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 26 2010, 03:32 PM) *
i issued this just for you Omega.

<snip>

So best get your official lunk breathing license now!

all in good cheer

Hah!

No need for one of those lunk if you still have your head in the sand.

Note how Limbaugh and Beck are pushing the agenda of the TeaParty brigade. Do you all really want the likes of Palin (the stupid it burns) in government?

Limited government is bull. If a neighbour dumps shit in your yard who do you expect to enact the laws for redress? Similarly those who pollute most should pay most to ameliorate the effects, or prevent it in the first place.

Trouble is you see the polluters don't like that as this demonstrates:

Big Emitters to EPA: "Don't Ask, Won't Tell"

It seems that you like being poisoned in body and mind (look at how the Koch brothers are funding climate disinfo') whilst the poisoners extract tax breaks and live the life of O'Reilly on your tax dollars. Of course you are in Canada but same applies there too. Learn who is really fooling you and fooling with you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 30 2010, 09:28 PM
Post #72



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



it's pretty obvious where this global warming/climate-change/human caused green-house gasses, is going.

Let's just skip it ahead of itself, and see what happens.

Quite simple, if you have a breathing license, and they don't,
they will just have to get one, i guess,
but, hey, they're free, (at the moment)
and renewal is free
, next year,
i promise.
...perhaps in the future there may be a small processing fee,
as this thing catches on, so i made sure,
in the fine print, that it could be spread out,
retroactively.



Funny, how everybody wants one of these, for themselves,
...almost like they were already programmed to accept them.

i'm having to print them off, like business cards.

Perhaps it's the prestige of being the first to have one, in your group.

(BTW you're supposed to cover the picture of "Dolly the cloned sheep",
with a picture of yourself.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 31 2010, 11:48 AM
Post #73





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 29 2010, 12:28 AM) *
it's pretty obvious where this global warming/climate-change/human caused green-house gasses, is going.

So, you still think its a hoax pushed by some new world order do you?

This in spite of the fact, as I have shown time after time, that the science is certain on how an increase in GHGs warms the earth and that real climate change effects are being seen.

Lunk, ask yourself why the polar ice caps are losing mass, as is Greenland and glaciers world wide.

Ask yourself why species are migrating to higher latitudes and altitudes, those that can that is.

Ask yourself why species that cannot migrate are going extinct.

Ask yourself why communities are having more problems as species carrying things like dengue fevour and malaria migrate into their territory and thus expanding their range.

Ask yourself why increased warming is already having a deleterious effect on crop yields? Demonstrating that increasing CO2 is not necessarily beneficial to the ecology of plants.

Ask yourself why the sea levels are rising and the ocean waters becoming more acidic.

Ask yourself why the fossil fuel industry is bankrolling the anti-science propaganda coming from tea-party wannabes.

Ask yourself who is really behind the Fox pundits, and Alex Jones, and their anti-science take on climate change.

Behind these people are those really employing Orwellian tactics:

Americans for Prosperity lies: “We’re not arguing the science of climate change”

Koch Industries Environmental Record

It is the likes of those just mentioned behind your continued ignorance about the real reality. Are you realy in the same camp as Glen Beck?

There are manay places to start learning, many I have pointed out before. Here are some more:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Video: Everything you wanted to know about climate science in under 10 minutes

Why increasing CO2 is a significant problem -- in six easy steps

and don't forget Greenman's (aka) Peter Sinclair's 'Climate Crock of the Week' series.

Do you really want to help Cheney's mob gain more control? Remember ignoramus Palin comes with them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 31 2010, 04:45 PM
Post #74



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Yes the weather is different this year.
Much warmer than usual, but wet.

The sun though, is behaving very strangely lately,
and the weather here seems to respond to these solar changes.

Curious that the general forecast for this winter, where i am,
is extremely cold,
even from the Farmers Almanac!

But there are others,
who tell me that this winter will be the same as last, very mild, and wet.
It used to always freeze here, by Sept 21, always.
but it hasn't for the last couple of years.
This is a local warming.
But a dramatic change.

They
also said there may be greater cooling closer to the Equator.
Like snow, in usually warm places.

But it is not people who are causing this,
but a result of dramatic changes happening in, on, with, and from, our sun.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...17244&st=60
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 1 2010, 02:03 PM
Post #75





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 29 2010, 07:45 PM) *
Yes the weather is different this year.
Much warmer than usual, but wet.

Yes lunk the climate is changing.


QUOTE
The sun though, is behaving very strangely lately,
and the weather here seems to respond to these solar changes.

Curious that the general forecast for this winter, where i am,
is extremely cold,
even from the Farmers Almanac!

Colder or more snow forecast?

QUOTE
But there are others,
who tell me that this winter will be the same as last, very mild, and wet.
It used to always freeze here, by Sept 21, always.
but it hasn't for the last couple of years.
This is a local warming.
But a dramatic change.

They
also said there may be greater cooling closer to the Equator.
Like snow, in usually warm places.

Yes when climate changes some warm places can cool and cold places warm.
This you would understand if you had read a fraction of the material at links that I have provided.


QUOTE
But it is not people who are causing this,
but a result of dramatic changes happening in, on, with, and from, our sun.

No, no a thousand times no. All solar indices are currently at their minimum for warming and yet warming continues.

Q: What percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?

QUOTE
A: Probably almost all of it
November 1, 2010 There still seems to be some confusion on this basic question.

A year ago, NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was asked on RealClimate: “What percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?” His answer is straightforward:


Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been … is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff.

Absent the increasing GHGs, we probably would have cooled, since

We’ve had a couple of big volcanoes.
We’re just coming off “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.”.
The underlying long-term trend had been cooling (see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds, see figure below).


and once again it is not solar variation causing current warming trend:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Extract:

QUOTE
Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.

However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.



So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 2 2010, 08:40 AM
Post #76





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 29 2010, 07:45 PM) *
Curious that the general forecast for this winter, where i am,
is extremely cold,
even from the Farmers Almanac!

More for your cogitation.

What happens to a drink when masses of ice are added?

Maybe this will help you towards an answer:

Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer

QUOTE
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently released the Arctic Report Card (:Update for 2010). The report contains a wealth of information about the state of climate in the Arctic circle (mostly disturbing). Especially noteworthy is the news that in 2010, Greenland temperatures were the hottest on record. It also experienced record setting ice loss by melting. This ice loss is reflected in the latest data from the GRACE satellites which measure the change in gravity around the Greenland ice sheet (H/T to Tenney Naumer from Climate Change: The Next Generation and Dr John Wahr for granting permission to repost the latest data).



Figure 1: Greenland ice mass anomaly - deviation from the average ice mass over the 2002 to 2010 period. Note: this doesn't mean the ice sheet was gaining ice before 2006 but that ice mass was above the 2002 to 2010 average.




Figure 2: rate of mass change from Greenland over 2003-2007 and 2003-2010 periods. Mass loss rate has spread up the north western ice margin over the last few years.


Now I hope that you can pick up the Arctic Report Card link in the above where you will find the forboding line:

Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely

So, all of you who are trying to make global warming and climate change out to be a monumental hoax have been jerked around by the myth-makers. You know the ones - those that you have been so worried about bringing on a new world order. Those who's foot-soldiers can be found at Fox, CEI, AEI, Heartland, GCMI and Austin Texas.

The following you should read and inwardly digest:

The fake populism from those pushing the anti-science disinformation of the plutocrats and pollutocrats

QUOTE
November 1, 2010
A favorite attack line of conservatives and/or disinformers is that progressives are elitists who supposedly “espouse their intellectual superiority.” The goal of this disingenuous attack is so that they can push the Big Oil, Corporate Polluter agenda and appear to care about the middle class, while putting the screws to them, and so they can undercut the credibility of all ‘experts,’ especially scientists, whose work is crucial to preserving clean-air, clean water, and a livable climate.

The attack is particularly laughable coming from elite disinformers who themselves treat the American public with so much disdain by lying non-stop to further an agenda that will enrich the rich and put the screws to pretty much everyone else.

Remember, perhaps the main reason the country has failed to act on climate change is the immoral, but brilliantly successful, disinformation campaign funded by Big Oil and billionaire polluters — the pollutocrats (see “From promoting acid rain to climate denial — over 20 years of David Koch’s polluter front groups“) — and embraced by the elite conservative media, pundits, and politicians.

Now, those pollutocrats are pulling the strings of the Tea Party, in order to give a populist, grass-roots gloss to their corporatist agenda. Frank Rich makes this point in his Sunday piece, “The Grand Old Plot Against the Tea Party“:


What made the Tea Party most useful was that its loud populist message gave the G.O.P. just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised G.O.P. that gave us George W. Bush and record deficits only yesterday.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and Wall Street Journal have been arduous in promoting and inflating Tea Party events and celebrities to this propagandistic end. The more the Tea Party looks as if it’s calling the shots in the G.O.P., the easier it is to distract attention from those who are actually calling them — namely, those who’ve cashed in and cashed out as ordinary Americans lost their jobs, homes and 401(k)’s.


So it is beyond ironic for anyone to call those who are trying, however ineffectively, to actually provide accurate information on climate science and give America a fighting chance to regain leadership in the clean energy industries that will be one of the biggest job creating sectors of the economy.

That doesn’t stop NY Times reporter Peter Baker from parroting the standard right wing attack in his piece, “Elitism: The Charge Obama Can’t Shake.” Of course, who does the NYT quote to prove his case:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” he told a roomful of doctors who chipped in at least $15,200 each to Democratic coffers. “And the country is scared, and they have good reason to be.”

The notion that voters would reject Democrats only because they don’t understand the facts prompted a round of recriminations — “Obama the snob,” read the headline on a Washington Post column by Michael Gerson, the former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — and fueled the underlying argument of the campaign that ends Tuesday. For all the discussion of health care and spending and jobs, at the core of the nation’s debate this fall has been the battle of elitism.

Mr. Obama’s remark that autumn evening played into a perception promoted by his critics that he is a Harvard-educated millionaire elitist who is sure that he knows best and thinks that those who disagree just aren’t in their right minds. Never mind that Mr. Obama was raised in less exalted circumstances by a single mother who he said once needed food stamps.


Uhh, yes, the attack is “promoted by his critics” — along with the claim Obama is socialist or a fascist or a Muslim or someone who wasn’t born in this country — or a Joker-style anarchist. Seriously, the speechwriter for the President who did the most to enrich to rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, who created the largest income gap in many decades, is calling Obama an elitist? And the New York Times uses that attack to justify an article on the front page of the widely read ‘Week in Review’ section?

Obama isn’t an elitist — he is just painfully bad at messaging. Indeed, in recent weeks he has been consistently ignoring the first rule of political messaging — don’t talk about process! Don’t talk about why you have failed to deliver your message effectively — deliver your damn message effectively already! The media just love to trash presidents who talk process, rather than substance. The fact that Obama doesn’t know this — and that his advisers won’t put a stop to it — is embarrassing.

It shouldn’t be any surprise to a great speech-maker like Obama that “facts and science” aren’t winning the day. They hardly ever do — “argument” does. That’s what the Greeks figured out 2500 years ago when they invented rhetoric. Indeed, that was specifically why they codified the rules of rhetoric.

The specific reason “facts and science” aren’t winning the day is that the plutocrats and pollutocrats have spent hundreds of millions of dollars spreading lies — and have their own media outlets that provide billions of dollars worth of coverage of those lies — whereas Barack ‘no narrative’ Obama and progressive politicians hardly spend any time explaining what he’s done or why, so much so that even The Onion noticed (see Democrats: “If We’re Gonna Lose, Let’s Go Down Running Away From Every Legislative Accomplishment We’ve Made”).

The disinformers try the same faux populism when they claim, as the discredited Anthony Watts recently did:

Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.,


I have never met a climate blogger who wrote or even thought that Americans were too dumb to understand what’s happening to the climate and why. There’s nothing terribly complicated about it. Indeed, it would be absurd to hold such a view — since Americans consistently support much stronger action on climate and clean energy than their leaders, including “cap-and-trade.” And indeed, as Jon Krosnick, senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, has found in poll after poll, “The vast majority of Americans know global warming is real.”

If we even had simple majority rule in the Senate, we probably would have had a climate bill last year — and we certainly would’ve had one if there were voting strictly based on proportional representation. But the super majority in the Senate allows a minority backed by the pollutocrats to thwart the will of the people. And their superior messaging strategy and greater financial resources allow them to convince a great many people that this was an okay thing to do.

It is certainly true that most polling suggests that Democrats and independents understand climate science better — but that isn’t terribly surprising since conservatives get much of their news from media outlets that are run by and/or parrot the pollutocrats. Yes, I think it is appropriate to be disgusted with politicians who flip flop on basic issues of climate science and climate action rather than tell voters the facts:

(The following in red are links in the original which may be worth you picking up on.)
McCain drinks the Kool-Aid [iced tea?] and becomes a climate conspiracy theorist
The dumbing down of Carly Fiorina
Flashback: Carly Fiorina said cap-and-trade “will both create jobs and lower the cost of energy”
NY Times slams “alternative reality” of GOP deniers: “They’ve disappeared in a fog of disinformation, an entire political party parroting the Cheney line.”
BUT those who call out political leaders whose job it is to be informed on crucial issues of the day, particularly the single most important issue of the century, are not calling voters dumb — much as the disinformers desparately want to push that smear. I repeat, on this issue, most voters, particularly Democrats and independents, are considerably wiser than the collective wisdom of the U.S. Senate.


The rest of this post is going to be an extended excerpt from my 2008 post, Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 2: Why deniers out-debate “smart talkers.” Scientists — and technocrats like Obama — must understand the elitist frame that the opposition desperately wants to shoe-horn them into, a narrative the media is all too eager to repeat, as the NY Times shows.

Public debates are typically won by the person or group who presents the most compelling and persuasive character. If I can convince you I’m an honest, straight talker, you’ll believe what else I say. If can’t, you won’t. This fact was very well understood by the masters of persuasive language from ancient Greece and Rome through Elizabethans like Shakespeare and by skilled debaters like Lincoln and Churchill, as we will see.

Debates are not usually won on factual or policy merits, in part because listeners aren’t in a position to adjudicate sometimes subtle differences between complex positions — what exactly was the difference between Clinton’s health care plan and Obama’s? and what exactly is the difference between carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide concentrations? — and because those who are undecided on an issue are typically skeptical of all advocates, especially self-style “experts.” They assume everybody exaggerates to defend their position. In any case, if I don’t convince you I’m honest, my stated positions can’t possibly matter.

Here’s why (those who appear to be) straight talkers beat smart talkers every time, ending with a discussion of the 2004 election.

A HISTORY OF FAKING STRAIGHT TALK


A core strategy of rhetoric is to avoid seeming like a smarty-pants, to avoid appearing like Carter Dukakis Gore Kerry a highly educated (i.e. elite), wonkish speaker, but rather a plainspoken man of the people.

Shakespeare — a master of rhetoric who knew more than 200 figures of speech like all middle-class Elizabethans (why do you think they called it grammar school?) — understood that very well. That’s why he has Mark Antony say in one of the great debate speeches of all time, his famous “Friends, Romans, countrymen” response to Brutus in the Roman Forum: “I am no orator, as Brutus is, But–as you know me all–a plain blunt man.”

Is it coincidental that the only ones to use the word “rhetoric” in the 2004 presidential debates were George Bush and Dick Cheney? In the Vice Presidential Debate, Cheney said to his Democratic rival, Senator John Edwards, “Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up.” In the final debate, Bush twice repeated almost verbatim the same accusation about Kerry: “His rhetoric doesn’t match his record,” and again “His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric.” This was only a small salvo in the Bush team’s war on Kerry’s language.

It is a mark of wily orators that they accuse their opponents of being rhetoricians. Winston Churchill, who wrote a treatise on the use of rhetoric in political speech at the age of 22, himself once opened an attack on his political opponents, saying “These professional intellectuals who revel in decimals and polysyllables….”

Returning to the Roman Forum, Marc Antony says

For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men’s blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;


So Antony is a man of the people, just reminding them of what they already know. Antony was, in fact, a patrician, like Bush. Indeed, Antony was a student of rhetoric, but his repeated use of one-syllable words lends credibility to his blunt sincerity. It is a mark of first-rate orators that they deny eloquence.

Lincoln was a “plain homespun” speaker, or so goes the legend, a legend he himself worked hard to create. In a December 1859 autobiographical sketch provided to a Pennsylvania newspaper, Lincoln explained how his father grew up “literally without education.” Lincoln described growing up in “a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods…. There were some schools, so called.” He offers one especially colorful spin: “If a stranger supposed to understand Latin, happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizard.” No fancy talkers here. Lincoln modestly explains the result of the little schooling he had: “Of course when I came of age, I did not know much.” And after that, “I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity.” All this from a man who in the previous year had proven himself to be one of America’s great orators in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and who during the course of his presidency would demonstrate the most sophisticated grasp of rhetoric of any U.S. President, before or since.

Lincoln opened his masterful February 1859 Cooper Union speech echoing Shakespeare’s Antony: “The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them.” (In Antony’s own words, “I only speak right on; I tell you that which you yourselves do know.”) These are the words of a man who had memorized Shakespeare from William Scott’s Lessons in Elocution, a treatise that included Antony’s famous speech.

Does this sound a little familiar [the late Michael Crichton from a climate debate discussed in the 2008 post]:

I myself, uh, just a few years ago, held the kinds of views that I, uh, expect most of you in this room hold.


If you want to switch people’s viewpoints, pretend like you once held their views. It is a twofer. First, you can pretend you’re just like one of them. Second, you draw people into the narrative, since they become intrigued about how someone who used to believe as they did now believes differently. Classic storytelling — you need to create a hook for the listener early on or they will tune out.

Returing to rhetoric, the master orator who denies eloquence was such a commonplace by the sixteenth century that Shakespeare resorted to it repeatedly. Consider his King Henry V, a master of oratory, who delivered the most famous pre-battle speech in the English-language:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother…


After the British triumph at Agincourt, King Henry V woos Katherine, the daughter of the French king. Yet, even though Kate’s hand was one of Henry’s conditions for peace, the master of rhetoric still treats us to his tricks.

When Kate says she doesn’t speak English well, Henry says he’s glad, “for, if thou couldst, thou wouldst find me such a plain king that thou wouldst think I had sold my farm to buy my crown.” He’s just like a farmer, a man of the people. He adds, “But, before God, Kate, I cannot look greenly nor gasp out my eloquence, nor I have no cunning in protestation; only downright oaths, which I never use till urged, nor never break for urging.” Like Antony, he disingenuously denies eloquence. The reason orators use this trick: Being blunt and ineloquent means they must be honest and steadfast.
Here is Bush in his Orlando campaign speech on October 30, 2004:

Sometimes I’m a little too blunt-I get that from my mother. [Huge Cheers] Sometimes I mangle the English language-I get that from my dad. [Laughter and Cheers]. But you always know where I stand. You can’t say that for my opponent….

For a blunt language-mangler, that’s surprisingly old-school — very old school — rhetoric.

Henry urges Kate to “take a fellow of plain and uncoin’d constancy, for he perforce must do thee right, because he hath not the gift to woo in other places.” Because he is not a clever orator, he must be an honest and constant man. Then Henry compares himself to an imaginary rival: “For these fellows of infinite tongue, that can rhyme themselves into ladies’ favours, they do always reason themselves out again.” In short, the other guys are flip-floppers and liars. They talk smarter than I do, but that’s exactly why you can’t trust them.

This is precisely why the deniers like Stott and Crichton love to repeat the global cooling myth, love to say, as Crichton has one of his fictional environmentalists climate in State of Fear, “In the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming.”

This clever and popular attack tries to make present global-warming fears seem faddish, saying current climate science is nothing more than finger-in-the-wind guessing. This attack appeals especially to conservatives who want to link their attack on climate scientists to their favorite attack against progressive presidential candidates — that they are flip-floppers. It been debunked time and time again — see “Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus” and “Another denier talking point — ‘global cooling’ — bites the dust.”

Consider Bush’s stump speech in Wilmington, Ohio the day before the election, discussing his September 2003 request for $87 billion in Iraq war funding and Kerry’s vote: “And then he entered the flip-flop Hall of Fame by saying this: ‘I actually did vote for the $87 billion right before I voted against it.’ I haven’t spent a lot of time in the coffee shops around here, but I bet you a lot of people don’t talk that way.” In Burgettstown, two hours later he said, “I doubt many people in western Pennsylvania talk that way.” In Sioux City, Iowa, a few hours later, “I haven’t spent much time in the coffee shops around here, but I feel pretty comfortable in predicting that not many people talk like that in Sioux land.” And in Albuquerque, he said, “I have spent a lot of time in New Mexico, and I’ve never heard a person talk that way.”

Sarah Palin, in her stump speech, makes an almost identical criticism of Obama: “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.” He is not one of us. He’s two faced. Yes, it may seem laughable coming from the Palin-McCain team, but even laughable works when it uses the tools of rhetoric — Palin here is using antithesis– placing words or ideas in contrast or opposition, one of Lincoln’s favorite rhetorical devices: “with malice toward none; with charity for all.” And she is placing Obama into a very old narrative about liars, flip-floppers, and Democratic candidates for President.

Kerry’s self-defining and self-defaming quote–”I actually did vote for the $87 billion right before I voted against it.”–has the powerful elements of eloquence. Sadly for Kerry, this is the precise reason it stuck in the mind. It has the repetition and sound of two memorable figures found in famous political quotes, antithesis, (”voted for” versus “voted against”), and chiasmus, words repeated in inverse order (in this case, “I .. vote for” and “before I voted”). Little wonder it was ripe for exploitation through repetition and sarcasm.

President Bush in 2004 had everything down cold that we expect from a master rhetorician: The repeated simple words, the repeated phrases, and the message that his opponent is inconsistent and inconstant because he’s too clever by half and doesn’t talk the way you and I do. Yet at the same time, Bush managed to leave the impression that he himself is rather slow and inarticulate. Ironically, the (all-too-many) Democrats who attacked Bush as being stupid merely gave him a free pass on all his lying and made him seem more genuine and credible to many voters.

Why did Kerry flip flop? Bush had a simple answer. The President told every audience that Kerry’s most revealing explanation “was when he said, the whole thing was a complicated matter. My fellow Americans, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.” Rhetoric retains the power to move real people. In a 2005 post-election analysis, Journalism professor Danner quotes one Dr. Richardson-Pinto saying to him at Bush’s Orlando rally: “It doesn’t matter if the man [Kerry] can talk. Sometimes, when someone’s real articulate, you can’t trust what he says, you know?” And Richardson-Pinto is a doctor, someone whose credibility depends on being articulate.

So, yes, being smart, talking smart, and using big words may impress some in the audience — but most likely only those who already agree with you. It may cost you credibility with the very people you are trying to reach.

I fully understand that many scientists don’t want to spend the time needed to learn how to be persuasive to nonscientists. Indeed, Part 1 discusses how scientists are punished for being popularizers. But it is a skill that can be acquired, not really more difficult than differential equations. In any case, if you won’t spend the time, or don’t want to be known as a popularizer, then simply turn down public debates. This is not an amateur’s game. The stakes are way, way too high.

I fear that because Obama is a good speechmaker, he thinks he’s good at messaging and won’t let anybody tell him otherwise. Well, he isn’t. He’s bad at messaging, dreadful even. That doesn’t mean he didn’t make consequential policy mistakes. He did. The stimulus was clearly too small — see Krugman sets the narrative straight: “We never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.”

But when your messaging is this bad, you can’t tell how much of your failure is due to bad messaging or bad policies. And, of course, your opponents get to define you, rather than you defining them, which is the key to victory. Unless Obama brings on board someone who understands messaging a lot better than David Axelrod or is given the gift of an unelectable opponent, like Sarah Palin, he is going to struggle mightily to be reelected.


PS. IE8 is being a PITA by auto scrolling to the top of this reply when trying to indent para's as in the original text. So please follow the link ahead of this large quote whilst I try to edit with Firefox.

EDIT: Indenting fixed.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 2 2010, 08:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 8 2010, 07:53 PM
Post #77



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



i'm finally getting a light frost at nights.
But the sun, even being low to the horizon, is still unseasonly hot to be in.
i'm concerned about colder equilateral temperatures,
but i think we will still see a warming of the poles.

But this is a result of never-before-seen changes from the sun,
not human activity.

Also, i've heard others say that the planets,
seem to be much brighter these nights,
and stand out more in the heavens,
than they did, even a few years ago.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 9 2010, 07:38 AM
Post #78





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 6 2010, 10:53 PM) *
i'm finally getting a light frost at nights.
But the sun, even being low to the horizon, is still unseasonly hot to be in.

Something to do with Earth warming up dont you think. Note that all solar aspects are currently near the minimum for TSI.

QUOTE
i'm concerned about colder equilateral temperatures,

Ah! The music of the triangles!

QUOTE
but i think we will still see a warming of the poles.

Your are correct with that one, and the effect of this will be.....?
Already playing out if you only cared to study accurate scientific reports rather than nonsense from the usual suspects as your misshapen statement about equilateral temperatures betrays.

QUOTE
But this is a result of never-before-seen changes from the sun, not human activity.

OK then, explain the mechanisms.

I won't hold my breath on that one as you always avoid answering direct questions like the list of such in a post above.

QUOTE
Also, i've heard others say that the planets,
seem to be much brighter these nights,
and stand out more in the heavens,
than they did, even a few years ago.

Subjective thought is a notoriously flawed regimen for making important decisions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 10 2010, 12:00 AM
Post #79



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



i was just pointing out some of the things i'm experiencing locally,
and a few things i've heard, and wondered about.

However, on one point,
nobody knows what would happen if the ice caps all melted.

Surface ocean temperature could get temporarily colder,
if icebergs all drifted towards the equator.

i have a little problem with the past predictions of oceans rising.
(since the '60's!)
They haven't.

If water evaporates quicker under lower atmospheric pressure,
then a rise in ocean levels would accelerate evaporation,
reducing that rise.

Also, isn't our atmosphere being sloughed off, regularly, in the solar wind,
wouldn't that take away water molecules evaporated, with it?
Ocean levels should be getting lower.
And have been,
over the past 40 years, at least.
That, i can personally attest to.

The lowest tide ever, keeps getting lower.
The upper extreme (high tide) is kept in check, i think,
by atmospheric pressure. (or less of it, above sea level)

Also, part of our atmosphere, is regularly sloughed off, into space,
from fluctuations in the solar wind.

And if, there is any evaporated, water, molecules in that sloughed-off atmosphere,
that water, would be lost forever to the greater universe.

Then, appears that question about where is all this water coming from?

The Earth is not a closed system.

Though i think it is time to close this thread,
out of respect for those who have passed beyond.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd October 2014 - 10:29 AM