posted
Here are a couple links to the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory regarding ice ages.
Oak Ridge is the Department of Energy's largest science and energy lab in the US.
It doesn't answer your questions directly Turbo and it is probably more info than you ever really wanted to know but I thought it may be worth linking.
Here is some background about the last 130,000 years.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"so that graph i posted which shows us currently in a warm cycle that has happened 5 times in succession is a straw?"
That graph has nothing to do with the current conditions for global warming and offers only indications of the mechanisms of global warming, not the causes of the increases of CO* and dust.
Moreover,
1. if you extrapolate the scale of years at the bottom, you will see that the latest time of that graph stops about 200,000 years ago (and CO2 and dust even earlier) and does not include the present
and
2. if you note the blue temperature graph, at about 300,000 years back, the trend went negative and extrapolating to the present clearly shows (according to that graph) that we are not in a warming cycle but in a cooling cycle.
That graph traces the conditions thorugh several cycles in the past when there was no possiblilty of human participation of either causes or deterants to those CO2 cycles.
What brought about the increases in CO2 then and what are the causes now are not the same as we have proof that humans are the principle source now and humans didn't exist then.
"What about the other times?"
The other times, as you can plainly see, when the CO2 gets too high, so does the temperature.
This time, the reason the CO2 level is growing too rapidly and too much is us.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
there are several others there too. like this one..
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]bdgeeThat graph has nothing to do with the current conditions for global warming and offers only indications of the mechanisms of global warming, not the causes of the increases of CO* and dust. of coarse it doesnt show the causes. what it does show is that there are several periods of very rapid increases in c02 and subsequent falls, like a cycle.
[quote]bdgee1. if you extrapolate the scale of years at the bottom, you will see that the latest time of that graph stops about 200,000 years ago (and CO2 and dust even earlier) and does not include the present perhaps one of us is reading the graph wrong but i see it going from 400,000 years ago to 0 (present) [quote]bdgee2. if you note the blue temperature graph, at about 300,000 years back, the trend went negative and extrapolating to the present clearly shows (according to that graph) that we are not in a warming cycle but in a cooling cycle again maybe one of us is reading the graph wrong, but i see 325,000 years back a fall in tempurature and c02 from a high point. And then a bottom in both tempurature and c02 around 275,000 years ago. And according to the graph just came off a low point around 15,000 years ago in both temps and c02 and in a current warming trend. [quote]bdgeeThe other times, as you can plainly see, when the CO2 gets too high, so does the temperature. agreed, but 3 times previous the temps and c02 have been higher than they are currently, with no human interaction.
[quote]bdgeeThis time, the reason the CO2 level is growing too rapidly and too much is us. i see the current rapid ascent of temps and c02 is just as fast as the previous 3.
heres the chart again to keep it down here with the conversation.
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we don't read that graph the same, as you suggest.
But looking at that graph and the scale of time along the bottom, I see no time past about 200,000 years ago and it clearly shows that the trend of the temperature, after around 300,000 years ago, is in decline.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
2006 warmest year ever in USFrom correspondents in Salt Lake City
January 10, 2007 12:51pm Article from: ReutersFont size: + -
THE year 2006 was the warmest in the US since recordsbegan 112 years ago, government weather forecasters said today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) preliminary forecast released in mid-December forecast 2006 as the third warmest year on record.
NOAA said no state was colder than average last month and five states had their warmest December on record - Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.
The average temperature in the US in 2006 was about 1.2C above the average temperature recorded from 1901 to the end of 2000.
The warm start to the winter was tied partly to the "rarity" of Arctic outbreaks across the country because of El Nino, NOAA said.
El Nino, which is Spanish for "the little boy," is an abnormal warming of water in the Pacific Ocean every three or so years that can wreak havoc with global weather patterns. It usually brings warmer weather to much of the United States.
Weather forecasters said another factor in the record warmth was a long term warming trend some have linked to increases in greenhouse gases.
"This has made warmer-than-average conditions more common in the US and other parts of the world," NOAA said.
"It is unclear how much of the recent anomalous warmth was due to greenhouse-gas-induced warming and how much was due to the El Nino-related circulation pattern."
NOAA began keeping records in 1895.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wwwhhhheeeee!!!misconception mania!!! Good to see a few (turbokid) questioning the orthodoxy.
Glass said: essentially? CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas and we are most definitely producing over 19 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gasoline burned...
Not. Check wikipedia and EPA site,others. "May" produce 5-6 pounds per gallon. Wrong by a factor of 3. Deliberate? Or quoting slanted,biased sources?
Glass said:and? your plant thingy?you referred to release of C02 at night by plants? about them rereleasing their C02 at night? that's more disengenuousnous:
plants get almost all of their carbon from C02 in the air..in other words? what you see? came from CO2..
that re-relaese is insignificant to say the least....it is very inefficient, and it in no way comes close to re-releasing all or even most of the CO2 it takes in under photosynthesis...
Dont know how much is released at night. But, it does happen! And,the efficiency of water use and CO2 sequestration INCREASES with temp increase. Seems self-mitigating to me. Plants produce all kinds of particulates that help form nuclei for cloud formation(rain). Increased CO2= increased plant growth and efficiency. Reagan was right...forests are...polluters!!
GB said:Global Warming Deniers: Can't live with 'em; can't live with 'em! Get your facts straight GB, global warming has been a "fact of life" on earth for a least 1.5-2 billion years. AGW or Global Warming Caused By Man is a...theory. And a poor one at that. CO2 is increasing. NOT necessarily bad, and behind methane and particularly...water vapor. Why "pick" CO2? The oceans and plants scrub it out in 8 years. Shut off the source,what happens to ocean algae and land plants? We NEED it!!! Why the Chicken Little scare? We will be on hydrogen and other sources long before its a problem. JMHO
bond006 said:It is just amazing in our world how profit comes before the well being of billions of people. Yea,bond, in Europe,they are...trading Carbon Credits in the market. VERY LUCRATIVE. The title ends with "Scheme". heh Some over here are pizzed the U.S. has not signed Kyoto BECAUSE... they want IN on the lucrative SCHEME. Just like the Fraud...er Stock Market..eh?
bond006 said:Things will have to change or we will not exsits anymore the world is moving foward and we cannot stop that movement it is human nature. We all can't live on the earth if the 3rd world starts to consume like we do with the same methods. And no matter how we try we can't hold the world back nobody can.
"not exist anymore"? Yea,End of Days, Apocalypse NOW, The Sky is Falling. Eugenics,Population Bomb, Bird Flu.Nuclear War. Do you spend all your time in a little hole,surrounded by bottles of water and meals-ready-to-eat?Doom-sayers have been saying stuff like that for thousnds of years. Running out of oil by 2000! Remember that one? And yet,new areas are being explored,yearly, and more found. The Orinco Basin is believed to have more oil than Saudia Arabia and Kuwait....combined. No wonder comrade Chavez is smiling and so full of himself!!! And pals with China. The Appalachians have been neglected over the last 100 years,and the Marathon Uplift in Texas is just beginning to be seriously drilled. Many more can be added to that list. Carters solar and wind tax credits. Probably the ONLY thing he ever did worth a crap. And...the Dems were in charge of Congress when it ended. Ask THEM...why!!!!
Enough of that. Glass? You have a phd in meteorology? A "weather-guy"? cool!!
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
that was a good read. It would seem that the clarification of information is the key to understanding and that is a start.
Beginning to understand is forward thinking and possiblity thinking that uses portions of the brain that are constantly in development. An orderly thought process minus a dooms day fear factor will pave the way to new ideas, new concepts and new solutions...
and who knew, some of it was explored right here on Allstocks..
May your stocks rise and make you money throughout the year.
Best Wishes
dinner
-------------------- Bill Gates, Donald Trump and James Dean, Willie Nelson, John Lennon and Neil McCoy Posts: 1102 | From: Sometimes Honolulu, Sometimes Laguna Beach, today in the Valley | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?
It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!
that's from your own US Dept of Energy Bush/Cheney government...
(and BTW) i looked up the plant thingy before i posted too... CO2 re-release by plants is very insignificant... did i mention that i am married to a genetic engineer? (that's a MOLECULAR biology degree phd)
you would be fascinated to know how much the DOE is involved in genetic engineering... they are even working on making "super yeast" to get alcohol from cellulose... which is two polymerised sugars (linked side by side instead of end to end..)
try again
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Chart: beeg,what's hard to understand about the chart? It stops,200 thousand years ago? What on earth are you talking about? The present is on the LEFT..and 400,000 years ago,on the right. The chart is clearly showing the temp cycles along with CO2 and dust. Consider: As the iceage glaciers advance,all the way into Kansas, ALL of Canada's forests and plants and the norther tier of states in the U.S. are....DEAD...bulldozed!!! During retreat,all that stuff will..decompose, generating CO2,but,most of the CO2 scrubbers are...gone.Cooler oceans...less activity there too.As the ice retreats and temps increase, plants & forests come back...to work. The dust spikes? As more and more moisture is sucked out of the atmosphere to make snow, vast areas of desert form,windblown loess covers huge areas of the northwest,Texas/Okla panhandles and eastern Colorado,western Kansas,Nebraska,ect., to name just a few. Cold desert. Rich farmland. The Great Plains was pretty much desert. As temps rise, plants come back and cover those areas, ergo,less dust. I see two temp spikes HIGHER than present..or predicted.
bdgee said:"2. if you note the blue temperature graph, at about 300,000 years back, the trend went negative and extrapolating to the present clearly shows (according to that graph) that we are not in a warming cycle but in a cooling cycle."
Yyeeessss!!! Clearly!! You got THAT right!(hung by yer own petard?) bdgee said:"What brought about the increases in CO2 then and what are the causes now are not the same as we have proof that humans are the principle source now and humans didn't exist then." No. We've added to it,but NOT the principle source. And,humans DID exist then.Neandertal I believe. And,two of the temp spikes are HIGHER. Who's fault...then?
This chart,with Vostok ice core info, shows much higher warming temps than present..or predicted. Should have been mass extinction according to "consenus of opinion" AGW "theory". Right? Almost 6 deg C higher. All the dire predictions are based on computer climate models (CCM). The weather-guys cant predict the weather much beyond the Weekend Forecast, why believe them? 5 or 10 years down the road? No way. A century or two? roflmao. And the CCMs ignore or minimise the Suns input, or the Earth itself...crustal heat input. And the "hockeystick" data has lots of problems,as the originator..Mann...admits to. Why did he use proxy data clear up to 1980? And only a single data set of tree ring derived temps from western North America. Comparing apples to oranges.
Seems they've found the "smoking gun" for El Nino. Triple-junction "hotspot" in the ocean floor,near Indonesia,north of Darwin,Australia. Thermal coupling of crust to ocean. Who'd of thunk it. Thermal expansion of sea water, long-period gravity waves. Second hottest spot is near Iceland. duh! At the northern terminus of the "Atlantic conveyor". doooohh!!!! Tectonics. Surge theory. Something else the CCMs dont factor. Sun's radiation cycles,sunspots,coincide with droughts, Maunder Minimum with Little Ice Age. Sea floor spreading? You'll never guess! And the weather guys and envirochurch.....just ignore.lmao.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, don't I remember doing essentually that calculation about a year back for another confused business major and isn't it true that I have seen you do it before too?
These guys need to learn some arithmatic and science.
That formula you give is useful in other was too. Think about the weight of the entire mass of the dried leaves a healthy oak tree sheds every year. That weight, like gasoline, is mostly from carbon. Now multiply that total weight of carbon by that 3.7 and you have just a small portion (we aren't considering the carbon locked into the trunk and limbs and roots, etc.) of the carbon that particular tree "fixes" (in just that one year), so that it remains out of the carbon cycle, for the most part, until some fool (or innocent but ignorant soul) burns it to make a new corn field.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass: nice try? Check the sites. But,5.5# seems to be accurate...for carbon. That is the scare isnt it..carbon? Or,is the oxygen pollution too? I'll check the DOE site. But,no problemo. beeg,confused? Naaa. Just surfin' around and finding some VERY interesting stuff. Another name-drop: Dr.A.A.Meyerhoff,visiting professor at OSU,1976. I took his Tectonics class. Brilliant,gifted. I was pleased to learn Surge Theory was his contribution. He always had problems with "Continental Drift" and "Plate Tectonics". Or,mainly the junk science surrounding it. He was still swinging to the end.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing difficult about reading that graph, yet you continue to misread it and you continue to misstate facts about global warming.
And over and over you can't figure out what the term "global warming" refers to.
You need some education beyond the blather of big oil house organs, which are not there to make the case of science and reality, but of self centered economic interest.
Did you know that most "graphs" are totally discontinuous and totally disconnected? That there are connected ones that are nowhere continuous. One of the most fundamental discoveries of all mankind was Wierstrass' description of a continuous graph with no derivative. I might not be able to show you, but I can show a person with sufficient mathematical background, that there is a graph that intersects the interior of every circle of any size and any position in the plane. Oh, and by the way, there are graphs with integrals that have no derivative anywhere. The study of graphs and their properties and interpretation is a fascinating and engrossing pastime.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: There is nothing difficult about reading that graph, yet you continue to misread it and you continue to misstate facts about global warming.
And over and over you can't figure out what the term "global warming" refers to.
You need some education beyond the blather of big oil house organs, which are not there to make the case of science and reality, but of self centered economic interest.
Did you know that most "graphs" are totally discontinuous and totally disconnected? That there are connected ones that are nowhere continuous. One of the most fundamental discoveries of all mankind was Wierstrass' description of a continuous graph with no derivative. I might not be able to show you, but I can show a person with sufficient mathematical background, that there is a graph that intersects the interior of every circle of any size and any position in the plane. Oh, and by the way, there are graphs with integrals that have no derivative anywhere. The study of graphs and their properties and interpretation is a fascinating and engrossing pastime.
Well,beeg,YOU didnt seem to understand it. And, your right,we ARE in a COOLING trend.NOT Global Warming Caused by Man. So,by what you said,the "hockeystick" graph and CO2 graphs are...bogus? hmmmm
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the planet and our solar system are in a natural cycle and we have little or no control over it. It was established long ago and like George Carlin says: "maybe we are here just so the planet could have plastic" This planet could grind us up and spit us out in a moment of time like a blender. This is a living breathing planet and we don't know squat! The sooner we understand that the quicker we can get on with taking care of our world and keep it clean and enjoy the ride...
lol.....
-------------------- Bill Gates, Donald Trump and James Dean, Willie Nelson, John Lennon and Neil McCoy Posts: 1102 | From: Sometimes Honolulu, Sometimes Laguna Beach, today in the Valley | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: Glass: nice try? Check the sites. But,5.5# seems to be accurate...for carbon. That is the scare isnt it..carbon? Or,is the oxygen pollution too?
CO2 is not pollution... it is a serious (but not as serious as methane) greenhouse gas....
CO2 is produced by hydrocarbon combustion.. the most efficient hyrdocarbon consumption produces only CO2 and H2O... sadly none of our current systems are very efficient, and pollution is ALSO produced from the poor combustion...
we are producing CO2 at a faster rate than our planet can "scrub" it.. that's known fact...
trying to say carbon and oxygen are both OK would be correct if they were separate... together as CO2 they have different physical properties...
CO2 wouldn't be a problem if we could find a way to utilise it FAST ENOUGH... all animals produce it too...it's what we breathe out... (squids and octopuses might not produce CO2..they have copper (instead of iron) based blood and i don't know if they produce CO2 or what maybe they exhale cyanide )
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
GAS/CO2/O2/H20/EVAPORATION/ABSORBTION RATIO
GCOHEAR, Just made up a new acronym...lol
-------------------- Bill Gates, Donald Trump and James Dean, Willie Nelson, John Lennon and Neil McCoy Posts: 1102 | From: Sometimes Honolulu, Sometimes Laguna Beach, today in the Valley | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
copper based blood? I DIDNT KNOW THAT!! So,their related to Spock,or Spock related to them?
Cooked up a pot of ham and beans today. Cornbread. I'm a methane-producing global warming mosheeeeen!! Sometimes rather...energetically!! Maybe I should...flare it off....NOT!
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i don't like Al Gore either... nor Clinton.. never did... the thing is? he's correct about the C02 thingy... if somebody i don't like very much is "pumping" a good stock? i still do my DD and check it out.... i might not give them credit for being right tho
cattle are causing alot of global warming too... but i still eat meat...
one time when i used to drink? my neighbor had some kerosene in a crown royal bottle.... ( he had it in there to start his woodstove ) i took a really big slug before i realised it wasn't ambrosia... talk about producing methane? sheesh its like pure gas... LOL seriously? i called poison control? and they said don't worry about it... i had already barfed most of it back up tho...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"The angle of the dangle is directly in proportion to the heat of the meat times the number of beats divided by the mass of the ass."
-------------------- Bill Gates, Donald Trump and James Dean, Willie Nelson, John Lennon and Neil McCoy Posts: 1102 | From: Sometimes Honolulu, Sometimes Laguna Beach, today in the Valley | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well,I visited the Goreons site, under The Science. lmao. Some of the references were Time magazine,Washington Post. "Peer-reviewed",no doubt.
Interesting thing I've noticed lately. A few days ago was watching ABC Evening News. The Talking Head was "noticing" the "unusual" weather in New England. His guest(for a 10 sec sound bite) was from NOAA, 37 years, phd weather guy. He started asking phd about El Nino and "global warming". Before he could finish, the weather-guy said "NO! El Nino has nothing to do with global warming." I almost fell out of my chair. Was he trying to,now,retain a little professional integrity? House of cards coming down? When it does, weather-guys may find themselves lumped into the same bag with politicians and other criminals. Liars. The people and the "science". Stick to weekend forecasts. Most of the time,like the other night, their actually talking about the weather, NOT climate. Big difference.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buffalo did a lot of "gassin'" too. Course,they are "natural", and cows are...not?
Did you read the stuff about the Indonesian "hotspot"? VERY interesting. And,thermal expansion over the heat source,raises the oceans level. Raise the ocean level,compress the atmosphere....high pressure area. Some of that was noted in 1932,by Walker. And..sea level is sea level,depending on WHERE you are in the world. One side of the Pacific is 68 cm higher than the other. And...sea-floor spreading is raising sea level. Between 1-2 mm per year. Half or more of what is observed in sea level increases. And...sunspot cycles. 11,22 and 90 years. Correlate to droughts,at least in NA. Maunder Minimum (few to NO sunspots) correlates to Little Ice Age. And,we are currently in a 70 year period of higher than normal sunspots. Cycles still occur,11 & 22 years, but at a higher level. Do any of the computer models input any of that? NO! "If the data doent fit the computer model, then the data is bad" seems to be todays "science".The excitement in geophysics with the Indonesian hot spot,is...that NOW they may actually be able to model the climate with SOME accuracy. The more I drill the more I find. Interesting. But why the hoax? Jacques Chireac(sp?) said that Kyoto does next to nothing for global warming, but is a good first step towards a global government. European..natch Socialist/communist...ditto.. soon totalitarian..a "natural progression". The French are the only "enlightened" people who could run such a world government....of course. And keep a boot on the 3rd world chitholes. Thats my opinion. Just look closer at the so-called "environmental activist" groups, their philosophy and who funds them. The Royal Academy firing off letters to newpapers,tv,corporations, demanding they dont publish or air anyone questioning AGW. Censorship,but,not for...them.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So,by what you said,the "hockeystick" graph and CO2 graphs are...bogus? hmmmm"
No, just your choice to misread them and your inability (or unwillingness) to understand that the term "global warming" as it is currently being used, IS NOT A PART OF NATURAL UNINFLUENCED BY HUMANS CLIMATE CYCLES.
Indeed, the Earth's climate does cycle (more or less, but you have to be a bit loose with the meaning of cycle in that usage) and indeed it appears to be predicted by CO2 concentrations. But what we are speaking of is the extreme amount of CO2 in the athmosphere due to human activity. The levels are high enough to trigger a serious catastrophic change in the "naturally occuring" climate cycles. (Be careful about that term catastrophic and avoid misusing it ....I do not apply it loosely, but in a purely mathematical and specific form. Like "global warming", the term "catastreophic", as I use it, is not subject to the loose twisting you want to apply to it politically.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say screw it all. I watched the Al Gore movie. Come on guys, lets break out the aerosol cans! If I can't move to Florida, I'm going to bring Florida to me.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And...sunspot cycles. 11,22 and 90 years. Correlate to droughts,at least in NA. Maunder Minimum (few to NO sunspots) correlates to Little Ice Age. And,we are currently in a 70 year period of higher than normal sunspots. Cycles still occur,11 & 22 years, but at a higher level.
this is good stuff...
i haven't read much on the sunspots...
i have a vague idea what they are, and how they increase radiation, but i've never seen any charted data on them...
they must have some impact too..
whether the higher levels of radiation are reflected or absorbed into the atmosphere would be important tho wouldn't they? that's all a green house does, determine reflection or absorption..
in tectonics? i was mostly curious about the polarity changes recorded in the mid-atlaintic rift that indicate the north and south pole flip... how does/is that gonna work? that could be a real mess... especially if we have to flip and reverse direction... that could mean a lot "sloshing"
hey Up. last summer here in central MS? nobody wanted to go outside... in my garden? i grew sun-dried tomatoes...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"as it is CURRENTLY being used" lmao. So,next month,what will it "currently" be used for. Seems a lot of the lit uses AGW:anthropogenic global warming. I like GW caused by Man. More clear what they're getting at. Seems to me you use the term "catastrophic" pretty loose indeed. Fear-mongering. And your quotes around "naturally occuring" climate cycles, implying....they are NOT? Space aliens in control? C'mon beeg, I havent "twisted" the term. YOU have, spinning like whirling dervish.lmao The hockeystick chart and CO2 chart are THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT for Global Warming Caused by Man. The temp chart compares proxy data to instrument data...apples and oranges. Mann ADMITS the whole thing hinges on a single tree ring data set from Western US.,and falls apart WITHOUT IT! And,it only applies to North America. "Extreme amount of CO2 in the atmosphere"?????? Says who? Higher levels,but "extreme"? There have been much much higher levels in the past. Makes for some pretty large plants! Yea,could be catastrophic. Dang,might have to mow my lawn... everyday!!! Oh no!! Besides,a few years,even a few decades of "unusual" WEATHER (think droughts for example) does NOT a climate change make. You boys are talking weather and trying to spin it into a Climate Change. Ive only just "drilled into" some other stuff, that I havent figured out yet. Like the 18.6 yr sea level cycle in the South Pacific, and Metonic cycle (don't know what it is..but I WANT one). More to learn.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
your own government says we are screwing up too oild.
it's the stuffed shirts that are squeezing the last bit of profit out of their antiquated machine that won't face the truth...
as China and India become heavy consumers? the problem will only escalate...
it's time to find another source of energy to drive our economy (past time to have begun a full scale re-allocation of resources)
oil is valuable and will probably always be used for certain applications like heavy freight hauling etc... but? it is already unnecessary for most Americans day to day living....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass,hams are VERY interested in sunspot cycles. CQ mag usually has the latest cycle charts, but occasionally one for a longer period. If I cant find one elsewhere,I'll try to scan and post, but,my success here is...mixed!
Not sure if magnetic reversals are "catastrophic" or not. It has happened MANY times. But, not since airplanes,navigation,power grids,ect. Probably wont be...good.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"full scale reallocation of resources" What...does that mean?
"oil unnecessary for most Americans" ???? Thanks to the enviro-cons and the nuclear protests, nuclear power was killed in this country. Would have made a huge difference,but,they wouldnt have the CO2 scare...now. And,when they "kill oil" and SUVs, they'll have another scare. Windpower? Drop in the bucket. Mainly a bird "slice and dice" machine. "unnecessary"?? EPA says the LARGEST source of CO2, 38%, is from commercial & residential power generation. Thanks,enviros.
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: "as it is CURRENTLY being used" lmao. So,next month,what will it "currently" be used for. Seems a lot of the lit uses AGW:anthropogenic global warming. I like GW caused by Man. More clear what they're getting at. Seems to me you use the term "catastrophic" pretty loose indeed. Fear-mongering. And your quotes around "naturally occuring" climate cycles, implying....they are NOT? Space aliens in control? C'mon beeg, I havent "twisted" the term. YOU have, spinning like whirling dervish.lmao The hockeystick chart and CO2 chart are THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT for Global Warming Caused by Man. The temp chart compares proxy data to instrument data...apples and oranges. Mann ADMITS the whole thing hinges on a single tree ring data set from Western US.,and falls apart WITHOUT IT! And,it only applies to North America. "Extreme amount of CO2 in the atmosphere"?????? Says who? Higher levels,but "extreme"? There have been much much higher levels in the past. Makes for some pretty large plants! Yea,could be catastrophic. Dang,might have to mow my lawn... everyday!!! Oh no!! Besides,a few years,even a few decades of "unusual" WEATHER (think droughts for example) does NOT a climate change make. You boys are talking weather and trying to spin it into a Climate Change. Ive only just "drilled into" some other stuff, that I havent figured out yet. Like the 18.6 yr sea level cycle in the South Pacific, and Metonic cycle (don't know what it is..but I WANT one). More to learn. :D
Apparantly you can't read.
These quotes you give from from BillO and Fat Rush the Doper and the rest of that bunch of technical illiterates (by choice) are just restatements baseless political BS and nonsense.
You have not just a long way to go to reaching some understanding of the scientific process, you must first discard that far right wing bigotry.
The scientific process accepts no preconceived assumptions and you are full of them.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The scientific process accepts no preconceived assumptions and you are full of them."
beeg..NOWHERE is preconceived assumptions and "full of it" than with...you. Discard YOUR ultra leftwing bigotry and Al Frankin/AlGore understanding of science.
"Apparently you can't read". Seems to be your main "argument".
-------------------- It takes a lot of attaboys to make up for an aww chit Posts: 483 | From: OK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
a long time ago i read a really "cool" book called "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock.. it's pseudo science.. but what makes it interesting is that he is just a curious philosopher and not a scientist... scientists tend to push their own data and reject things that don't agree with their lifes work (big theory) you can't blame them since their livelihood usually depends on being right...
anyway? in Fingerprints? he goes from Egyptology to the reverse polarity to the Zodiac clock or more precisely? the precession of the equinoxes...
like i said? you have to take the book with a well uh a uh Martini but it is fun..
the FACT that we have understood the precession since before Jesus' time would seem to suggest our human history is missing some BIG chunks... the precession is a 26ooo year cycle...
he tries to make a case for the earth physically flipping over.. but the antarctic ice cores would seem to negate the possibility that humans have observed this... they seem to show that Antarcic ice is about 750,000 yrs old.. The core goes back 740,000 years and reveals 8 previous glacial cycles. Drilling was completed at this site in December 2004, reaching a drilling depth of 3270.2 m, 5 m above bedrock. Present-day annual average air temperature is -54.5°C and snow accumulation 25 mm/y. Information about the core was first published in Nature on 2004/June/10 [1]. The core went back 720,000 years and revealed 8 previous glacial cycles.
he drew/copied from older maps that showed Antarctica without ice... IMO? you can chuck all the data we collect all the time... if you want to
how did that map get made if the ice is really 750K years old?
Reis's maps were studied by the US Navy and compared with surveys the USN conducted (i think it was) in the 1950's to determine the actual land mass under the ice...
until then? nobody knew what Antarctica looked like under the ice...
Antarctica wasn't even dicsovered by modern man until 1820....
my guess? we have alot of undiscovered human civilization sites under a few hundred feet of water due to the last ice age melting...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
global warming? it gets better... according to GEOLOGISTS that have studied the Sphynx? they say there is no question that the Sphynx has suffered erosion from RAIN... of course? Egypologists and Archeologists HATE this.. cuz it changes the age to at least 4000 older than the Egyptologists want... sometime BEFORE 7500 BC...
talk about ego and pride? the guy that runs the site at Giza, Zahi Hawass, starts visibly foaming at the mouth if anybody suggests his precious "big dig" is anything other than what he says it is...
of course? there's all these "new-age" nuts that have their own pet theories too
the geologists have a much stronger EMPIRICAL case... the Archeologists have assumption built upon assumption and so on...
Von Daniken? i think he just underestimates the power of the human mind in antiquity...
when Picasso was allowed into the caves at Lascaux to see the paintings? he said, and i can't quote word for word, something like "we have learned absolutely nothing"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
maybe they exhale cyanide ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) i took a really big slug before i realised it wasn't ambrosia... talk about producing methane? sheesh its like pure gas... LOL seriously? i called poison control? and they said don't worry about it... i had already barfed most of it back up tho... ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
