Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, now it seems that the degradation of radioactive particles are affected by something, not known as yet.
This changes many things, such as particles found in ancient ice, particles in our air today and shows that the supposed suspect, the sun, has a much larger effect on things than out loved scientists assume.
This means many things taken for granted are now in question, and upsets the apple cart created by a single tree in northern Russia, where we have staked a large amount of our supposed understanding of how the weathers changed, plus omitting past findings altogether, tho, even the same groups included them in the past, they no longer include them in their data sets today.
Hockey sticks are for playing hockey, not for playing politics, which the entirety of the GW leaders come, thwe political structures using political pusposes to push their agendas, with the poor scientists garnering millions of dollars in thier pockets from said governments.
vhat a deel
 


Yes, it was portrayed as an error at an British University, so, naturally, the inquiry took place in Britain.

Most of Europe is pretty free now.

This 'fact' of yours, regarding freshwater and salt water – I've had trouble finding mention of it, and I have conflicting information - 'Although the vast majority of seawater has a salinity of between 3.1% and 3.8%, seawater is not uniformly saline throughout the world. Where mixing occurs with fresh water runoff from river mouths or near melting glaciers, seawater can be substantially less saline.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater#Salinity
Could it really be that you pulled this 'fact' out of your behind?

'last winter England had the coldest winter in a decade or more'
Let me just stop you there. 'Global' Warming. It does not mean that everywhere on the globe will be uniformly warmer, just that, on average, the world will warm. The cold spell in the UK was caused by the jet stream looping, pulling cold air from the Arctic in (and the looping may be due to increased stratosphere temperatures). This looping also caused parts of southern Europe and Western Asia to be much warmer than they normally are. It also caused much of Canada to be much hotter than it usually would have been.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html
(last picture)
This year, globally, had the warmest January to August in the last 131 years – 0.67C above the 20th Century average. This year seems likely to be one of the warmest on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
Yes, it was a cold winter, but one localised weather event is not indicative of the entire climate of the world. I could easily point to the issues Russia has had with wildfires due to the heat in that region, but I understand that would be fallacious.

Are the plants in on this hoax too? Many gardeners will tell you that many plants have been coming out earlier and earlier recently.

Maybe I should clarify – 'Nobody who has sat down and actually thought about the difficulties of a single government controlling the world wants a single government controlling the world'. The people who the world are too different in their culture and way of life for one government to set laws applicable to all.

'do you really think the global meltdown was a "accident" it was just a practice run for what's coming.' Yes, it was nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages being traded then placing the holders of them in deep trouble when the housing market, inevitably, stopped growing then collapsed, along with other general mismanagement and attmepted profiteering. It was definitely a 'practice run'.

Sorry for the delay, I completely forgot about this until I was curious today about the thread, probably because you posting it coincided with having to get ready for taking my family up to the airport.
 


I'm sorry, what? Because it disagree with you it must be a variable, so that there is a change that could agree with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates
You make the assertion on nothing. There is plenty of evidence that most radioactive decay is unaffected by environment conditions, and in the ones that may vary follow up studies have shown negligible variation. Can you present some evidence that the decay rates for isotopes often used in climatology – Oxygen 18, and Carbon-14 – vary in some manner?
Until then the, already well substantiated, null hypothesis that radioactive decay is nearly always unaffected by environmental conditions remains.
 
Were all starting to disagree with GW
I think just like GW believers think, that it must get colder in order to get hotter, maybe the worst it gets, the less people care about it, as polls planet wide, and no, not in just a few places either, show
 
Theres three things controlling the energies by vast amounts, much greater than anything man has ever done
Thats gravity,the sun, and the earths core.
Also, look into the findings of going from 280 PPM to 560 PPM and it shows only a .7 degree increase.
The studies are out there
 
We need honesty on this issue
When people atempt to say it osnt political, when its ONLY governments and taxes pushing the agenda, then we run into this

Cross-posted from the World Wildlife Fund Climate Blog, courtesy of Nick Sundt

[Sundt notes: During the hearing, the Republican members of the committee largely focused on the content of private emails among scientists that recently were stolen from a server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The witnesses along with the Democrats on the committee responded. We will address that element of the hearing in a separate blog posting.]
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/holdren-lubchenco-testimony-2dec09/

So, its not political?
Why should they care?
Arent WE the people? Or, do they consider us too dumb to understand?
The people are tired of these attempts at slowing the use of fossil fuels for political reasons, period
 
So? If the public start to ‘disagree’ with global warming, does that make all the data disappear? Argumenum ad populum does not change the evidence nor the make the scientific consensus disappear.

Can you please provide specific papers, regarding Stanford University, as the papers from the search term ‘discrepancy radioactive’ don’t seem to be talking about discrepancies in radioactive decay rates.

theres three things controlling the energies by vast amounts, much greater than anything man has ever done
Thats gravity,the sun, and the earths core.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, you just broke my crazy detector. What the hell happened to you whilst I was ‘away’? Did a screw drop loose? You used to be, from what I recall, relatively sensible, but this – ‘gravity, the sun and the Earth’s [sic] core’ is just ridiculous. The Sun, I can accept, even though the forcing from it had been found only to have a small effect on global temperature during this warming period.
But GRAVITY? Controlling ‘energy’? Let me tell you about gravity. Gravity is the weakest fundamental force by a long way – an easy demonstration of this is a magnet and a paper clip: hang the paper clip under the magnet. That little magnet is resisting pretty much the entire mass of the earth pulling down on it. And that term –mass – is also important. Gravity only acts on mass, in the classical sense, and only ‘bends’ light in the relativistic sense. Energy, from the sun, is delivered primarily as photons. Photons have no mass. Therefore, they do not interact with gravity (the wells produced, yes, but only for very large masses). So, I am at a complete loss as to WHERE you get this idea from. And when has gravity recently been variable?

When did the 280ppm -560 ppm jump occur and coincide with a 0.7 rise in temperature? Can you provide the study/any information?
 
Whats the density in higher atmospheres? How does this change the game?
Whats the effects of gravity on rays? Rays which effect CO2 etc?
What wavelengths are most affective for heating? Do those rays/wavelengths change in differing atmospheres?
If the earths core were like the moons, thered be global freezing, and last I read, the land is still shifting, theres still earth quakes. Dig down a mile, hotter or colder?
Anyone ever see such a La Nina before?
Ever guess whats happening down there?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants

So, in essence, its not the data thats been collected is right, as this seems to be the real argument.
When a study is propped up by one tree, when numbers disappear that were in previous studies, this is not science.
I ask anyone, where do these people derive their monies?
I also ask, why is politics involved?
I ask, if this were so certain, everyone by now would be on board, instead of it fading in the distance
 
As for the PPM study, I'll have to get back to you on this, as I dont have the info directly But I will have it

PS A typical political ploy, used by certain groups, is to repackage a theme, rename it, and bring "new" info, and then wait to see if it plays well, then merge the old with the new, and if it doesnt, then run from the old, point out the "mistakes" and keep on pouring on thre "data"
 


Wiki says that density of Earth's decreases by a factor of e every 7.64km and that the density at sea level is 1.2kg/m^3. So a very loose estimate of 0.06kg/m^3 for 51km, which is a little bit higher than what this graph shows - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_model.png
Change the game? Probably doesn't at all as atmospheric scientists are probably well aware of the shift in density as we climb upwards.

On light? Good grief, this is ridiculous. Gravity has NO direct effect on photons. Read my prior post for crying out loud.

'What wavelengths are most affective for heating?' Well, I guess infrared (0.7-300 micrometres). The wavelength will decrease in a medium with a higher refractive index – the refractive index of air is about 1.0003 (vacuum is 1). So the speed of light divided by the refractive index will give the phase speed, which in air would be 299,702,547.2m/s. The shift in speed of light is not great enough in Earth's atmosphere to produce a substantial shift in wavelength. In a really dense atmosphere the effect of the shift will be greater due to the atmosphere having a higher refractive index, but we don't have a really dense atmosphere on Earth.

Come again? If the earth core were like the moons? Can you provide the study which suggested this? Or simply any information on it.

A mile down you'd be colder nearly everywhere non-volcanic. The crusts are thick enough for them to be shielded from the magma.

The La Nina is developing, and produces cools the sea surface in parts of the Pacific. It's not even fully formed, so we can't really make any comparison with prior La Niña events.

Please look at the wikipedia link I provided - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates
'It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54 and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (in order 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.'
And your link says:
'Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.'
And: 'On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.'
So a link I've given has already talked directly about this research. Then the wikipedia article cites this article - http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf - which looked for changes in the isotopes Sodium-22, Titanium-44, Silver-108, Tin-121, Barium-133 and Americium-241. They found no correlation, and set upper limits for any possible variation. The upper limits for Na-22/Ti-44, Am-241/Sn-121 and Ba-133/Ag-108 are '0.06%, 0.024% and 0.004% respectively'. This not a large change. The half life of Sodium-22 would go from 2.6027 years to 2.6043 years which is a change of about a week.
Do you have evidence that the null hypothesis for Carbon-14 and Oxygen-18 (that they do not vary) is incorrect? Considering that there is that the second paper tested other isotopes and found no correlation for the earth-sun distance, and any labs working with these isotopes are likely to spot small variations due to the technical standard of the equipment (although equipment error can never be fully ruled out, but is usually accounted for).

So, when data disagrees with you it's wrong?

If crap weren't being spread by climate denialists, and if science were a better communicator then the public wouldn't be fading into the distance.
Argumentum ad populum does not and will not overturn the data.
 
Youre the one who brought in photons.
I guess nothing from the sun heats the atmosphere then?
When its less dense, the atmosphere is colder
When and where its more dense, its allowed to become hotter, since more matter resides within these areas.
As its reflected back into space it has a reverse effect, meaning, entering into the atmosphere, its easy for the various particles to travel in the upper, less occupied atmosphere, with the results being, colder temps, as less reaction is created.
As it travels thru the rest of the atmosphere, it runs into more objects/particles, where theyre more dense
After reflection, its reversed, where higher densities occur at the lower atmosphere, and by the time it reaches the upper atmosphere, alot of these particles/energies, are already used up.
As all this occurs, these particles, all of them, are slowed, bent and in lessor quantities.
Being slowed, it changes the wave lengths, as well as being bent.
Since certain particles respond better to certain wavelengths, this too is another change, and theres no certain constant of effects when doubling any particle.
Its easy to understand, but according to supposed claims, it doesnt work this way, its more like it just doubles, which is dead wrong
Now, after saying this, I know I'll have to find those links etc, but think before I do, because here are 2 positions, one, done by specialists in their own field, the other, being used by a differing field trying to prove something that doesnt carry any water.
As to the decay factor, no, other than these early findings, which I'll also find more in depth data
But, understand this
The reason I bring up such things is because, these still not understood fully effects, tho small, spanned across hundreds of thousands or even billions of years change the whole ballgame on many findings, and at this point, again alters studies assumed to be spot on.
Im not saying this is a end all fact one way or another, as these new findings may end in having greater proofs of global warming, but my overall thrust of these things is more to the uncertainty of where were at
Im also disappointed with the tree study in Russia.
Too much emphasis placed on a shrinking data base that becomes irrelevent in the end.
Also, Id like to know why the charts done earlier were changed, not including the cooler periods of the earlier 19th century, which by the way, were included on earlier studies by the same people
Add it all up, and you get the hockey stick, only after all the changes, which arent consistant to their own graphs, tho at first, they were.
Needing to change your own data, old data, with no additions, only subtractions, to show your theory is working, is very very amateurish, and doesnt belong in any scientific community, aspecially one where billions of peoples tax dollars, as well as the ears of their elected officials.

I know it doesnt appear Im keeping an open mind on this, but after having a few conversations, learning a few more things, its closing fast, and since I was never convinced one ways or another, I think Im still credible, as pure true believers are the ones whove given up listening at this point, but as I said, Im still trying to appoint truths to these things, but its just harder as other knowledge comes forth, or has been here already, and its just me coming to it

PS Talk to miners, see what happens a mile down.
I believe I remember reading about the deepest mine at the time in Africa, and they were becoming limited in their depth, because of the heat, tho the gold was still down there
 


No, I actually just clarified on photons. Photons are the carrier particle of electromagnetic radiation – light. You said that gravity was one of 'three things controlling the energies by vast amounts'. Energy is usually delivered from the Sun and almost always delivered as photons. So, no, it was you who brought up photons, I just clarified. You then continued, and asked these four questions:
'Whats the effects of gravity on rays? Rays which effect CO2 etc?
What wavelengths are most affective for heating? Do those rays/wavelengths change in differing atmospheres?'
By rays you mean electromagnetic radiation, or at least I assume you do, as the only other 'rays' I can think of are 'cosmic rays' which are high energy protons, for the most part, but they are pretty constant in their arrival at earth. Rays which effect CO2 would be nearly always made up of photons; it's the molecules interaction with particular bands of electromagnetic energy which make them greenhouse gases.
Then you mention 'wavelengths'. Due to duality in quantum physics objects like electrons can have wavelengths, but wavelength is almost always used in regard to photons.
As I have explained to you, gravity does not directly effect photons, because they are massless and gravity interacts with mass.

The energy from the sun would be photons, and are unaffected by the gravitational pull of the earth.

'As its reflected back into space it has a reverse effect, meaning, entering into the atmosphere, its easy for the various particles to travel in the upper, less occupied atmosphere, with the results being, colder temps, as less reaction is created. '
Clarification needed. I have no idea what you are talking about.

'As it travels thru the rest of the atmosphere, it runs into more objects/particles, where theyre more dense
After reflection, its reversed, where higher densities occur at the lower atmosphere, and by the time it reaches the upper atmosphere, alot of these particles/energies, are already used up.
As all this occurs, these particles, all of them, are slowed, bent and in lessor quantities. '
Can you clarify this as well?

'Since certain particles respond better to certain wavelengths, this too is another change, and theres no certain constant of effects when doubling any particle.
Its easy to understand, but according to supposed claims, it doesnt work this way, its more like it just doubles, which is dead wrong '
Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are on about. Can you clarify?

'As to the decay factor, no, other than these early findings,'
So what you are saying with regards to the half-life of Oxygen-18 and Carbon-14 is that you have no evidence that they are effected by any environmental conditions, because the study that DID find variation did NOT use carbon-14 or Oxygen-18, and since another study found no variation within the decay other isotopes you cannot say that this study (which didn't look at these two isotopes) has any relevance at all to these two isotopes.

Well, it doesn't appear that you are keeping an open mind, because you have rejected perfectly good data just because it shows warming or disagrees with your view.

Yes, with regards to temperature in the crust, this was my mistake. I assumed, erroneously, that the amount of shielding would be enough along with the lack of sunlight to cool the inners of the crust.

P.S. What 'tree study' are you talking about?
 
Not only did the `Hockey Stick' fly in the face of a mountain of evidence from other sciences which contradicts its conclusions, but thanks to McIntyre and McKitrick, we now know that the Hockey Stick is internally flawed as well, since its own data sources, properly read, do not support its conclusions either.

This raises the question of the scientific bona fides of climate science itself. McIntyre and McKitrick have exposed fundamental scientific flaws in an influential scientific paper which was fully peer reviewed by `experts' from the greenhouse industry and published in a top journal. Their audit of the databases and statistical processes which lay behind the `Hockey Stick’ called for first-order statistical skills above all else, and it is here that they have exposed the incompetence which lay behind the original `Hockey Stick' concept. There have been many other instances of deeply flawed science being given an uncritical green light for publication by reviewers from this science, but the question must now be asked whether their pretensions to scientific status can be justified by their performance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010630/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010630/posts
So, as I said, changing your findings to maintain your theory is irresponsible, and simply doesnt belong with science, politics or other peoples monies, nor their intentions.

"On the one hand the quantum theory of light cannot be considered satisfactory since it defines the energy of a light particle (photon) by the equation E=hf containing the frequency f. Now a purely particle theory contains nothing that enables us to define a frequency; for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled, in the case of light, to introduce the idea of a particle and that of frequency simultaneously. On the other hand, determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to this point the only phenomena involving integers in physics were those of interference and of normal modes of vibration. This fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as particles, but that frequency (wave properties) must be assigned to them also. (Louis de Broglie, Nobel Prize Speech, 1929


Heisenberg originally explained this as a consequence of the process of measuring: Measuring position accurately would disturb momentum and vice-versa, offering an example (the "gamma-ray microscope") that depended crucially on the de Broglie hypothesis. It is now thought, however, that this only partly explains the phenomenon, but that the uncertainty also exists in the particle itself, even before the measurement is made.

In fact, the modern explanation of the uncertainty principle, extending the Copenhagen interpretation first put forward by Bohr and Heisenberg, depends even more centrally on the wave nature of a particle: Just as it is nonsensical to discuss the precise location of a wave on a string, particles do not have perfectly precise positions; likewise, just as it is nonsensical to discuss the wavelength of a "pulse" wave traveling down a string, particles do not have perfectly precise momenta (which corresponds to the inverse of wavelength). Moreover, when position is relatively well defined, the wave is pulse-like and has a very ill-defined wavelength (and thus momentum). And conversely, when momentum (and thus wavelength) is relatively well defined, the wave looks long and usoidal, and therefore it has a very ill-defined position.


De Broglie himself had proposed a pilot wave construct to explain the observed wave–particle duality. In this view, each particle has a well-defined position and momentum, but is guided by a wave function derived from Schrödinger's equation. The pilot wave theory was initially rejected because it generated non-local effects when applied to systems involving more than one particle. Non-locality, however, soon became established as an integral feature of quantum theory (see EPR paradox), and David Bohm extended de Broglie's model to explicitly include it. In Bohmian mechanics,[12] the wave–particle duality is not a property of matter itself, but an appearance generated by the particle's motion subject to a guiding equation or quantum potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

So, as a photon interacts with other mass, it too changes, especially when the mass is increased.
The mirroring effect alone causes changes in the photons effects, while the mirroring effects are created by the mass, which changes due to gravity.
As the photons are reflected, and not in an even position from entering the atmosphere, theyre once again "mirrored" into each other as well as the mass, which decreases with gravity, as it leaves the atmosphere.
So, doubling the CO2 amounts has smaller and smaller effects as this interaction occurs, as well as the wave dropoff, which I wont go into here
 



Which is why I do not use the hockey stick graph. The general concern – a rise in temperature beginning soon after industrialisation, remains. No, it probably wasn't that flat, but now the graphs we have DO show both the MWP and the little ice age. To bring up the hockey stick is, well, living in the past. Science moves on, it is not in stasis, so when new data turned up it was added to the graph, showing, hey it wasn't as flat. But look at the full graph, with error bars – you'll see a lot of uncertainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

'So, as a photon interacts with other mass, it too changes, especially when the mass is increased. '
No, not quite. Nothing quoted says this. Nothing in the article says this. We can make light internally reflect/reflect/bend, but this is an interaction with MATTER, not gravity – photons only 'interact' with gravitational wells produced by mass, not with the force of gravity directly. I mean you COULD just accept that when you mentioned gravity effecting energy you were wrong, rather than entering particle physics where gravity does not effect the calculations ('Have we omitted anything? Figure 9.23 reminds us that we have not discussed gravity. The gravitational potential is so small in all known basic atomic and subatomic processes that its effect is entirely negligible' W.S.C. Williams, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Pg 186-187)
The De Broglie wavelength (which I what I think you are going on about) is not photons interacting with gravity. The de Broglie wavelength is where you can work out the wavelength of an object due to the wave-particle duality that exists in nature.

Mass doesn't change 'due to gravity'. Mass would be constant, regardless of gravitational field strength (and as I have already said, photons have no mass anyway). This is basic physics. Weight can change, but in physics weight is only used in things to do with gravity, and so is not used for particle physics. What's this mirroring effect you speak of? Duality doesn't mean that two of the particles exist, one as a particle and one as a wave, it means it can act as both a wave and a particle.

'As the photons are reflected, and not in an even position from entering the atmosphere, theyre once again "mirrored" into each other as well as the mass, which decreases with gravity, as it leaves the atmosphere. '
I have no idea what you are talking about or where you are getting this from. This is horrific.

'So, doubling the CO2 amounts has smaller and smaller effects as this interaction occurs, as well as the wave dropoff, which I wont go into here '
Yes, please don't go into it, as you appear to be unable to grasp basic physics concepts, such as mass. Perhaps if you could explain what you are going on about, before you go on about this novel 'wave drop off' concept of yours.
 
Lets focus on the situation, issue or behaviour and not the person!

Read the above point again, so I don't have to repeat it.

Since he hasn't attacked you personally ... but you have, and I quote, "Yes, please don't go into it, as you appear to be unable to grasp basic physics" then I suggest you quickly bring your post to a point ... and not an attack.

Thanks.
 
Which is why I do not use the hockey stick graph. The general concern – a rise in temperature beginning soon after industrialisation, remains. No, it probably wasn't that flat, but now the graphs we have DO show both the MWP and the little ice age. To bring up the hockey stick is, well, living in the past. Science moves on, it is not in stasis, so when new data turned up it was added to the graph, showing, hey it wasn't as flat. But look at the full graph, with error bars – you'll see a lot of uncertainty.


And this is my point, those same numbers existed in their own previous findings, which were later omitted to further their own theory, which they now have reintroduced, and head in a different direction.
Or, in otherwords, they wont let go of a good thing, even after they corrupted their own work, changed it back, and took a new approach.
Id add that gravity does have a limiting effect, and is stronger at its core than away from it, that too is easy to understand
 
The effect of greater mass effects photons.
Greater mass in our atmosphere occurs near the earth, or thre greatest source of gravity

"Radiation or carbon dioxide?

Researchers used computer models to analyze two possible culprits in the mystery of the shrinking thermosphere.

They simulated both the impacts of the sun's output and the role of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas that, according to past estimates, is reducing the density of the outer atmosphere by about 2 percent to 5 percent per decade.

However, scientists were uncertain whether the decline in extreme-ultraviolet radiation would be sufficient to have such a dramatic impact on the thermosphere, even when combined with the effects of carbon dioxide.

The computer models showed that the thermosphere cooled in 2008 by 41 Kelvins (about 74 degrees Fahrenheit or 41 degrees Celsius) compared to 1996, with just 2 Kelvins attributable to the carbon dioxide increase.

The results also showed the thermosphere's density decreasing by 31 percent, with just 3 percent attributable to carbon dioxide. The results closely approximated the 30 percent reduction in density indicated by previous work.

"It is now clear that the record low temperature and density were primarily caused by unusually low levels of solar radiation at the extreme-ultraviolet level," Solomon said.
Woods says the research indicates that the Sun could be going through a period of relatively low activity, similar to periods in the early 19th and 20th centuries. This could mean that solar output may remain at a low level for the near future.

"If it is indeed similar to certain patterns in the past, then we expect to have low solar cycles for the next 10 to 30 years," Woods said.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun-shrinking-earth-atmosphere-100826.html
Now, this too was claimed by the GW crowd, and as it lays out, the densities corelate directly not only to the amount of gravity, but also radiation, as the atmosphere thins away from its gravitational force.
The GW crowd has disdained the effects from the sun, and have attributed some of these findings to CO2.
Now, counting hockey sticks, and prior to that, no hockey sticks from the same people, and now again, no hockey sticks, yes, I can see this as confusing, since these groups use only certain data, data thats been manipulated timwe and again to fit their particular viewpoint, all the while, ignoring other data, or omitting it purposefully
To this we need to send our monies, pin our hopes, and change our lives at the most basic of levels?
I think not

"The team also used a prediction for the next solar cycle, issued by NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues, that calls for a stronger-than-usual solar cycle over the next decade."

We’re seeing climate change manifest itself in the upper as well as lower atmosphere,” said NCAR scientist Stan Solomon, a co-author of the study. “This shows the far-ranging impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://scienceblog.com/12255/co2-emissions-will-shrink-earths-outer-atmosphere-by-2017/

Since this is dated 2006, its obvious this is either part of the GW crowd, or theyre handpicking their data once again, as others have been saying its the suns effects, and they will continue for a time yet from now.
Again, I point out that these "scientists" enter into areas they know lil about, and again, use selective data
 


Lets be fair here, 'appear unable to' is not the same as 'cannot because you are stupid'.

To grasp is to comprehend,

The weight mass relationship is basic physics, and since I have just been to that mass changes with gravitational field strength - '...created by the mass, which changes due to gravity.' - when it doesn't, I'd say that 'appear unable to grasp basic physics' is less of an insult and more of a statement.

The addition of the qualifier 'appear' in the sentence is also important. It changes the meaning from (pretty much) 'you are stupid' to 'this appears stupid, but there may be communication issues'.

But you're point is well taken and I will try to be more careful with my language.

Id add that gravity does have a limiting effect, and is stronger at its core than away from it, that too is easy to understand.
Click to expand...

Gravity interacts with mass, but mass is constant regardless of the field strength. One kilogram on the moon has the same mass as one kilogram on earth, but it's weight in newtons is different – 1.622N versus 9.780N.
Furthermore, as I have already mentioned several times photons are massless, and, as mentioned in the 'Nuclear and Particle Physics' quote, it is so weak that basic atomic and subatomic processes are unaffected by it.

The effect of greater mass effects photons.
Greater mass in our atmosphere occurs near the earth, or thre greatest source of gravity
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not even going to argue this with you.
Photons do not interact with gravity. The only thing to do with gravity is the photons reaction to a gravity well, not with the force itself. If you can't accept this that is your problem not mine. Photons can and do interact with matter, but matter is not gravity. The refractive index of a material effects photons, but the change from the refractive index of space to Earths atmosphere does not make even a small difference, and refractive index is not necessarily linked to density.

Furthermore, I have no idea why you even mentioned gravity, considering the strength on Earth hasn't changed throughout nearly all of the history of the planet, let alone recently.

I have also asked you to clarify you're points, but you haven't as of yet. Could you re-read my prior posts and clarify the statements I had trouble understanding? It would be appreciated.
 
You deflect what Ive already said, you omit density
Its the density, which is the result of gravity, and this youve gone alll the way around the fence, just to ignore it?
Is a black hole more dense than anything we know?
In relation then, isnt its gravity?
Now, start from the begining, go to the pointers, or recognized understanding of densities and gravities, and reread what Ive been saying, then youll understand

Its not my not understanding, its you not understanding what Im saying, but hopefully, this will clear it up.
Sticking to the point, or, the densities mentioned above are in relationship to gravity, and are relevent to my latter links, in the larger/bigger picture

PS Its your assumption that I was saying a atom was heavier in higher gravity, and all I was saying was denity is increased
 
If theres more matter due to a higher density, due to gravity, it will have effects on incoming photons
If theres less photons, theres less energy, and less density in an atmosphere
Attributing these things to CO2 is wrong, at least as it playing a large part in it
There are factors being ignored by the GW folks, the earths core, be it gravity and energy

Whats the density in higher atmospheres? How does this change the game?
Whats the effects of gravity on rays? Rays which effect CO2 etc?
What wavelengths are most affective for heating? Do those rays/wavelengths change in differing atmospheres

These questions I asked earlier

Ive addressed them all, and have given whole or partial answers to each

Now again, why does the GW crowd continue to ignore its own data at times, other data, and attribute their findings as in the solar activity as being primarily a CO2 reaction, as theyre the cedited "experts"?
 
'So, as a photon interacts with other mass, it too changes, especially when the mass is increased. '
No, not quite. Nothing quoted says this. Nothing in the article says this. We can make light internally reflect/reflect/bend, but this is an interaction with MATTER, not gravity – photons only 'interact' with gravitational wells produced by mass, not with the force of gravity directly. I mean you COULD just accept that when you mentioned gravity effecting energy you were wrong, rather than entering particle physics where gravity does not effect the calculations ('Have we omitted anything? Figure 9.23 reminds us that we have not discussed gravity. The gravitational potential is so small in all known basic atomic and subatomic processes that its effect is entirely negligible' W.S.C. Williams, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Pg 186-187)
The De Broglie wavelength (which I what I think you are going on about) is not photons interacting with gravity. The de Broglie wavelength is where you can work out the wavelength of an object due to the wave-particle duality that exists in nature.

Here is where youre losing me
I never mentioned gravity here, at all, more to the point, I was pointing out that gravities effects are limited, but stronger at its core, thus the atmospheres thinning away from it as I mentioned here
"As its reflected back into space it has a reverse effect, meaning, entering into the atmosphere, its easy for the various particles to travel in the upper, less occupied atmosphere, with the results being, colder temps, as less reaction is created. "

What needs be done here is for you try to answer my questions Ive asked, as pertains to the GW community, of which all Ive gotten was how theyve confused their own data, which I would have to attribute to them, and them alone
 
'You deflect what Ive already said, you omit density
Its the density, which is the result of gravity, and this youve gone alll the way around the fence, just to ignore it?'
No, density has nothing to do with gravity. Density is mass per unit volume. Mass does not change with gravitational field strength and density does not change with gravitational field strength. The density of a material is unaffected by altitude, but the density of an atmosphere is. Perhaps this has just clicked for me, but you haven't actually said 'atmospheric density'. That's probably where the confusion comes from, so I will take all the blame for that aspect of your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Altitude
But, looking at the calculations, it appears that it as much to do with the 'temperature lapse' and the altitude itself. In fact looking at what the lapse rate is, it appears that lapse rate is much more of a driver of density than gravity (0.0065K/m is 6.5K/km, whereas the change for g (to two s.f.) is only 0.0031m/(s-2)/km).

'Is a black hole more dense than anything we know? '
Blacks holes are the most dense things in the universe, because they have a large amount of MASS in a small amount of VOLUME. No mention of weight, no mention of gravity.

'Now, start from the begining, go to the pointers, or recognized understanding of densities and gravities, and reread what Ive been saying, then youll understand'
I've tried and I've tried, but much of what you have said flies in the face of Physics, and I have requested clarification and have yet to receive any.

'There are factors being ignored by the GW folks, the earths core, be it gravity and energy '
Frankly this is ridiculous. Gravity has no effect on photons. Gravity has not changed recently.

'Whats the density in higher atmospheres? How does this change the game?
Whats the effects of gravity on rays? Rays which effect CO2 etc?
What wavelengths are most affective for heating? Do those rays/wavelengths change in differing atmospheres'
And I have answered these questions -
'Wiki says that density of Earth's decreases by a factor of e every 7.64km and that the density at sea level is 1.2kg/m^3. So a very loose estimate of 0.06kg/m^3 for 51km, which is a little bit higher than what this graph shows - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_model.png
Change the game? Probably doesn't at all as atmospheric scientists are probably well aware of the shift in density as we climb upwards.

On light? Good grief, this is ridiculous. Gravity has NO direct effect on photons. Read my prior post for crying out loud.

'What wavelengths are most affective for heating?' Well, I guess, infrared (0.7-300 micrometres). The wavelength will decrease in a medium with a higher refractive index – the refractive index of air is about 1.0003 (vacuum is 1). So the speed of light divided by the refractive index will give the phase speed, which in air would be 299,702,547.2m/s. The shift in speed of light is not great enough in Earth's atmosphere to produce a substantial shift in wavelength. In a really dense atmosphere the effect of the shift will be greater due to the atmosphere having a higher refractive index, but we don't have a really dense atmosphere on Earth.'

'Here is where youre losing me
I never mentioned gravity here, at all'
Look down a line, under what I quoted -
'The mirroring effect alone causes changes in the photons effects, while the mirroring effects are created by the mass, which changes due to gravity.' See that, it's a mentioning of gravity. Now, as you've said 'especially when the mass has increased' then said 'mass... changes due to gravity', you can see the link.

'What needs be done here is for you try to answer my questions Ive asked'
I have. Please re-read my posts and clarify what I requested clarification for.
 
I'll start here
As its reflected back into space it has a reverse effect, meaning, entering into the atmosphere, its easy for the various particles to travel in the upper, less occupied atmosphere, with the results being, colder temps, as less reaction is created.

OK, understanding this means first, defining a less occupied atmosphere
This would mean a thinner atmosphere, and almost always a less dense one, since were referring to earths atmosphere
Defining further still, thinner in this instance would point towards less mass per volume

As a photon travels further towards the earth, the masses os gases are increased due to their relative distance from the gravitational center, or earths core.

Reflection happens, absorption happens, and to a lessor degree, the waves are bent from varying circumstances.
As this occurs, the doubling of CO2 amounts do not have a direct correlation of absorption, or green house effect, as stated by many GW followers, and since Ive yet to talk to my source, of which I'll then link you to the claims of the GW crowd vs various tests and findings, as this data is once again ignored by the GW crowd.
Now, my last two points were made for clarification, and I pointed out where you lost my direction, and how you started veering down another path.

Now
'Since certain particles respond better to certain wavelengths, this too is another change, and theres no certain constant of effects when doubling any particle.
Its easy to understand, but according to supposed claims, it doesnt work this way, its more like it just doubles, which is dead wrong '
Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are on about. Can you clarify?
Im referring above to the CO2 thermal effects with increasing amounts in our atmosphere, where we find lower photon activity, tho its the opposite of the GW crowd, where the atmosphere is shrinking thru these lowered sun effects, tho again, almost completely attributed to CO2 levels by the GW crowd, which in 2006, their predictions of solar activity were completely wrong, yet theyve still continued to attribute this phenomenon to CO2, since we now know in 2010, that the solar activity was still low, as predicted by real scientist within their field, and not some cherry picked one, to bolster the GW crowds POV

These tactics can be described as confusing, as it benefits those that are confused, by those that wont let go of a varied, distorted, and purposefully small amount of data to promote their agenda
Im not confused at all by their actions, as their own charts changed thruout their own findings, which were once again changed almost all the way back to a full data set of temps thruout the few centuries.
Nor am I confused, nor do believe them when they said in 2006 that CO2 was the main driving force behind our shrinking atmosphere, I suspect either this data has changed since, or will soon, and we are to forget their previous claims.
Those claims are/were and will be written down for all to see, even as they change in this so called scientific adventure, where they have the ears of many prominent peoples, and a hand in their pocketbooks, their governments pocketbooks, and those of all their taxpayers.

So, it has to be hotter in some areas and colder in some, the shrinking atmosphere is mainly due to GW/CO2 emissions, the data sets, which were all done in the past, somehow has changed 3 times from other data sets regarding past temps, with past meaning, data was already there, like it or not.
The trees in Siberia, starting at several dozen was whittled down to just a few, as the tree rings no longer supported these temp changes of their claims, yet these findings were still fully adopted with so little data, and used primarily as a factor for their whole temps past data set, as well as them dropping previous findings, and the shift of readings from traditional areas for temps to more heavily populated areas, where to some extent, extra heating occurs, and also by ignoring the water masses in relations to the factoring in of a total data set
In other words, incompetency, and dangerous at that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom