| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
By Dan Sorenson ARIZONA DAILY STAR Many solar scientists expected the new sunspot cycle to be a whopper, a prolonged solar tantrum that could fry satellites and raise hell with earthly communications, the power grid and modern electronics. But there's scant proof Sunspot Cycle 24 is even here, let alone the debut of big trouble. So far there have been just a couple minor zits on the face of the sun to suggest the old cycle is over and the new one is coming. The roughly 11-year cycle of sunspot activity should have bottomed out last year, the end of Cycle 23 and the beginning of Cycle 24. That would have put the peak in new sunspot activity around 2012. But a dud sunspot cycle would not necessarily make it a boring period, especially for two solar scientists with the Tucson-based National Solar Observatory. Two years ago, William Livingston and Matt Penn wrote a paper for the journal Science predicting that this could not only be a dud sunspot cycle, but the start of another extended down period in solar activity. It was based on their analysis of weakening sunspot intensity and said sunspots might vanish by 2015. And here's the punch line: That last long-term down period, 1645-1715, coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of bitter cold winters. That kind of talk could ruffle some feathers in this time of climate change and global warming, starring man-made carbon dioxide as the devil. The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he's OK with the rejection. "I accept what the reviewers said," Livingston said. "'If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.' " Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument. He is aware that some opponents of the prevailing position that climate change and global warming are the result of manmade activity — greenhouse gas, specifically carbon dioxide, buildup — are very much interested in the idea that changes might be related to solar activity. "But it has not been proven yet," cautioned Livingston, an astronomer emeritus who still works out of an office at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory headquarters building on the University of Arizona campus. "We may have to wait. We may be wrong. (But) the sun is going to entertain us one way or another," he said. It's not just a scientific curiosity. There's a lot at stake in predicting whether sunspot cycles are going to be tame or wild, said Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory. The powerful blasts of radiation that come from solar activity can fry electronic equipment on Earth; particularly vulnerable are satellites. The high-energy radiation produced by solar flares travels at near the speed of light, getting to Earth in just minutes. But the magnetic effects of a solar flare can take between two and three days to reach Earth, said Penn, a solar scientist. In the 1800s, magnetic blasts from intense solar activity induced currents in telegraph lines in the U.S. and Italy, starting fires and damaging equipment. Later, it was learned that solar activity affected radio transmission. It can also affect the electrical-power grid. A solar tantrum in 1989 blew transformers and caused a blackout in Canada. And a number of satellites are thought to have failed from exposure to high-energy blasts from solar activity. Satellite operators can turn them away or shut down vulnerable equipment aboard, and astronauts can use shielding to avoid those blasts. If Cycle 24 is the big cycle predicted, Penn said, "it's likely we'll have geomagnetic storms with a lot of sunspots, a lot of flares on the sun." Penn said even so-called "quiet sun" periods are far from boring because the sun's "surface consists of Texas-sized hot gas bubbles, which rise upward at a speed of about a mile per second. The gas cools and falls downward in narrower channels at about the same speed. That's what we call the 'quiet sun.'" "As we get more into the space environment with satellites, GPS and communication satellites, it means money. People who are about to launch new communication satellites really want to know how much shielding to put on their satellites. "But shielding amounts to weight, which is money. If they want them to last through (an intense cycle), they're going to want to protect them more, and that will cost them more." Penn is the telescope scientist on the McMath-Pierce solar telescope, the strange angular white thing amid all the white and silver-domed things atop Kitt Peak. Specifically, Penn works with an instrument that "sees" in the infrared range to provide information about magnetic activity. Sometimes, sunspot activity is more than theory or data to him. Several years ago, he was making an early-morning run from Tucson up to Kitt Peak to do some solar observing. He noticed his gas gauge was dangerously low and decided to stop for gas at the convenience store in Three Points. It was about 5 a.m., and no one was there to take cash, so he tried to use his credit card to gas up. But the pay-at-the-pump system was down. Crossing his fingers and driving up the mountain, Penn said he hoped he'd have enough gas after work to make it back to the station on the way home. When he got to work, he learned that "a communications satellite had been damaged by (a solar flare). Lots of communications were dropped that morning, and my credit-card pay-at-the-pump attempt was one of them." Though Aimee Norton appreciates the practical benefits of being able to predict the sun's activity, solving some of the star's mysteries that relate to the big picture are more compelling. Norton is a program scientist on the solar observatory's SOLIS (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun) facility at Kitt Peak. "Part of what we're trying to understand is how the magnetic field regulates or moderates the energy that is transported in the atmosphere," Norton said. "Because one of the mysteries of the sun is, it's hotter in the upper atmosphere than (at the surface). So there is energy being transported. Some people think the magnetic field is somehow magically getting that energy out there." Norton said she's hoping for a powerful cycle, noting, "It would give us more things to do research with — either that or no cycle at all, which would be similar to the Maunder Minimum." She said she figures there's little chance of a completely dead cycle but added, "Wouldn't that be fascinating if the solar system managed to offset our contribution?" Because you can't go • Visit Solar Cycle 24: www.solarcycle24.com/ • Mr. Sunspot's Answer Book: http://eo.nso.edu/MrSunspot/answerbook/polarity.html • NASA's Solar Physics: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/whysolar.shtml • Solar storms: www.solarstorms.org • National Solar Observatory's Solis solar telescope (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun): http://solis.nso.edu • For more information on sunspots: http://spaceweather.com or http://science.nasa.gov • For a list of sometimes spectacular sunspot-induced problems: http://sw.astron.kharkov.ua/swimpacts.html ● Contact reporter Dan Sorenson at 573-4185 or at . -- "We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/ |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Good grief, the new sunspot cycle has barely begun. Give it a little time.
It is way too soon to expect any fireworks, even in an exceptional solar cycle. Ed, NM2K "Roger" wrote in message news:4dCdnSnMYv6XwqvVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net... Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood By Dan Sorenson ARIZONA DAILY STAR Many solar scientists expected the new sunspot cycle to be a whopper, a prolonged solar tantrum that could fry satellites and raise hell with earthly communications, the power grid and modern electronics. But there's scant proof Sunspot Cycle 24 is even here, let alone the debut of big trouble. So far there have been just a couple minor zits on the face of the sun to suggest the old cycle is over and the new one is coming. The roughly 11-year cycle of sunspot activity should have bottomed out last year, the end of Cycle 23 and the beginning of Cycle 24. That would have put the peak in new sunspot activity around 2012. But a dud sunspot cycle would not necessarily make it a boring period, especially for two solar scientists with the Tucson-based National Solar Observatory. Two years ago, William Livingston and Matt Penn wrote a paper for the journal Science predicting that this could not only be a dud sunspot cycle, but the start of another extended down period in solar activity. It was based on their analysis of weakening sunspot intensity and said sunspots might vanish by 2015. And here's the punch line: That last long-term down period, 1645-1715, coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of bitter cold winters. That kind of talk could ruffle some feathers in this time of climate change and global warming, starring man-made carbon dioxide as the devil. The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he's OK with the rejection. "I accept what the reviewers said," Livingston said. "'If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.' " Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument. He is aware that some opponents of the prevailing position that climate change and global warming are the result of manmade activity - greenhouse gas, specifically carbon dioxide, buildup - are very much interested in the idea that changes might be related to solar activity. "But it has not been proven yet," cautioned Livingston, an astronomer emeritus who still works out of an office at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory headquarters building on the University of Arizona campus. "We may have to wait. We may be wrong. (But) the sun is going to entertain us one way or another," he said. It's not just a scientific curiosity. There's a lot at stake in predicting whether sunspot cycles are going to be tame or wild, said Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory. The powerful blasts of radiation that come from solar activity can fry electronic equipment on Earth; particularly vulnerable are satellites. The high-energy radiation produced by solar flares travels at near the speed of light, getting to Earth in just minutes. But the magnetic effects of a solar flare can take between two and three days to reach Earth, said Penn, a solar scientist. In the 1800s, magnetic blasts from intense solar activity induced currents in telegraph lines in the U.S. and Italy, starting fires and damaging equipment. Later, it was learned that solar activity affected radio transmission. It can also affect the electrical-power grid. A solar tantrum in 1989 blew transformers and caused a blackout in Canada. And a number of satellites are thought to have failed from exposure to high-energy blasts from solar activity. Satellite operators can turn them away or shut down vulnerable equipment aboard, and astronauts can use shielding to avoid those blasts. If Cycle 24 is the big cycle predicted, Penn said, "it's likely we'll have geomagnetic storms with a lot of sunspots, a lot of flares on the sun." Penn said even so-called "quiet sun" periods are far from boring because the sun's "surface consists of Texas-sized hot gas bubbles, which rise upward at a speed of about a mile per second. The gas cools and falls downward in narrower channels at about the same speed. That's what we call the 'quiet sun.'" "As we get more into the space environment with satellites, GPS and communication satellites, it means money. People who are about to launch new communication satellites really want to know how much shielding to put on their satellites. "But shielding amounts to weight, which is money. If they want them to last through (an intense cycle), they're going to want to protect them more, and that will cost them more." Penn is the telescope scientist on the McMath-Pierce solar telescope, the strange angular white thing amid all the white and silver-domed things atop Kitt Peak. Specifically, Penn works with an instrument that "sees" in the infrared range to provide information about magnetic activity. Sometimes, sunspot activity is more than theory or data to him. Several years ago, he was making an early-morning run from Tucson up to Kitt Peak to do some solar observing. He noticed his gas gauge was dangerously low and decided to stop for gas at the convenience store in Three Points. It was about 5 a.m., and no one was there to take cash, so he tried to use his credit card to gas up. But the pay-at-the-pump system was down. Crossing his fingers and driving up the mountain, Penn said he hoped he'd have enough gas after work to make it back to the station on the way home. When he got to work, he learned that "a communications satellite had been damaged by (a solar flare). Lots of communications were dropped that morning, and my credit-card pay-at-the-pump attempt was one of them." Though Aimee Norton appreciates the practical benefits of being able to predict the sun's activity, solving some of the star's mysteries that relate to the big picture are more compelling. Norton is a program scientist on the solar observatory's SOLIS (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun) facility at Kitt Peak. "Part of what we're trying to understand is how the magnetic field regulates or moderates the energy that is transported in the atmosphere," Norton said. "Because one of the mysteries of the sun is, it's hotter in the upper atmosphere than (at the surface). So there is energy being transported. Some people think the magnetic field is somehow magically getting that energy out there." Norton said she's hoping for a powerful cycle, noting, "It would give us more things to do research with - either that or no cycle at all, which would be similar to the Maunder Minimum." She said she figures there's little chance of a completely dead cycle but added, "Wouldn't that be fascinating if the solar system managed to offset our contribution?" Because you can't go . Visit Solar Cycle 24: www.solarcycle24.com/ . Mr. Sunspot's Answer Book: http://eo.nso.edu/MrSunspot/answerbook/polarity.html . NASA's Solar Physics: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/whysolar.shtml . Solar storms: www.solarstorms.org . National Solar Observatory's Solis solar telescope (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun): http://solis.nso.edu . For more information on sunspots: http://spaceweather.com or http://science.nasa.gov . For a list of sometimes spectacular sunspot-induced problems: http://sw.astron.kharkov.ua/swimpacts.html ? Contact reporter Dan Sorenson at 573-4185 or at . -- "We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/ |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Ed Cregger wrote:
Good grief, the new sunspot cycle has barely begun. Give it a little time. It is way too soon to expect any fireworks, even in an exceptional solar cycle. Hi Ed, That whole "report" is more of an attempt to discredit global warming than it is anything else. - 73 de Mike N3LI - ....still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media...... |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Ed Cregger wrote: Good grief, the new sunspot cycle has barely begun. Give it a little time. It is way too soon to expect any fireworks, even in an exceptional solar cycle. Hi Ed, That whole "report" is more of an attempt to discredit global warming than it is anything else. - 73 de Mike N3LI - ------------- Well, I'm not ready to give up my internal combustion engines just yet. Neither side has convincing arguments as far as I'm concerned. And I do not trust the global warming folks at all, since most of their claims are unprovable and I suspect their leaders' political motives. The real answer to global warming, assuming it exists and assuming that we are causing it, is a severe population reduction. Any volunteers? I didn't think so...G Ed, NM2K |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Michael Coslo wrote:
...still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media...... Every time it has happened in the past, an ice age followed. One might argue that a certain level of CO2 actually triggers an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Michael Coslo wrote: ...still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media...... Every time it has happened in the past, an ice age followed. One might argue that a certain level of CO2 actually triggers an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com ---------- Yup. Kind of hard to refute the geological data on that one. Ed, NM2K |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: ...still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media...... Every time it has happened in the past, an ice age followed. One might argue that a certain level of CO2 actually triggers an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png You are quite possibly correct, Cecil, Interrupting/changing the flow of ocean currents could indeed have an effect on certain things such as the Gulf stream. There are plausable scenarios that even in a warming environment, interruption of the gulf stream could cause the British Isles to become a lot colder, as much of their temperate climate depends on that Gulf stream moderating their high latitude temps. So in any event, hot or cold, we could ber causing the problem! ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Ed Cregger wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Ed Cregger wrote: Good grief, the new sunspot cycle has barely begun. Give it a little time. It is way too soon to expect any fireworks, even in an exceptional solar cycle. Hi Ed, That whole "report" is more of an attempt to discredit global warming than it is anything else. - 73 de Mike N3LI - ------------- Well, I'm not ready to give up my internal combustion engines just yet. Neither side has convincing arguments as far as I'm concerned. And I do not trust the global warming folks at all, since most of their claims are unprovable and I suspect their leaders' political motives. Smart man, Ed. Listen to the science, not the politicians. When I see people lining up by party, I tend to discount the politics. But there is some science here that is fact. The rest is pretty compelling. What is needed is the disbelievers to come up with equally valid science to show why the fist fact is being negated. That is all I ask - No Algore insults or whatever the leeburuls do to make fun of the other side. Kind of like Moore's law, first person that brings politics into it loses. hmmm Coslo's law?? My chance at netnews immortality.... 8^) The real answer to global warming, assuming it exists and assuming that we are causing it, is a severe population reduction. Any volunteers? If I may be so gloomy, Ed, I think Mother Nature is very close to a self correcting move in that direction. I suspect a global famine in the not too distant future. In some parts of the world, rice is now costing more that we pay for beef. Buy Febreeze stock........ - 73 d eMike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Michael Coslo wrote:
So in any event, hot or cold, we could be causing the problem! ;^) Whatever it is that we are doing, the Martians are doing the same thing. The melting of the polar ice cap on Mars is very closely correlated to the melting of the polar ice cap on Earth. Seriously, one can see from the temperature graph history that the temperature was almost 5 degrees F hotter 130,000 and 325,000 years ago than it is today. In fact, close examination of the temperature graph shows that the *average* temperature peaked 8000 years ago and has been falling ever since. Did you know that Al Gore used computer generated graphics from "The Day After Tomorrow" for his movie? Did he think no one would notice? Do you reckon that is indeed an inconvenient truth? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Ed Cregger wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Michael Coslo wrote: ...still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media...... Every time it has happened in the past, an ice age followed. One might argue that a certain level of CO2 actually triggers an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com ---------- Yup. Kind of hard to refute the geological data on that one. Only it isn't the CO2 level triggering the ice age, it is one of the effects of that warming brought about by the increased CO2. We have to be careful of going into a pick and choose mode. It is disingenuous at best to say that CO2 warming doesn't exist. But it causes global cooling. Heck if it does, that will be one whole awful lot worse than global warming. Glaciers don't support a whole lot of life.. Now onto that data. The present interglacial is a tad cooler than some of the others (note they say "at this site". That is important because it's a big world. It's been a miserable cold spring here in Pennsylvania. That doesn't mean it's been miserable and cold everywhere else. So here we have an apparent cycle. Is there a reason to attach more credence to benthic foraminfera than to CO@ heat retention? ( I believe it is fairly compelling, but I'm not arguing against the point. Isn't that 5 Million year plot interesting? Which all brings up one of the most frustrating parts of the GW debate. The uncertainty. There is so much data coming in. We humans love to look for patterns, so we tend to find them. Some of the things in those patterns may be involved, some may not. Certainly in that one plot, the temperatures have had an upward trend. Coupled with all that is the random factor. Suppose that a modern day version of the Deccan traps occurs. At that time, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be moot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps then we are really boinked. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Michael Coslo wrote:
Buy Febreeze stock........ Proctor and Gamble closed at $65.27 today. It paid $0.40 a share last quarter. Hi Mike, speaking of things that are possible, it's possible that the hot air Al Gore produces has contributed more to global warming than anything else. Personally, I don't believe that. I think it's caused by the Sun. ac6xg |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Indeed! And the "Hockey Stick" has been shown to be bad data, and
worse statistics. The "increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes" has now been disproved by none other that the sources he quotes, as has his the claim concerning changes to the Mt. Kilimanjaro snow pack. All in nicely refereed papers in reputable journals. I await the release of "An Inconvenient Truth II: Oops!" Not holding my breath, though. -- Alan WA4SCA |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Good article, in general
Your signature lines are political and inaccurate. Why confuse the solar cycle with global warming? |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
"jawod" wrote in message ... Good article, in general Your signature lines are political and inaccurate. Why confuse the solar cycle with global warming? not 'confuse' it, correlate it... there have been several studies that have correlated solar activity with global temperature changes. if we are indeed in a relatively active part of a long term solar fluctuation (hundreds of years not dozens) then does it not make sense that the solar activity may be warming us up?? Even other planets are being affected, read to the last line of the explanation of this pretty pictu http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html Surely you can't blame human activity on global warming on Jupiter... even though we have dumped a bit of left over space debris in there recently. |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Posted on behalf of WA2OQM whose newsgroups connection is interrupted. F8ND
The comments by the Hams in this group don't point out the fallacy for the Carbon target of the environmental commissars. Some have alluded to the enrichment of the elite of a Marxist State i.e. the political class. I for one would like to expose these charlatans by showing the errors in which they pick their data . 1 - C14 dating in the XX century to prove the anthropogenic cause of increased Carbon and not accounting for the proportional increase in C14 to nuclear explosions in the atmosphere ending up in the recent Ice cores of glaciers. Using the fixed proportion of C14 to non- isotopic carbon askew the Carbon concentrations. 2 - The disregard for the modulating and moderating effects of the Carbonic acid cycle and the Photosynthesis cycle on atmosphere CO2. 3- The disregard of the Methane sink in the upper atmosphere that is influenced on the catalytic action of U.V. and the geomagnetic activity of the Earth. methane is far more of a "greenhouse" gas than CO2. Geomagnetic changes bend shorter wavelength in varying ways and create changes in paths of shorter wave length solar radiation just as they do to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation we hams employ. 4 - Then there are the vagaries of Solar radiation and Sunspots and the 11 year Solar cycles which are poorly understood an have a know relationship to climatic variations. The U.N. science consensus cleverly declares that all these factors are of little consequence to the "Anthropogenic" factor. Its hard for any rational person to accept this unless they are politically motivated. Please post this with my call on the News group. WA2OQM "Dave" a crit dans le message de news: 7kTZj.82$RG.66@trndny07... "jawod" wrote in message ... Good article, in general Your signature lines are political and inaccurate. Why confuse the solar cycle with global warming? not 'confuse' it, correlate it... there have been several studies that have correlated solar activity with global temperature changes. if we are indeed in a relatively active part of a long term solar fluctuation (hundreds of years not dozens) then does it not make sense that the solar activity may be warming us up?? Even other planets are being affected, read to the last line of the explanation of this pretty pictu http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html Surely you can't blame human activity on global warming on Jupiter... even though we have dumped a bit of left over space debris in there recently. |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:07:06 -1000, Roger wrote:
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood -- "We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/ Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it. Oh, your worried about brain-washing your kinds? Your a good parent! |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Bernard Peters wrote:
Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it. The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons. 22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it would take a million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:25:03 +0000, jimp wrote:
Bernard Peters wrote: Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it. The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons. 22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it would take a million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck. You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Bernard Peters wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:25:03 +0000, jimp wrote: Bernard Peters wrote: Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it. The Earth's atmosphere is roughly 2.7X10^16 tons. 22 million tons is .000000039% of that, so at that rate it would take a million years to get to .039% assuming it all stuck. You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank A lot of the municipal water around here comes from man made lakes with people and fish ****ing in them all the time. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
|
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
jimp wrote:
A lot of the municipal water around here comes from man made lakes with people and fish ****ing in them all the time. Tom Donaly wrote: If I were you, I'd move. Or buy a water filter. Does fish urine increase the conductivity of water? Might be worth factoring in when doing antenna calculations for shoreline installations. Lumpy NEQ You played on "The Love Boat"? Yes. White tux, huge sideburns. www.LumpyGuitar.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Bernard Peters wrote:
Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Yes, it is well known scientific fact that the "more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice" ejected by Krakatoa destroyed all life on this planet in 1883. (Compared to Mother Nature, man is such a piker.) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Bernard Peters wrote:
You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank You are absolutely correct. There would be no measurable effect. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Bernard Peters wrote:
You can use the same logic when someone ****es in your town's water tank Cecil Moore wrote: You are absolutely correct. There would be no measurable effect. You could probably survive by eating cigarette butts if you had to. And drink from an aquarium. For that matter, you would survive if you didn't have any arms or legs. Maybe we could just pollute the earth till we need glasses. Lumpy You were the "OPERATION" game voice? Yes. Take out wrenched ankle. www.LumpyVoice.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote in news:vIFZj.5255$nW2.3466
@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com: Seriously, one can see from the temperature graph history that the temperature was almost 5 degrees F hotter 130,000 and 325,000 years ago than it is today. In fact, close examination of the temperature graph shows that the *average* temperature peaked 8000 years ago and has been falling ever since. I think you make the pattern mistake, Cecil. Does the temperature at those times indicate the present temperature or the future temperatures? Are there any different conditions between now and then? How about a little thought experiment. Assume that we build a CO2 generator Likewise say a methane generator. Let us flood the earth's atmosphere with as much of the two gases as earth life will stand. What will be the effect? - 73 d eMike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Bernard Peters wrote in
: eur.antenna:297129 On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:07:06 -1000, Roger wrote: Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood -- "We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5197,23411799- 7583,00.htm l http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/ Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it. Oh, your worried about brain-washing your kinds? Your a good parent! No doubt home schooled to keep that nasty evolutionist crap out of the little tykes heads too. Note that the October 23, 4004 BC crowd uses the same tactics to discredit evolution as they do the heat retentive effects of the so called Greenhous gases. I asked for non political reasons, and one of those folk just posted here that GW believers are Marxists! - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Mike Coslo wrote:
I think you make the pattern mistake, Cecil. Does the temperature at those times indicate the present temperature or the future temperatures? Without exception, every time in the past that the CO2 levels have reached 280 ppmv, an ice age ensued. The CO2 levels are higher than that today. It would take a miracle to fend off the next ice age cycle. I don't believe in miracles. If man can indeed cause global warming, it will result in a delay in glaciers covering most of North America for the Nth time. That is a good thing. The scientists who feared global cooling in the '70's were right. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... Bernard Peters wrote in : eur.antenna:297129 On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:07:06 -1000, Roger wrote: Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood -- "We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5197,23411799- 7583,00.htm l http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/ Leave it to the lower-half of the IQ range to argue that dumping OVER 22 million tons of crap into the atmosphere a day would not have a long term effect on our planet. Lucky for most of us that we'll be dead shortly (20-40 years) and not have to worry about it. Oh, your worried about brain-washing your kinds? Your a good parent! No doubt home schooled to keep that nasty evolutionist crap out of the little tykes heads too. Note that the October 23, 4004 BC crowd uses the same tactics to discredit evolution as they do the heat retentive effects of the so called Greenhous gases. I asked for non political reasons, and one of those folk just posted here that GW believers are Marxists! if it weren't for politicians who are beholden to extreme environmentalists who want to destroy the capitalist economic system and throw us back to feudalism there would be no 'global warming crisis'. Its the damn hippy culture of the 60's grown up and with money who have bought off enough votes to keep this topic in the news who are to fault. and by using short term data that isn't correlated with long term trends they can make the natural short term fluctuations in temperatures look like catastrophes in progress... my first statistics course professor said it best... "You can prove anything with statistics." Just pick your data source, throw out the outliers, apply the analysis that gives you the answer you want, and voila, global warming, huge storms, and Florida sinks into the ocean. Where in the bigger picture the temperature has gone down the last couple years, ocean levels are falling and predicted to fall further, and one good volcano could throw us into another ice age, then we'll all be begging for more greenhouse gasses! |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote in
: If man can indeed cause global warming, it will result in a delay in glaciers covering most of North America for the Nth time. That is a good thing. The scientists who feared global cooling in the '70's were right. Okay, just so I'm sure, you say that the pattern always repeats? And will always repeat? - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Dave wrote:
I asked for non political reasons, and one of those folk just posted here that GW believers are Marxists! if it weren't for politicians who are beholden to extreme environmentalists who want to destroy the capitalist economic system and throw us back to feudalism there would be no 'global warming crisis'. Its the damn hippy culture of the 60's grown up and with money who have bought off enough votes to keep this topic in the news who are to fault. That would be really funny if it were not so scary. Let's hope that you have no influence outside of your backyard! SNIP So you can't trust statistics - wow that's news. Better then to go in for inane political mud slinging. You can always tell a dead argument by the level on insults flying around. Insults over evidence and an informed mind every time! -- M0WYM www.radiowymsey.org Wymsey - Ten years Old! www.wymsey.co.uk |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
M0WYM wrote:
... So you can't trust statistics - wow that's news. Better then to go in for inane political mud slinging. You can always tell a dead argument by the level on insults flying around. Insults over evidence and an informed mind every time! I don't know enough to make any absolute and highly accurate statements on global warming or many of the environmental issues of today. However, I do know this, lock yourself in your garage with your car idling for a while and you may not leave that garage. And, I do believe some sort of balance existed before man began taxing the natural systems which support life on the planet. I know the Salmon fishing industry is bust this year. I know there are vast dead zones appearing in the oceans; some Coral reefs are disappearing ... I have a buddy who is a "camera freak" and he has taken me on freeway overpasses with infrared cameras and shown me the "rivers of warm exhaust" which the cars are passing through--left by the many cars which have preceded them--each preceding vehicle spewing unknown quantities of cubic feet of deadly gases ... I have seen traffic jams with most cars idling--occupants behind rolled up windows--and, most likely, breathing huge quantities of the noxious/odorless fumes. I don't even want to consider power generation plants and businesses' contributions to all this ... the megatons of spent nuclear materials in storage for thousands of years, etc. I know pollution from China has reached the west coast in increasing-detectable levels and only adds to pollution levels which then travel across America towards the east coast. I wonder if and for how long we can just go about our tasks and ignore all this? And, is this enough, or should this be enough, to begin worrying prudent men and women? I do know I can make one truthful statement; "I feel I would like to keep my eyes open and my awareness level high." I would like to think all this is still incapable of affecting the atmosphere in such force and means as to affect communications! But then, I have come to realize the saying, "truth is stranger than fiction" can contain truth ... I do think the aluminum/copper/zinc components of my antenna(s) seem to show accelerated oxidation/damage--perhaps this is only imagined ... or, silly fears fed by rumors of acid rain eating away at statues, masonry, limestone, etc? And yanno, I don't know who I would trust to believe on these subjects. Trust the govt? Naaa. Trust big business who profit from generating these pollutants? Naaa. I just may have lost my ability to trust anyone .... not to mention "statistics manipulations" in general! Perhaps I am just paranoid in general? Let's all hope ... that would be quite nice, wouldn't it? Sometimes I just love being in error and having only worried about nothing. Perhaps the future will make the truth apparent. Regards, JS |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Mike Coslo wrote:
Okay, just so I'm sure, you say that the pattern always repeats? And will always repeat? No, I'm saying the pattern has repeated itself for at least the last million years and will most probably repeat itself for the next million years. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
M0WYM wrote:
So you can't trust statistics - wow that's news. Can we trust the statistic that says the global-warming/ice-age cycle has repeated itself at 90K-150k year intervals for the last half million years? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote: M0WYM wrote: So you can't trust statistics - wow that's news. Can we trust the statistic that says the global-warming/ice-age cycle has repeated itself at 90K-150k year intervals for the last half million years? No. There are indications are that the cycles which correlate with ice ages, may not produce the conditions for another ice age for the next 60,000 years. Alan |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote: M0WYM wrote: So you can't trust statistics - wow that's news. Can we trust the statistic that says the global-warming/ice-age cycle has repeated itself at 90K-150k year intervals for the last half million years? Further to my reply, look at http://www.answers.com/topic/milanko...cat=technology Alan |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Alan Peake wrote:
There are indications are that the cycles which correlate with ice ages, may not produce the conditions for another ice age for the next 60,000 years. The last global warming peak was 130,000 years ago and the longest previous cycle on record is 110,000 years. Seems that would indicate that we are already thousands of years into the next ice age. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote in news:Pzy_j.1428$uE5.167
@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com: M0WYM wrote: So you can't trust statistics - wow that's news. Can we trust the statistic that says the global-warming/ice-age cycle has repeated itself at 90K-150k year intervals for the last half million years? How many of those cycles have been influenced by the release of green house gases by humans? It becomes almost a non-sequitar to bring that out. But in search of an answer to your questions: yes, there appears to be cyclic warming/cooling going on. This warming/cooling has many possible sources. We're finding outh what they are at this time. Some seem pretty likely, and some are not known as of yet. CO@ levels look pretty convincing, and things like th eMaunder minimum are almost just speculation. Does the past allow us to predict what is going to happen tomorrow? Not even close. All the cycles we have can only be applied after the fact. That one is very important, because each and every cycle has individuality. I've just seen something about a meteoric impact possibly affecting the Clovis culture, and possible the glacier flow pattern into the arctic and Atlantic Ocean. That is an individual event, not likely to be repeated. Neither is the release of large amounts of sequestered carbon. This can happen in more than one fashion. It might come about through large scal volcanic activity. It also might come about through the combustion of those carbon bearing minerals. The source of the release is inconsequential, the effects are not. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Mike Coslo wrote:
Does the past allow us to predict what is going to happen tomorrow? The sun may not rise tomorrow, but I am willing to bet my 401K that it will. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Does the past allow us to predict what is going to happen tomorrow? The sun may not rise tomorrow, but I am willing to bet my 401K that it will. Of course, even if it were to blink out tonight, it'll still do the sunrise thing. That's pretty certain. The issue is those long term cycles. The can predict trends, but can't do a very good job of predicting if it will be rainy today, or if it will even be a cold year or a warm year. One of my favorite moments is on a cold day, some wag will spout "So much for global warming!" Just a public expression of ignorance, whether GW exists or not. Let's make no mistake, we are making this experiment whether we want to or not. There is no way that we are ever going to get the new industrial powers to cut down on CO2 emissions. All of this discussion is academic. We aren't going to cut down our emissions. One of the delicious ironies in all this is that the same people who declare anyone who believes in GW as some sort of leftist have staunch allies who are commies in fact. Go figure. My guess is that now that we have reached the geometric population growth phase, we will deplete our oil, then our coal reserves. At that point, greenhouse emissions will naturally drop. As we tap into the "final reserves" of fossil fuel, likely anything that is in the way will fall. Endangered animals, land preserves, pollution controls. It will be pretty quick. Wars will break out over the remaining fossil fuels. Only so much can be done to conserve. Even if each person uses less energy, there will be plenty of new folks coming along to negate that conservation. I've seen the future, and it isn't too pretty. Although there is an alternative: LOTS more nuc power. Give up on the antiquated and dangerous supply paradigm, in which we just have a few plants running their equipment at about as much power as they can handle, in which any failure makes for big problems. Many smaller and safer plants are in order. Unless there is some sort of breakthrough, we're going to need to run electric cars. We need a new infrastructure built to handle them. Wind power is cool, as is solar, but we jest aren't ready to get the huge amount of power needed from those sources. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
Michael Coslo wrote:
Although there is an alternative: LOTS more nuc power... And quit makin' babies. Instead of the Fed Gov rewarding and encouraging uteral exercise by tax cuts, welfare etc...Spend the money on making adults smarter. Give the Iraq vets tuition and rent. That would make them smarter and better productive citizens. That seems like a fabulous way to boost economy and raise the quality of life of the population. While we're at it, give them all a hybrid car. Screw the welfare moms that keep reproducing at my expense. That does nothing but waste money and produce more mouths to feed, who will grow up in a family that teaches/preaches poverty and how to conduct a life that doesn't require responsibility because "someone else will always pay for your right to be here". I'm enthusiastic about paying for the former. I'm sick of paying for the latter. Lumpy You Played on Lawrence Welk? Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs. www.LumpyGuitar.net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com