David Barts wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:31 am, wrote:

The solar system is always plowing through interstellar material. The
Sun's giant magnetic field thwarts much of the dust from entering the
solar system. But the magnetic field weakens periodically, on a cycle
that lasts roughly 22-years. The cycle is related to an 11-year cycle of
sunspot activity.

These are two distinct phenomena. The solar wind is not the same thing
as an intrastellar dust cloud. There was nothing in the link you
furnished that indicated the increased amount of intrastellar dust
would accelerate the rate of atmospheric depletion (which is such a
minute fraction of the atmosphere per year that it's of no immediate
threat).


I said no such thing. I said the atmosphere would have reduced ability
to protect us from cosmic rays.

http://www.ibex.swri.edu/

On Nov 16, 8:46*am, dave wrote:
David Barts wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:31 am, *wrote:

The solar system is always plowing through interstellar material. The
Sun's giant magnetic field thwarts much of the dust from entering the
solar system. But the magnetic field weakens periodically, on a cycle
that lasts roughly 22-years. The cycle is related to an 11-year cycle of
sunspot activity.

These are two distinct phenomena. The solar wind is not the same thing
as an intrastellar dust cloud. There was nothing in the link you
furnished that indicated the increased amount of intrastellar dust
would accelerate the rate of atmospheric depletion (which is such a
minute fraction of the atmosphere per year that it's of no immediate
threat).

I said no such thing.

Actually, you did. You said it was "getting troublesome" and that it
"washes away parts of the atmosphere". If part of the atmosphere is
getting "washed away", that's depletion.

I said the atmosphere would have reduced ability
to protect us from cosmic rays.

Well, did you say the atmosphere was being "washed away", or didn't
you? Make up your mind.

http://www.ibex.swri.edu/

Yet another link that contains nothing immediately relevant to what
you are claiming.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

Yet another link that contains nothing immediately relevant to what
you are claiming.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

Bye donkeydicks

On 11/16/10 1:34 PM, dave wrote:


Yet another link that contains nothing immediately relevant to what
you are claiming.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

Bye donkeydicks

Your spelling is atrocious, and everyone knows that horsecock is the
smart investment right now anyway. So there.

- J.

On 10-11-16 11:28 AM, John Harbl wrote:


Bye donkeydicks

Your spelling is atrocious, and everyone knows that horsecock is the
smart investment right now anyway. So there.




Not when it's a Bullish market.




mike

On Nov 16, 2:30*pm, m II wrote:
On 10-11-16 11:28 AM, John Harbl wrote:

Bye donkeydicks

Your spelling is atrocious, and everyone knows that horsecock is the
smart investment right now anyway. So there.

- Not when it's a Bullish market.
-
- mike

? Bull Dong !

On 11/16/10 5:30 PM, m II wrote:
On 10-11-16 11:28 AM, John Harbl wrote:


Bye donkeydicks

Your spelling is atrocious, and everyone knows that horsecock is the
smart investment right now anyway. So there.




Not when it's a Bullish market.

But it's all about what the market will bear.

*rimshot*

- J.