Re: Scientific Proof: God, Not Man, The Cause Of Global Warming In The Universe
Roger Coppock
To determine a climate trend you need a couple of
hundred sampling sites over a multi-decade period.
We don't have enough data to determine climate trends
on any planet but Earth.
Stephen Green
> SUV's On Jupiter?
> Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar
> system, or is it the sun?
>
> Paul Joseph Watson, Science Expert
> Prison Planet.com
> Thursday, November 16, 2006
>
> Kofi Annan today slammed global warming skeptics as being "out of step" and
> "out of time," but how will altering human activity halt climate change when
> the evidence clearly indicates that the sun itself and not SUV's is heating up
> the entire solar system?
>
> "The U.N. chief lamented "a frightening lack of leadership" in fashioning next
> steps to reduce global emissions. "Let us start being more politically
> courageous," he urged the hundreds of delegates from some 180 member nations of
> the 1992 U.N. climate treaty," reports Forbes.
>
> But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is
> simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns.
> Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the
> evolving nature of the sun? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?
>
> - Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
> In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said
> Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves
> farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.
>
> - Space.com: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
> The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a
> global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit
> on different parts of the globe.
>
> - Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?
> A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a
> warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then
> perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is
> causing their global climates to change.
>
> - United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
> NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's
> South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.
>
> - Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
> There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but
> things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been
> undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot,
> professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."
>
> - Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter
> Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986,
> when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to
> be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis
> of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.
>
> - London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to
> blame
> Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because
> the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years,
> according to new research.
>
> The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between
> a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the
> first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in
> the park compared to the battering that our planet has taken in the past.
>
> This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would
> have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.
>
> Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually
> hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest
> reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human
> activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a
> black hole to Triton?
>
> The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon
> popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is
> akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that
> has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global
> warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss
> their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called,
> harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are
> rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a
> separate trash can.
>
> Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and
> important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and
> the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.
>
> Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and
> surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite
> tacking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.
>
> The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people
> like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and
> state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease
> of humanity. Nazi-like genocial population control measures and the
> environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.
>
> The orthodox organized religion of global warming and its disastrous
> consequences for our freedom of speech, freedom of mobility and our right to
> remain outside of the system, needs to be questioned on the foundational basis
> that the phenomenon is solar-system wide and it is mainly caused by the natural
> evolution of the sun and not human activity.
=============================
There is no dispute that the Sun has increased its output of radiation,
thus heat, that has effected ALL bodies in the solar system. However,
such output whilst evident on earth only accounts for a certain
percemtage of Earths increasing global warming.
The increased Suns output, plus the increased amount of GHGs, caused by
both natural and man made output is causing a faster than what would be
normal heating of the planet.
So nutbar Paul Watson is only partially right. Yet we, that is mankind,
do need to find ways to reduce OUR GHG output to hopefully minimise
cause and effect.
Kyoto Protocol will not achieve that end requirement.
===
Roger Coppock
> There is no dispute that the Sun has increased its output of radiation,
There is PLENTY of dispute, all direct measures of solar
output show only an 11-year cycle NO LONG TERM
INCREASE OR DECREASE:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html
Server 13
"Hysterical Marky Hansel Loon" <mark...@nutcase.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.203316d4...@news.motzarella.org...
> SUV's On Jupiter?
> Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the
> solar
> system, or is it the sun?
>
> Paul Joseph Watson, Science Expert
> Prison Planet.com
> Thursday, November 16, 2006
>
> Kofi Annan today slammed global warming skeptics as being "out of step"
> and
> "out of time," but how will altering human activity halt climate change
> when
> the evidence clearly indicates that the sun itself and not SUV's is
> heating up
> the entire solar system?
rofl
kdt...@yahoo.com
l> percemtage of Earths increasing global warming.
l>
l> The increased Suns output, plus the increased amount of GHGs,
caused by
l> both natural and man made output is causing a faster than what
would be
l> normal heating of the planet.
Of course a Phobiac must rationalize that global warming is caused by
humans, so that they must be given control.
How the hell would the freaks of climatology know the value of the
heating from the sun. They cannot perform the most basic calculations
of thermodynamics, validly.
This is a vey serious matter, to institute controls of our use of
energy and over our economy that would severly detriment our lives. To
do this uneccasarilly would the greatest BLUNDER in the history of
humanity.
So let's look at grenhouse theory. Solar constant 1370/4 = 342Wm-2.
Subtract .31 for albedo or reflected energy and you have 236Wm-2 which
equates to 254K.-19C or -2F. This you claim would be the average
temperature of the earth with only a O2 and N2 atmosphere. Then you
claim that 'grenhouse' gases raise the temperature 33C to the average
temperature of 287K or about 58F, which would be to increase the
energy by 63%.
If this simplistic anlyses of the average energy recieved of 236Wm-2
were correct. It would establish an actual average temperature much
lower than the 254K derived. This is because energy in the Boltzman-
Stefan increases as a fouth power to temperature. If you take an
average of the energies and the according temperature, it is much
higher than if you take the average of the temperatures and the energy
of this temperature. Next your attempt to calculate chunks of Wm-2
from your theoretical belief of the energy these gases retain,
entirely falls apart for the same reason.
The surface of the moon is 123C with the sun at zenith. This is
because it is recieving 1370Wm-2, (or the exact value of the solar
constant at the time) as the intensity of the radiation it recieves
from the sun. The moon rotates in 28 days. Therefore it has 14 days of
sunlight and 14 days of dark. In the dark the surface goes to 20C -
30C above absolute zero. This means that each time it comes into the
sun, the surface warms up again. If the solar constant were 10Wm-2
less the next time it came into sunlight, the temperatures of the
surface would diminish. 121.26C at 1370, 120.54 at 1360
This is .72 deg C. The solar constant can fluctuate much more than
this. It's effect on surface temperatures would be immediate. The
effect on the internal temperature of the moon would take many years
according to the heat capacity of the moon.
This is well within range of the supposed 1/2 deg C increase over the
last century. It has some actual thermodynamic merit as possible cause
of temperature fluctuation, whereas grenhouse theory and 'radiative
forcing' has absolutely no thermodynamic merit or direct scientific
establishement of it's validity at all.
Deatherage
> So nutbar Paul Watson is only partially right. Yet we, that is mankind,
> do need to find ways to reduce OUR GHG output to hopefully minimise
> cause and effect.
>
> Kyoto Protocol will not achieve that end requirement.
>
> ===- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank Pittel
warming of Jupiter and Mars is the Haliburton weather ray gun.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
_Iva Biggin
What is the cause of your extreme right wing ignorance, Zero?
kdt...@yahoo.com
> What is the cause of your extreme right wing ignorance, Zero?-
Co2Phobia is a pschological disease. It is in many ways similar to
rabies, which in the advanced stage is called hydrophobia. This stage
of rabies is known by the symptomatic foaming at the mouth. The
disease causes a constriction of the throat muscles which makes the
animal unable to drink water. As the animal is dying of thirst, it is
compulsed to bite another animal in order to reach the liquid of the
blood. This makes this disease very dangerous. The virus is also
spread by saliva.
Phobiacs have actually little to say. They must refer to their
handbook for proper things to say for specific topics.
If the topic of science arises,
they say "the debate is over". This means that discussion of the
science, physics, chemistry, mathematics and thermodynamics has all
been discussed and finalized by the smart scientists. There is no
point in troubling our little minds with these details. The climate
scientists have discussed it, debated, finished the debate, refered to
themselves as the referees being the only ones with the particular
insight to decide the complexities of the anthropogenic climate change
debate, made a decision and concluded the debate.
After careful consideration, they are ready to inform us of the
scientific information we may need. That being there is a consensus of
the conclusion, that mainstream science suggests, humans must forgo
their evil ways of CO2 emission and that the climatologists must
immediately be put in charge to remodel our existence and save us from
the doom of our evil ways.
IPCC gives itself a 90% probability of being valid.
This is to reduce their prison sentences when real science proves
their fraud.
If someone points out the the sun radiates as a normal Planck curve
and at much greater intensity than earth in the high energy infrared,
they say, "the atmosphere wraps the earth like a blanket and the
grenhouse gases absorb longwave IR. Therefore the grenhouse gases do
not block incoming IR"
If somone makes any valid arguements against them,
the call them, fossil fools, repubiKKKans, or kookasoid,
All people except the priests and followers of their religion can be
lumped into these categories. It can never true and can never be
admitted that rational people may be able to question their
theoretical conclusions.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
Hanson wallows in Exxon's Brown Turds
Stop Lying About Global Warming... On Mars, on Jupiter, on Pluto, on
Subjects you know NOTHING About...
Jupiter Got hit by an asteroid/comet larger than the Alveraz asteroid
that
killed off the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago. When the Alverez
Asteroid
struck it hit at an angle towards the North American Continent. A
divot
the size of a mountain was ejected to space and fell as a second set
of
burning meteorites. 90% of all living things died. The forests all
burned
worldwide. Sunlight was blotted out for decades. North America was
sterilized and not colonized by large living things for more than
3,000,000 years.
The Shoemaker-Levy Asteroid/comet that hit Jupiter in 1994 was much
bigger. The multiple explosions were larger than the size of planet
Earth.
The after effects will not die away for 100,000s of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9
"... The first impact occurred at 20:15 UTC on July 16, 1994, when
fragment A of the nucleus slammed into Jupiter's southern hemisphere
at a
speed of about 60 km/s. Instruments on Galileo detected a fireball
which
reached a peak temperature of about 24,000 K, compared to the typical
Jovian cloudtop temperature of about 130 K, before expanding and
cooling
rapidly to about 1500 K after 40 s. The plume from the fireball
quickly
reached a height of over 3,000 km [3]. A few minutes after the impact
fireball was detected, Galileo measured renewed heating, probably due
to
ejected material falling back onto the planet. Earth-based observers
detected the fireball rising over the limb of the planet shortly after
the
initial impact [4].
Astronomers had expected to see the fireballs from the impacts, but
did
not have any idea in advance how visible the atmospheric effects of
the
impacts would be from Earth. Observers soon saw a huge dark spot after
the
first impact. The spot was visible even in very small telescopes, and
was
about 6,000 km (one Earth radius) across. This and subsequent dark
spots
were thought to have been caused by debris from the impacts, and were
markedly asymmetric, forming crescent shapes in front of the direction
of
impact.
Over the next 6 days, 21 discrete impacts were observed, with the
largest
coming on July 18 at 07:34 UTC when fragment G struck Jupiter. This
impact
created a giant dark spot over 12,000 km across, and was estimated to
have
released an energy equivalent to 6,000,000 megatons of TNT (750 times
the
world's nuclear arsenal). Two impacts 12 hours apart on July 19
created
impact marks of similar size to that caused by fragment G, and impacts
continued until July 22, when fragment W struck the planet. ..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306450887/104-8494141-1649537?v=glance&n=283155
Impact Jupiter: The Crash of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (Hardcover)
by David H. Levy
# Hardcover: 290 pages
# Publisher: Plenum Publishing Corporation (September 1995)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0306450887
"... On a cloudy winter night in 1993, Levy and his friends and fellow
skywatchers Gene and Carolyn Shoemaker discovered the oddly shaped
comet
that, just six months later, crashed into Jupiter and provided
earthlings
with a spectacular and sobering demonstration of nature's might. As
Levy,
popular author of numerous books, including The Quest for Comets
(1994),
chronicles the entire fascinating Shoemaker-Levy 9 saga, we're struck
by
how radically science has been changed by computer technology. We're
now
capable of the instantaneous transmission of information and images
not
only from anywhere on earth, but, with the advent of mobile robotic
observers such as the Hubble Space Telescope, from far out in the
galaxy.
Hubble captured one astonishing picture after another of the comet
fragments hurtling toward Jupiter, the plumes their impacts sent
spraying
up into space, and the "wounds" sustained by the gas giant. Millions
of
people watched the glorious demise of Shoemaker-Levy 9 both on
television
and on the Internet, and Levy's delight in the technology that made
this
media hype possible, and in his own moments in the spotlight, is
palpable
in his fast-paced, informatively descriptive account. Donna
Seaman ..."
Jupiter got hit by a big mother asteroid, the explosions themselves
were
as big as the Earth, just recently. When something much less than that
happened last time on Earth it burned down the world and changed the
climate for millions of years. It nearly killed much of higher life on
land, and finished off the dinosaurs. Jupiter's climate will be
purturbed
for hundreds of thousands of years, swamping out all other possible
natural variations.
The sun radiation intensity (warming) has been very very little. The
reports of "global warming" on Mars and Pluto as proof that the Sun is
at
fault for Global Warming on Earth fail to account for why thirty other
worlds and moons are not warming. If the sun is the main reason, then
ALL
the planets have to show warming.
If the sun was at fault it would be far worse for mankind, as we could
do
SOMETHING about man-made warming, but we can do NOTHING about solar
warming. It's a good thing that the records going back 100 years show
very
little variation in solar radiation.
On the other hand Mars and Pluto have more "greenhouse gases" than
Earth
does. If a tiny bit of extra sunlight causes major warming on Mars
with an
atmosphere mostly made of CO2 than we should learn from that to keep
CO2
levels from increasing in our air.
Neither Mars nor Pluto have thick protective gas envelopes to stop
many
high energy radiation particles from penetrating to surface like Earth
does -- one cannot compare these worlds as if they would react
identically
to Earth to any input changes. It is equivilent to science frauds to
make
definitive statements about other planets with so little actual data.
Nobody has visited these worlds, and instruments have only recently
started building the records of facts of things we may be somewhat
sure of
about some of the other planets.
http://home.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/mars.html
As can be seen in the table below, Mars' atmosphere is much less than
Earth's and Venus', and it exerts a pressure of only 0.000636 bars at
the
surface. Its composition is nearly all CO2; the rest is
approximately:
* CO2: 95.32%
* N2: 2.7%
* Ar: 1.6%
* O2: 0.13%
* CO: 0.08%
* H2O: 0.021%
* NO: 0.01%
* Ne: 0.00025%
* HDO: 0.000085%
* Kr: 0.00003%
* Xe: 0.000008%
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
Atmosphere of Mars
Not such a bad place to visit, and you couldn't live there.
Mars has a thin atmosphere:
Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus
and
Mars. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the
planet
in each planet's atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules
per
m2 in Earth's atmosphere.
Earth Venus Mars
N2 0.79 2 3 x 10-4
O2 0.20 < 0.001 10-7
Ar 0.01 0.005 2 x 10-4
CO2 0.0003 64 0.009
H2O ~ 0.02 ~ 0.01 ~10-6
Total 1.00 90 0.01
--------------------------
H2O 3 km 0.5 mm small
liquid
+ vapor
(A technical note: This is based on a pressure ratio of 0.0056/1,
a surface gravity ratio of 0.38/1.0, and a mass per molecule
ratio of 1.5/1.0 for Mars/Earth.)
Note that Mars has more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than does
Earth,
but Mars has a lot less of everything else.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Pluto.html#atmosphere
Atmosphere
Pluto has very thin atmosphere with a surface pressure 100,000 times
less
than that on Earth. It is composed of 98% nitrogen and small amounts
of
methane and carbon monoxide - much like the atmosphere of Neptune's
moon
Triton.
Pluto's atmosphere gradually freezes and collects on the surface as
the
planet moves away from the Sun. Yet, interestingly, observations have
shown that between 1989, when Pluto was at perihelion, and 2002, the
atmospheric pressure increased threefold. The explanation probably has
to
do with the fact that materials take time to warm up and cool off,
which
is why the hottest part of the day on Earth, for example, is usually
around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon, when sunlight is the most
intense. The fact that Pluto's atmosphere is still building up rather
than
freezing out, as many scientists expected, is good news from the
standpoint of what the New Horizons probe, launched toward Pluto in
2006,
might learn of the ninth world.
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
> This is a vey serious matter, to institute controls of our use of
> energy and over our economy that would severly detriment our lives. To
> do this uneccasarilly would the greatest BLUNDER in the history of
> So let's look at grenhouse theory. Solar constant 1370/4 = 342Wm-2.
> claim that 'grenhouse' gases raise the temperature 33C to the average
> If this simplistic anlyses of the average energy recieved of 236Wm-2
> Stefan increases as a fouth power to temperature. If you take an
> because it is recieving 1370Wm-2, (or the exact value of the solar
> constant at the time) as the intensity of the radiation it recievese
> of temperature fluctuation, whereas grenhouse theory and 'radiative
> establishement of it's validity at all.
>
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: This is a vey serious matter, severly uneccasarilly
grenhouse theory. 'grenhouse' gases anlyses recieved fouth power
recieving recievese grenhouse establishement.