Global warming alarmism sinking like the anic

[bigzak25]

A few degrees is not enough. How much are you talking about, and do you mean the magnetic pole, or a change in obliquity?

maybe I need to use simpler words. Do you know what Obliquity is without looking it up?

Yes, please use simpler words Mr. Cobra.

I could use the education. What would a vertical axis do to the earth?

North pole, straight up, south pole straight down.

Enlighten me brah!

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, please use simpler words Mr. Cobra.

I could use the education. What would a vertical axis do to the earth?

North pole, straight up, south pole straight down.

Enlighten me brah!

OK...

First of all, obliquity is axial tilt. This is what causes the seasons. We currently have something like a 22.4° axial tilt. The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° with a 42,000 year cycle already. If we were to tilt 2 or three degrees more, we would simply have slightly more changes between the seasons.

As for a vertical axis, I will assume you mean the equator is always in line with the sun. We would then have no seasonal changes as we perceive them today. Winters would be slightly warmer due to the eccentricity of the earth. You see, in early January, the earth reaches it's closest point to the sun, 147,098,290 km. In early July, the earth is farthest from the sun, 152,098,232 km. The heat we receive from the sun follows the inverse square law. The earth would then receive 6.9% more heat in the winter than the summer. This is significant and leads to relatively mild season changes in the northern hemisphere with out current axial tilt, and more dramatic season changes in the southern hemisphere. This is also affected by the axial precession the earth. As this changes, so do the seasonal securities.

Eccentricity plays it's own special feature to Global warming, and I believe it to be the primary trigger for ice ages. The earth currently has an eccentricity of something like 0.0167, but varies from about 0.05 to almost 0. We are approaching zero eccentricity for the next 20some thousand years. The smaller the eccentricity, the warmer the earth will get.

[bigzak25]

OK...

First of all, obliquity is axial tilt. This is what causes the seasons. We currently have something like a 22.4° axial tilt. The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° with a 42,000 year cycle already. If we were to tilt 2 or three degrees more, we would simply have more slightly more changes between the seasons.

As for a vertical axis, I will assume you mean the equator is always in line with the sun. We would then have no seasonal changes as we perceive them today. Winters would be slightly warmer due to the eccentricity of the earth. You see, in early January, the earth reaches it's closest point to the sun, 147,098,290 km. In early July, the earth is farthest from the sun, 152,098,232 km. The heat we receive from the sun follows the inverse square law. The earth would then receive 6.9% more heat in the winter than the summer. This is significant and leads to relatively mild season changes in the northern hemisphere, and more dramatic season changes in the southern hemisphere. This is caused by the axial precession the earth.

Eccentricity plays it's own special feature to Global warming, and I believe it to be the primary trigger for ice ages. The earth currently has an eccentricity of something like 0.0167, but varies from about 0.05 to almost 0. We are approaching zero eccentricity for the next 20some thousand years. The smaller the eccentricity, the warmer the earth will get.

That's awesome dude. I respect your knowledge greatly. Thanks very much for the quick lesson. Do you think anything significant could happen to the earth when in 2012, the alignment of the sun, earth, and center of the galaxy (which I assume to be a massive black hole) takes place?

Thanks again.

[Wild Cobra]

That's awesome dude. I respect your knowledge greatly. Thanks very much for the quick lesson. Do you think anything significant could happen to the earth when in 2012, the alignment of the sun, earth, and center of the galaxy (which I assume to be a massive black hole) takes place?

Thanks again.

I believe 2012 is just the end of their calender cycle, then it repeats again.

[bigzak25]

We are at the end of the dark cycle. The cycle of light is about to begin.

I worry for those that are not saved as they will be wiped from the earth...one way or another.

That's why I suspect the end of the world, "as we know it", is at hand.

And as we know it, is a corrupt, selfish, and greedy world where children are starving and in need of medical attention while corporate fat cats line their pockets and the majority of humanity sleepwalks.

I have awoken. I want everyone I care about to wake up too. It is the sole reason that I have not left Spurstalk. This is my online family and I cannot desert anyone.

Again, God save us, and thanks for your time.

[bigzak25]

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn Zak.

Are you off your med's AGAIN?

[Wild Cobra]

Damn Zak.

Are you off your med's AGAIN?

That appears to be the best explanation...

[bigzak25]

Not exactly, but I expected the response...no worries gentlemen.

Not many are used to seeing a True Christian, which is what I work to be, everyday.

[Wild Cobra]

Not exactly, but I expected the response...no worries gentlemen.

Not many are used to seeing a True Christian, which is what I work to be, everyday.

A true Christian by who's definition?

I am of solid belief that Jesus existed. I have few problems with the history the Bible has. However, the various bibles as we know them in the English language are master pieces of propaganda, for powerful men to control people. they are not accurate in translation.

[bigzak25]

A true Christian by who's definition?

I am of solid belief that Jesus existed. I have few problems with the history the Bible has. However, the various bibles as we know them in the English language are master pieces of propaganda, for powerful men to control people. they are not accurate in translation.

Who else can define what a True Christian is but God and Jesus? It is by their definition that I work by.

I am glad you are a believer. That is Good news.

I have not read the whole Bible. It is one of my most urgent tasks at hand.

However, no matter what distortions may or may not have been created in translation, if your heart is pure and your mind clear, you will be able to read The Good Book with open eyes.

[Wild Cobra]

Who else can define what a True Christian is but God and Jesus? It is by their definition that I work by.

I'm glad you are fluent in Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek then. Congratulations. That's the only way you can know the true meaning of the words. Jesus didn't speak English, and the interpreters translated it for the King James' power and authority.

[bigzak25]

Good Sir,

Do you not know that True Love is a universal language?

[CosmicCowboy]

Zak, you're killin me!

[Veterinarian]

, the key is, it doesn't say that 97% agree that global warming is anthropogenic (man made.) Just that there is global warming. How many of those 97% might thing it's a natural cycle?

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

[DarrinS]

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Two things no one is debating:

1) The earth has warmed
2) Humans play a role


The issue is whether the warming of the last century is unprecedented and whether any future change will be catastrophic.

I think you should watch this video, by liberal Philip Stott.

Like me, he is a firm believer in climate change. Unlike global warmers, we don't think climate change is unusual.

[boutons_deux]

"issue is whether the warming of the last century is unprecedented"

You Lie. There He Goes Again. Never Fails.

In the very violent history of the earth, there probably nothing "unprecedented", including extreme temperature swings.

The question is not about global warming (proven beyond a doubt, see any glacier or ice pack, or ocean temperature/acidity) but whether the global warming in the past 150 years has been driven by carbon-based industrial revolution and increase in human population.

[Wild Cobra]

with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Wow....

You still don't get it.

Yes we play a role. How much though? If it's only 1%, we are playing a role, right?

Consider the way things are worded. They professionally write things in a manner to imply what they want you to believe. I'm sure they are very happy to so effectively have brain-washed you.

[DarrinS]

The question is not about global warming (proven beyond a doubt, see any glacier or ice pack, or ocean temperature/acidity) but whether the global warming in the past 150 years has been driven by carbon-based industrial revolution and increase in human population.

Good point. How much has CO2 contributed to the 0.9 degree Fahrenheit increase during that period and how much of the 0.9 degree Fahrenheit increase is due to natural causes?

[Veterinarian]

Wow....

You still don't get it.

Yes we play a role. How much though? If it's only 1%, we are playing a role, right?

Consider the way things are worded. They professionally write things in a manner to imply what they want you to believe. I'm sure they are very happy to so effectively have brain-washed you.

Please stop lying. And props on an original bs argument. Way to pull that 1% out of your ass. Climatologists overwhelmingly believe that Global warming is anthropegenic. That's why I inserted this linked quote above. And I've never heard anyone say its anywhere near 1%.

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Joint Science Academies pdf report: "It is likely that most of the recent climate change is due to human activities"

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

National Academy of Sciences: "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1)."

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_bri...2008_final.pdf

[Veterinarian]

One percent my ass.

[Galileo]

Catastrophism collapses

http://www.financialpost.com/Catastr...764/story.html

so exactly which conspiracy theories do you buy or don't buy?

[TDMVPDPOY]

wrong post

[Wild Cobra]

Please stop lying.

I'm, sorry that your lack of comprehension makes you assume such.

And props on an original bs argument. Way to pull that 1% out of your ass.

No Bull about it. Carefully read the statement again. "97 percent agreeing humans play a role." It doesn't say "97% agreeing that humans are responsible."

Climatologists overwhelmingly believe that Global warming is anthropegenic.

Who cares what Climatologists think that get grant money to support the theory?.

Again, you need real earth scientists. Not glorified meteorologists. A few examples:

Pe ion signed buy over 31,000 scientists; Global Warming Pe ion

Environmental effects of increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide; Abstract:

A review of the literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th century have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates as inferred from numerous laboratory and field experiments. There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Meaningful integrated assessments of the environmental impacts of anthropogenic CO2 are not yet possible because model estimates of global and regional climate changes on interannual, decadal and centennial time scales remain highly uncertain.

You should read these six articles by Dr. Glassman:

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW

CO2: "WHY ME?"

SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT OF EL NIÑO

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN

the above are in order of writing. It also helps to understand them in order. I can go on and on with material opposing AGW, by real scientists. Not mere Climatologists. I also have a vast understanding of global warming, and can probably tell you why any particular fear the alarmists bring up.

That's why I inserted this linked quote above. And I've never heard anyone say its anywhere near 1%.

Neither have I. You appear to have a limited vocabulary? I was making the point that there is no number associated with how many of that 97% believes that man is primarily responsible. It only say contribute. My point is that even a scientist that believe man only contributes to global warming by 1% would be part of that 97% in a honest response.

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

What supporting evidence does the author of this propaganda piece give to support that contention?

Joint Science Academies pdf report: "It is likely that most of the recent climate change is due to human activities"

I agree. Notice however, it doesn't say via CO2! The lag of the solar effect is almost in equilibrium. During the last decade, Asia has been building more and more coal fired power plants, without the technology we use. Because of this, the Arctic and Permafrost regions in Alaska, Canada, and even Greenland to some extent, are receiving Black Carbon deposits via the Polar Jet Stream. So have other places from other sources of black carbon. NASA has done some studying of this effect. Even more recently since the IPCC's AR4, they acknowledge this effect is on the order of 0.3 watts/sq meter of added radiative forcing on a global scale. This means they have to reduce their CO2 radiative forcing estimates.

RELEASE : 03-420; Black Soot And Snow: A Warmer Combination :

New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.

Note, the above is from NASA!
Black and White: Soot on Ice

Soot and Global Warming



Black Carbon Deposits on Himalayan Ice Threaten Earth’s "Third Pole"

Think about it. How many times does a climatologist refer to NASA/GISS facts and data? Not very often, right? Does NASA have an agenda?

[Veterinarian]

WC. Hey brah, you missed this one I think:

National Academy of Sciences: "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1)."

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_bri...2008_final.pdf[/QUOTE]