A Forum Dedicated to Discussion of the New York Times Bestseller "Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA" by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara
Best documentary by far that I ever see related to global warming. Ty Mike!
Good to have a counterpoint to any theories...but it is a stretch to imagine that melting polar caps & glaciers that haven't melted for thousands of years, now all of a sudden are due to natural causes.Sorry Mike, oddly enough, I totally buy you & Richard's lunar and Mars theories, but not this counterpoint on global warming's causes.
First of all, these opinions are not Richard's, they're mine, but facts are facts.Glaciers and ice caps grow and receede all the time. It just depends on how far back you want to look. There are plenty of times in Earth's geological history where ice caps and glaciers were smaller than they are today, and plenty of times where they were much, much bigger. There have been numerous occasions when there was far more Co2 in the atmosphere than there is today, and there was no runaway Greenhouse Effect from it. None of these changes had anything to do with human activity, just as none of the climate changes going on today (assuming there are any, which I highly doubt) have anything to do with human activity.There is an anti-human lobby entrenched in the left-wing radical 60's element of the Democrat party which chooses to believe that people are evil. I don't. Not only that, I don't hold opinons that can't be backed up by facts, and on this question, there just aren't any facts to back up global warming.To me, the popularity of global warming is an excellent example of how we don't teach critical thinking skills in schools anymore.
That is an element for which I have respect - holding opinions backed up with facts. (by the way, sorry if I implied this was also Richard's opinion, as it was not the intent). I will have to read more into this viewpoint to see the full angle.An aside, could you give me your opinion of whether the Lunar X-Prize that promotes a privatized probe of the moon could result in better photos for the public (without NASA controls)?
On the Lunar x-prize:It's possible, if they don't go splat!Remember the Al Worden quote from the book? If they are high enough, they may not even know what they are looking at.
Yes, I recall the quote you mentioned. I am curious if they will get close enough.One thing that bothers me is public perception, which apparently is so easy to control: 1) when I bought Dark Mission, Barnes & Noble put it in the the "New Age" Section. C'mon, folks. This is about the most objective analysis of photographic evidence and lunar mission facts that I've found. Nice spin, B&N. 2) the sandbox images and spins thereof. If anyone read Hoagland's book about the face, they'd already know the mathematical synchronicities in the area alone were enough prove artificiality - regardless of whether the face was just that.
to david nineteenpointfiveAssuming you are to an extend "believing" the "fact's" on global warming due to mankind's activities?!?Well then...if so...please explain why similar "global warmings" happen throughout the entire solar system we call our own??? And in doing so..start with Mars's melting icecaps :-) It would be so nice if you or others could "proof" that the population on Mars also have the same problem we apparently seem to have. Nasa and ESA can provide you with the necessary backtrackinfo on "global warming" in our solar system
Mike,I view global warming more in terms of security risk, rather than environmental activism. Your references make some interesting points about its causation, however. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Re: "Remember the Al Worden quote from thebook? If they are high enough, they may noteven know what they are looking at."What in the world are they smoking?:-)Hathor - The ULTIMATE Moon Babe;-)
I had this same discussion with a coworker and told him that "global warming" and Al Gore were full of it. Right away the discussion turned into "how could you not be concerned about the planet!?!?!"I'm 100% for ecology and all that, but not when it's misguided and misdirected.How about that sea of plastic garbage bigger than the US floating in the Pacific? Nobody is doing crapola about that!!! Oh wait, Poland Spring did do something, they use less plastic per bottle. BFD!!!
Alright---"Global Warming"---Warming, shmarming....FACT #1: It was a lousy "1/2 degree" increasethat took place nearly TEN YEARS AGO. Andnot only that, but THE DATA IS DISPUTED.FACT #2: The global temperature has sinceDROPPED SEVERAL DEGREES. Hence it is nowCOLDER than it was before. ("Global Cooling,"anyone?)FACT #3: These events are being driven byTHE SUNSPOT CYCLE. That includes planetarymagnetics.FACT #4: These same events have occuredON EVERY BODY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.(UFO emissions? Alien SUVs?)FACT #5: I PERSONALLY ran the numberson CO2, etc., and "Man's contribution" doesnot even amount to a ROUNDING ERROR!!!I even included your BREATHING for the entireworld population. (Did you know that theaverage person uses 8 pounds of oxygen per24 hours?)I treated the Earth's atmosphere as a knowngaseous solution for which there was adetermination of total mass, etc.Do you know what a "teramole" is? *Hmmm?*DO YOU?Can you say PV=nRT?Can you say T = k [Q/m]?Have you determined the mass of the atmosphere?Can you say "differentiate with respectto time?"I'm talking to you, David, and you, Arian....I'm Chief Project Scientist for a high-techstartup company. I can run my own numbers.I don't have to listen to somebody else's B.S.and wonder if they know what they're talkingabout.I can tell you real quick.I state unequivocally, on the record, andfor posterity (or perhaps "posteriority," incase the whole world is nothing but a bunchof asses anymore), that AL GORE'S "GLOBALWARMING" IS ABSOLUTE B.S. PERIOD.There. I'm okay now, Mike...I think I'vevented enough....:-)Hathor - The Calm in my Storm....;-))P.S.: Oh, Mike---I hate to do it to you,I mean, right here on your own blog andeverything, but---(1) greenhouses contain plants.(2) plants breathe CO2.(3) hence, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas."But that's a GOOD thing. More CO2 (inhaledby the plants) means MORE OXYGEN (exhaledfor our use, and our furry friends).Ahhh...symbiosis....:-)P.P.S.: The Arctic ice sheets have refrozen,and the Antarctic ice shelf has extendedwell beyond it's "original" known size....We're clearly entering another "little ice age."Such ice ages are ALWAYS preceded by abrief upsurge in temperature, historically.Moreover, they track the sunspot cycles toperfection (tree ring data).So much for Al Gore.:-)
Andro,I never said Co2 wasn't a "Greenhouse Gas," at least not in the context you're describing.
David 19.5,If there is no global warming taking place, and if the climate changes we do see are mild and natural, where is the security risk?Again, this is popular with the democrats because they can use it as an excuse to intrude more and more on our personal lives and take control of more and more of the money our economy generates.
Well, on Amazon a bunch of wankers have put the book in the category "Science Fiction\Fantasy."What else are they going to do? They certainly can't debate on the facts. They'll lose.
A Canadian's Perspective on AGW---------------------------------LORRIE GOLDSTEIN of the Edmonton Sun puts in his comments on the local politics of "Man Made Climate Change" Over the past 18 months I've written scores of columns on global warming.I've read nine books on the subject so far (six by authors supporting the theory of man-made global warming and the Kyoto accord, three by skeptics).I've watched three documentaries, including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and two by skeptics.I've read hundreds of articles and now spend at least two to four hours each week researching this issue alone.The best journalism, pro and con, is coming out of the United Kingdom and Europe, where carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are already adversely affecting millions of people because of skyrocketing energy prices.When Stephane Dion or the David Suzuki Foundation or the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy put out a paper advocating carbon pricing, I don't read their press releases. I read their papers. I would recommend this technique to more journalists.I'm not an expert. But I am an engaged lay person who now knows enough that I can tell when someone is bullsh****** us.Here's what I've figured out so far. First, Canadians care about this issue, passionately. I've never had as strong a response from readers as I've had to these columns in more than 20 years of column-writing.Second, most politicians, regardless of party, don't know what they're talking about. They don't understand the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or what is known with confidence and what isn't. They don't know the difference between the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.They don't realize the economic dislocation involved in moving from a carbon-based to a carbon-free economy.Most care about the issue only in so far as it can help them get elected, which, given the implications and what's at stake for ordinary citizens, is recklessly irresponsible.Most politicians don't know what the Kyoto accord says. ECONOMIC TREATY They think it's an environmental treaty. It's not. It's an economic treaty. Its purpose is not to reduce GHG emissions -- under it GHG emissions are guaranteed to rise. Kyoto is a United Nations treaty designed to transfer wealth from the developed world to the developing world by charging the developed world for the right to emit carbon. That's hardly surprising given that wealth redistribution from rich nations to poor ones is the goal of most countries belonging to the UN.The main drivers of Kyoto were, ironically, the U.K. and Europe, along with the developing world, led by China, now the world's largest GHG emitter.Last year, China alone, exempt from reducing its own GHG emissions, was responsible for two-thirds of the total global increase in these emissions, although its per capita emissions remain well below that of the United States, the second-largest emitter.In any event, the developing world, the U.K. and Europe each saw in Kyoto (although it's now backfiring on the U.K. and Europe) not a way to save the planet, but to hobble the U.S. economy to their advantage.For the developing world, Kyoto, if ratified by the U.S., would place severe restrictions on American industrial activity from which developing nations are exempt.Europe and the U.K. crafted Kyoto to give them an undeserved economic advantage over the U.S.The key was the retroactive selection of 1990 as the base year to reduce carbon emissions for 37 developed countries, including us, as opposed to 143 nations required to do nothing. BASE YEAR By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its carbon emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by it. It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.The selection of 1990 also gave an undeserved bonus to the U.K., which was moving, for reasons unrelated to Kyoto, from coal to natural gas as an energy source, which emits less GHG than coal.The Americans, wisely, refused to ratify Kyoto, even when Gore was their VP and lobbying for it.Unfortunately, we did, either because the previous Liberal government didn't understand that the economic penalties Kyoto aimed at the U.S. would also apply to us, or because Jean Chretien, in his rush to craft himself an environmental legacy, didn't care.It's about votes, not Mother Earthhttp://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1474
Hi Mike,Re:"I never said Co2 wasn't a "Greenhouse Gas," at least not in the context you're describing."Well, okay, so it was some other context onsome other blog here somewhere.Cool. No biggee.I knew you knew that! :-))Q: What is a greenhouse gas?A: It's whatever a bunch of schmucks inSwitzerland tell you it is. (Simple enough, eh?):-)Hathor - The very HEART and SOUL of Cool;-)P.S.: You ever get the impression that I am,like, REALLY hung up on this Hathor chick?:-))))
Hi Mike,THIS was it:B) There's no evidence supporting the idea that Carbon Dioxide is a "greenhouse gas."Welllllllll...technically...greenhouses full of it?Fed into them from a 30 ft^3 CO2 bottle from acommercial gas supply house?:-))))Hathor - A breath of fresh air;-))
13 Questions to ask Global Warming supporters1) China has recently surpassed America in carbon emissions. In fact, China may be drilling for oil off the coast of Florida, because the eco-wankers wouldn't let us drill for it. Why aren't you guys nagging the Chinese too? 2) Why is the current global climate the most desirable one, when Earth has experienced climates both warmer and cooler than the current period, all of which life, including human life, has thrived in? How long have we been scientifically measuring climateology data? 100 years? 150 years at most? 3) How accurate were thermometers 100 years ago? 4) The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So out of 4.5 billion years of potential data you're going to make scientific judgements based on 100 years worth of collected data? 5) Mars among other planets in the solar system have been recently proven to all be undergoing global warming at this period in time. If no Man or CO 2 emissions are present on those planets, then how do you explain their global warming trends? 6) If the Global Warming model is so certain, then what happened to the Global Cooling model of the 70's? 7) Doesn't all plant life on Earth require CO2? By restricting CO2 emissions, aren't you effectively choking trees? Doesn't every form of animal life on this planet exhale CO2? 8) Paleoclimatology shows that the deserts in Egypt were once lush rain forests thousands of years ago. And that change took place long before the advent of any internal combustion engines or the industrial revoultion. If that was a natural climate change, then why is this change now not a natural climate change? 9) Today on the news they said that tomorrow there will be a slight chance of rain. A slight chance? It's tomorrow! If these guys can't give us a definite forecast for what the weather will be like tomorrow, how on Earth can anyone give an accurate forecast of what the weather will be 40 years from now? 10) Do current global Warming models based on 30 year old data take into account the newly discovered Tasman Outflow ocean current? 11) Does the current Global Warming model take into account the Y2K bug in NASA's climate data, as discovered by Steve McIntyre, which after corrections shows that instead of 1998 being the warmest year as previously thought, the warmest year is actually 1934? 12) Mandated ethanol production and usage has caused an increase in gas prices and in food prices. In addition, it actually takes more than a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol, which means ethanol has not only increased gas consumption, but is also worse for the environment as it creates a bigger "carbon footprint" than using just gas alone. What political faction promoted the use of ethanol? 13) Do people have the right to question, and be skeptically critical of, the idea that man is causing Global Warming?The best way to get rid of the Great Global Warming Hoax, is for someone to produce a documentary on how many carbon units a movie production emits, how much newpaper printers emit, mow much the television industry emits.After all, if SUV's are unnecessary luxuries that folks can live without, than certainly entertainment is something that should be even easier to live without. And are entertainment productions necessary when faced with a climate crisis? Is it necessary for newspapers to waste carbon units by printing on paper when news can be read online? how many carbon units does it take to manufacture televisions, or DVD's?If you start attacking these kinds of "leftist" industries in terms of their effect on Global Warming, I'm willing to bet that it would cause the whole climate crisis dialogue to vanish overnight.
Okay everybody, let's tone down the rhetoric.
I meant in the context of Asimov's "greehouse effect."And let's face it, the principle greehouse factor in greenhouses isn't the Co2, it's the glass enclosure.
And let's face it, the principal greenhouse factor in greenhouses isn't the Co2, it's the glass enclosure.Oh, okay."Greenhouse glasses"....Catchy!:-)Hathor - The very definition of Good Looking;-)
Well, at least you got us motivated to speak out about something controversial. didn't know global warming would dominate a blog predominately concerning extraterrestrial archeology - but that is cool.
Deleted my previous post because I can't be bothered with this argument. I was hoping (vainly it seems) for sensible debate.Oh for the record - I too am a scientist, and I speak to lots of other scientists including atmospheric chemists, atmospheric physicists and climatologists. They ALL have differing opinions so marsandro needs to get over him or her self, and get out of his or her limited little world. Sure you can run your own numbers but if you are only dealing with the wrong data set you will get nothing but crap. What makes you better than any other of the scientists out there except your own ego?And we don't all live and work in the blinkered US ... some of us can see changes that need to be addressed.
To provide a short answer to what the risk is for climate change - I don't know. Evidently the Pentagon does?
You know ALL of this will squat-diddly is SWORD and his fellows get want they want:Global WarfareThat'll make the 'warming' debate a mute point because no one will be around to have a say in anything.Bob...
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231Report used by Pentagon. It simply presents challenges, and I don't advocate solutions either way.Natural cyclical vs. man-made causes? Again, not as big a deal as its consequences. Ultimately, market forces determine adaptive behaviors (i.e. expensive water = more efficiency to reduce costs, etc.). Climate change, whatever you call it, may not be 100% scientifically agreed-upon. Then again, smoking cigarettes and getting cancer was not for years either.Either way, there is nothing I would advocate the U.S. does in terms of CO2, etc. Just be prepared for inevitabilities (ahem, Katrina, cough) that could occur, that's all.
David,There was absolutly nothing unusual about Katrina, other than it happened to hit New Orleans, which hadn't taken a direct hit in half a century or so. In fact, it's now known that when it hit land, it was only a category three. The problem was caused by the fact that the corrupt local governments used Federal money they were given to shore up the levies on graft, favors and anything else they could think of. It had nothing to do with Global Warming.And there have been exactly (cough cough) zero major hurricanes since then.
My cough-laden Katrina comments were focused at the federal government's planning capabilities, not meant to augment hurricane frequency arguments. You do bring out an excellent point about local gov't corruption too.I also have heard from some N.O. residents who had the foresight to move out a week before it hit, that most of the ones who stayed did so in hopes of looting (not my words, theirs).Incidentally, there have been zero F-5 tornadoes here in Okla. since we got hit with one in our front yard here a few years back, but that doesn't make me feel any safer.:) cough cough! Hey - who else will play devil's advocate here but me? Don't take me too seriously - I just have fun debating.
I was about to write something else, but just heard a John McCain commercial talking about his strong stance on greenhouse gasses, so apparently he's trying to out-liberal the liberals. (or distance himself from Bush)anyway...We could tie this "greenhouse" thing back to the book by thinking about the glass domes on the moon....Most green plants that do photosynthesis (take in Carbon Dioxide from the air and give off oxygen) also do a thing called "plant respiration" at night, where they take in oxygen from the air and give off carbon dioxide, although the sum of co2 given off is less than that taken in. (I learned that in high school biology class back during the Apollo program...)BTW what ever happened to that "great Biosphere II" experiment in Arizona?...Gort
We hardly know anything about ourselves, our minds, our conscious, our unconscious our "Self" - the totality of our lot in the universe, much less a globe, a solar system and a universe. What is man capable of?It seems to me its always been the great folly of mankind living in their age to have such firm convictions about the way the world works. What do we have? A few slices of information about c02 levels. This doesn't seem enough to to ring the bell of truth. Its bad enough politics has tainted the debate, lets not taint it also with our own dogmas.
Gort said:Most green plants that do photosynthesis (take in Carbon Dioxide from the air and give off oxygen) also do a thing called "plant respiration" at night, where they take in oxygen from the air and give off carbon dioxide, although the sum of co2 given off is less than that taken in.Sword:Am I wrong in this......but the carbon dioxide given of from automotive use - is in FACT BAD for plants - where is carbon dioxide from cow farts is good?Anyone have a distinction? ;-)Sword
I'd love to get a close-up shot of the glass structures on the moon. Don't know much about the Arizona biosphere and what it produced.
From an article here: Sun goes longer than normal without producing sunspotsThe last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why."It's a dead face," Tsuneta said of the sun's appearance.....They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700.
"Deleted my previous post because I can't be bothered with this argument. I was hoping (vainly it seems) for sensible debate."Expat! You're back! :-))Damn clever disguise.... ;-))(Or it may simply be another self-righteousBrit...oh, where DO they all come from...oh,that's right: Brittain!)Must be the blinkers.... X-)))):-)Hathor - You're just jealous of her!;-))P.S.: There's been an abrupt increase in thenumber of primitives around here followingyour last post. Is it all those hominids you'vebeen adding? X-)))):-)
'Liberal' and 'conservative' are elitist media-labeled handpuppets for amusing the kiddies. The current societal paradigm is slave-owner versus slave. The slave-owners do not want the slaves looking at the rest of our solar system, because then it will become obvious that the slave-owners have hijacked science to tell fibs that serve to keep the repression going.The bald fact is that the Martian icecaps are melting at near-same rates to the ones on Earth. If we posit that human activity alone is responsible for all climate warming, then who the heck is causing the changes on Mars? How is it happening when there are no car-choked freeways or coal-burning factories there? It is a serious question in need of a serious answer.And to briefly change the subject, I ran across an article today that talks all about some amazing things that science has 'just discovered' about glass [insert discreet throat-clearing noises here]...Glass Lunar Domes, here we come! Here's the url for the article:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25335806/;o3Sekhmet: A breath of Hot Air, and an interesting, 'inexplicable' sudden lack of sunspots. But then, She's a lion, not a leopard...Peace,T'Zairis
Well, looking forward to Mike's next blog topic. I really don't take a vehement ownership in a solid opinion on the matter either way. I do think the debate should center on whether there is a significant change that affects us, rather than what caused the damn thing. I'll continue on with life leaving the usual carbon footprint as everyone else. That includes cranking up the A/C when its hot, eating red meat, and listening to 80's metal (all politically incorrect).
The aliens must have come across the effects solor progression and they must have had a method of dealing with them. So we might want to take a look at what else is on the moon that could be helpful, if not designed to deal with this minor problem(by their standards). Remember how much the moon seems a part in hyper D reality on this planet; what do you want to bet they built the moon for more then just one purpose?
t'zairis,I read that article about the "recent findings" about glass. They do talk about glass metals, but I wonder if it is possible for the reverse to be true (ie transparent aluminum). Food for thought.
Starborne--Yes, they do hint very discreetly at transparent metallic glasses in the first paragraph of the article, where Wonder Woman's plane is mentioned. They don't want to come right out and say, 'Yeah, transparent glassy stuff that's stronger than steel is entirely possible', because they certainly don't want to hand lunar dome advocates the equivalent of a smoking gun.What just keeps cracking me up with all this stuff I run across is that it almost-seamlessly ties right in with what's been discussed for years at Enterprise Mission. I have to say that I personally don't buy the 'aw, shucks, we just now figured out we can make really super-strong metallic glasses all by our little wee selves' tone of the article. The acknowledgment that something like metallic glass is a real, live technology is as disingenuous-cum-obvious as lime-green day-glo lip-gloss on a hooker, if you will pardon the turn of phrase.If there are already metallic glass golf club shafts out there (and what a waste of state-of-the-art tech THAT is when we could be building Tom Corbett-style no-upkeep space-age houses for ourselves out of the stuff), then we've had knowledge of the substances and production techniques for a good while, I'm sure.Peace,T'Zairis
tzairis said"....The bald fact is that the Martian icecaps are melting at near-same rates to the ones on Earth. If we posit that human activity alone is responsible for all climate warming, then who the heck is causing the changes on Mars? How is it happening when there are no car-choked freeways or coal-burning factories there? It is a serious question in need of a serious answer."----------------------------------My point exactly...strangely enough marsandro could not really grasp the notion of that :-) to busy spewing formalae with a Hathor-maiden running through his head :-)I guessNo offence chummy..but next time take "a second longer" while reading before leaping of and fire at random :-)
Hi T'Zairis and starborne,Check this link for current information abouttransparent aluminum:http://www.livescience.com/technology/051018_new_glass.htmlYou'll have to "assemble" the URL from theabove two pieces. Sorry....And here's some more:http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123012131Ditto on the URL assembly....This stuff has been around for a few yearsnow.That's our lovely Military-Industrial Complexkeeping what they know from the "plebes" out here.Just do a Google search on-- transparent aluminum military --and get a load.:-)Hathor - Smooth as armour glass and twice as tough;-))
Hi gort,Re: BTW what ever happened to that "greatBiosphere II" experiment in Arizona?...It went bust. They had problems with a dropin the oxygen level among other things as Irecall from news stories at the time.Otherwise, it was fairly successful and metmost of its objectives well enough.There's an article on it at WikiPedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_IIAren't web searches wonderful....:-)Hathor - The wind in my sails;-))
Hi Sword:Re: Am I wrong in this......but the carbon dioxide given of from automotive use - is in FACT BAD for plants - where is carbon dioxide from cow farts is good?Anyone have a distinction? ;-)Auto exhaust has CO as well as CO2,plus unburned fuel, etc.CO2 is CO2, regardless of source. It isn'tlike the molecules have "different structures"or something. They're all identical at a giventemperature and pressure.(There are slight differences that occur withphase changes, but that's not an issue here.)No, it's the OTHER stuff present that ismaking the noted differences in the healthof plants.Also, CO (carbon monoxide) is deadly toplants, people and animals.:-)Hathor - Strolling through a garden;-))
Sword:since you asked...The major components of the flatus (which are odorless) by percentage are:Nitrogen - 20% - 90% Hydrogen - 0% - 50% Carbon Dioxide - 10% - 30% Oxygen - 0% - 10% Methane - 0% - 10% Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus. While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions, 90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping. This means only 1–2% of global methane emissions come from livestock flatus.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FartGort (rhymes with fort) :)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362023,00.htmlNASA lied. There's a surprise. But now, about climate change - see link.
Yo adrian,Re:My point exactly...strangely enough marsandro could not really grasp the notion of that :-) too busy spewing formulae with a Hathor-maiden running through his head :-)I guessRe-read FACT #4 (and FACT #3).Re:No offence chummy..but next time take "a second longer" while reading before leaping of and fire at random :-)None taken. Now *you* "take a second longer"and read what I said. :-):-)Hathor - The maiden running through my mind;-))
marsandro,Thanks for the articles on transparent alluminum! It makes one wonder what Roddeberry knew and when he knew it. It's either that or the military is full of trekkies. ;)
What scientists don't understand is that political agendas control what they study, and how they come to their conclusions. Both left and right. By keeping them focused on what causes climate change, it feeds their agendas. It also doesn't solve the problems that unfold until it is too late.
Hi David,That's why we have the *Scientific Method*for a guideline.Funny how so few people can even recite thesteps involved....I have a saying:"The First Duty of Science is OBSERVATION."That, however, is where the fun begins---"If the observations don't fit the theory,then the observations must be disposed of."Academe is SHOT THROUGH with that kind ofthing.....Talk about making manipulation and controlEASY....Everybody has an agenda...and you end upwith agendas within agendas....Throw in a little (or even a lot of) specialinterest money, and---voila!---Finally, all you have for "Science" is justone big mess.And when people don't know the Sciencethemselves, they're suckers for every selfserving b.s. artist that comes along---suchas Al Gore.:-)Hathor - setting the Wrongs back to Right;-))
All of which reminds me, "arianrhod,"Oh for the record - I too am a scientist,Oh, hooray for you. ZOOLOGY, I see....and I speak to lots of other scientists including atmospheric chemists, atmospheric physicists and climatologists.An education in itself, no doubt.They ALL have differing opinions somarsandro needs to get over him or her self,and get out of his or her limited little world.*Their* uncertaintly does not reflect on*me* one way or the other. Many of them arejust agenda-ridden schmucks, as the mediahas shown us.Sure you can run your own numbers but ifyou are only dealing with the wrong data set you will get nothing but crap.You mean like, maybe the atmosphereic datafor some other planet? I was using Earth's.1 - The composition of Earth's atmosphere isabsolutely determinate.2 - The partial pressures of the gaseouscomponents are absolutely determinate.3 - The pressure at MSL (that's Mean SeaLevel) is absolutely determinate.4 - The pressure versus altitude is absolutelydeterminate.5 - The solar flux is measured 24/7 and isabsolutely determinate.6 - Earth's man/animal/plant population isabsolutely determinate.7 - Respiration rates across the board areabsolutely determinate.8 - Man's industrial operations are absolutelydeterminate.Etc.And the physical laws don't bend even foryou, arianrhod."Wrong data set?" Yeah. Right.All I did was total up the CO2 counts andcompare them to the "claims" of the "global warming" crowd. Conclusion? Their claims are absolute b.s.Besides---it's already known AND published that CO2 increases FOLLOW the historical increases in global temperature, rather thanpreceding them.What makes you better than any other of the scientists out there except your own ego?Well, let's see...:clarity, conciseness, completeness,attention to detail...and, of course, astrict adherence to the Scientific Method.Not to mention I don't have any tie-ins tomoney-driven agendas like those of oneAl Gore, or any of his cronies....There's a term for my position. It's calledSCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY.Have a nice day, arianrhod.:-)Hathor - Her eyes FLASH in the night;-))
Sometimes analysis is paralysis. It is probably too late to assess who, when and why. Rather, what? For how long? What are some relatively immediate bottom lines here...? To the left I'd say, don't be alarmist. The the right I'd say, don't ignore it completely.Seems there may possibly be a largely ice-free North Pole in the first half of the 21st Century. [rebuttable] That also means newly available oil drilling areas where many countries will/are claim(ing) as theirs...i.e. Russia planting a flag at the bottom of the ocean in a prime oil area. That is, yes, assuming that the evidence is genuine. You've seen the satellite images though.http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html
counterpoint, global cooling:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23584524-11949,00.html
Hi David 19.5,Re: You've seen the satellite images though.Most of the available satellite images areMONTHS out of date (if not years).This is especially true of Google Earth, andit's online clone, maps.google.com.Some of Google Earth's images go back as faras 2000.The polar bears are walking on home ice again.Incidentally, only *four* drowned. Actually,that's an unusually low number for this timeof year.:-)Hathor - Petting the Polar Bears;-))P.S.: Your links are clipped. Try leavingoff the "http://" part to try to get moreof the link on-page.:-)
thank God - now we don't have to worry about a clash at the Pole. let's just ignore the Russians then.
Dude (Marsandro), this not Al Gore stuff, and it is not outdated information. I make no argument on the cause, but look at the ice melt data in real time.http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/Don't know what you mean by cutting off the link - but if you highlight, copy and paste it you can view the websites.
Most of the available satellite images areMONTHS out of date (if not years).According to A Friend:A couple years ago someone (China ?) attacked our earth imaging satellites and now the only Landsat satellites still producing up to date images are older ones with circa 1984 or earlier resolution. In order to get high resolution sat pictures of recent origin, one must purchase images from India, Brazil, or elsewhare.This was passed on to me from a highly qualified professional satellite image user...I hope he is wrong about this...Gort
David,Re:Don't know what you mean by cutting off the link - but if you highlight, copy and paste it you can view the websites.It isn't all there. The links are truncatedat the right.Leaving off the "http://" will leave moreroom for the whole link(s).(I'm well aware of how to "cut and paste."I've been using computers for nearly fortyyears.)Now, as for the SHORT link you have here:April extent has not fallen below the lowest April extent on record, but it is still below the long-term average.So, there IS an ice cap. It's merely "belowaverage" in size. And note, it ISN'T a recordshrinkage.Seems it all went to the Antarctic. X-))))(Check THAT out.)The greenies are all screaming that there isNO ice. Millions of polar bears are drowning.We're all dying. Blah-blah-blah. The usual.Sorry. Wrong again. More Al Gore stuff.And now...back to the Mars Tidal Model....:-)Hathor - The Patron Goddess of Computers;-))
Yeah, I've been using computers since the Commodore 64 and TRS-80 models. Will try to take off the http part next time. Well, the whole climate debate could go round and round forever. Who here is running Ubuntu operating system on their computer? It rocks.
Got to respond to Marsandro again though:1) You didn't dispute that Russia and/or other countries overtly have displayed interest in staking out their space for oil drilling at the Pole. Thus it is an admission that countries (like Russia - and not just ours being "controlled" by the "greenies") are acknowledging polar melt is likely to continue in earnest. 2) I don't recall mentioning anything about polar bears, but if you say so, whatever.3) You present no authority that the North Pole ice moved to the Antarctic, nor any supporting an increase in Antarctic's volume.4) I never claimed a "record" ice retreat. However, you are basing your opinion essentially over what appears to be a one-year period, not decade(s).5) Finally, no, it isn't Al Gore as I have never cited to him. Look, you can bet that corporations are getting serious about profiting from climate change (i.e. petroleum), so couching it in purely political terms doesn't make a case.6) While you try to figure this out, maybe I'll form a company and plant a corporate flag where there is oil under melting ice up there.
Okay, david 19.5---Point by point---(1) Re:You didn't dispute that Russia and/or other countries overtly have displayed interest in staking out their space for oil drilling at the Pole.Why should I? It's in the news.(2) Re:Thus it is an admission that countries (like Russia - and not just ours being "controlled" by the "greenies") are acknowledging polar melt is likely to continue in earnest.No it isn't. The Russians have long hadthe technical capability to work under theice. They can do it whether the ice meltsor not. (I've been around long enough toknow things like that.)(3) Re:I don't recall mentioning anything aboutpolar bears, but if you say so, whatever.I didn't attribute that to you. I said, quote,"The greenies...."(Are you counting yourself one of them?)(4) Re:You present no authority that the North Pole ice moved to the Antarctic, nor any supporting an increase in Antarctic's volume.I was being somewhat facetious in how Iexpressed the point (deliberately).The astounding growth of the Antarctic icecap has been in the news. Try Yahoo! Newsor Google News.(5) Re:I never claimed a "record" ice retreat. However, you are basing your opinion essentially over what appears to be a one-year period, not decade(s).I was not expressing an opinion at all. I wasquoting the website which you yourself haveprovided (via your link).They've kept data for several decades, notjust the past year or so.(6) Re:Finally, no, it isn't Al Gore as I have never cited to him. Look, you can bet that corporations are getting serious about profiting from climate change (i.e. petroleum), so couching it in purely political terms doesn't make a case.(a) I didn't say you were quoting Al Gore.I summed up with the general comment,"more Al Gore stuff." That is merely acharacterization, not a claim that youcited a source.(b) Corporations are ALWAYS trying to profitfrom gloom 'n' doom stuff. However, I failto see what you believe was "political" inanything I said.Unless you mean the reference to Al Gore.HE'S political, but so what?(7) Re: While you try to figure this out, maybe I'll form a company and plant a corporate flag where there is oil under melting ice up there.I figured it all out nicely.Don't forget your carbon credits!:-)Hathor - In the swim of things;-))
mr. Hathor,I googled the subject as you suggested...cut/pasted part of what I found here.British Antarctic Survey has captured dramatic satellite and video images of an Antarctic ice shelf that looks set to be the latest to break out from the Antarctic Peninsula. A large part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is now supported only by a thin strip of ice hanging between two islands. It is another identifiable impact of climate change on the Antarctic environment.Scientists monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf spotted that a huge (41 by 2.5 km) km2 berg the size of the Isle of Man appears to have broken away in recent days – it is still on the move. from www.antarctica.ac.ukMarch 2008 article
This is a part of an article I googled, from that flaming left-wing, greenie news group known as foxnews.com. I can't believe they are now buying into this crap. FOXNEWS.COM HOME > SCITECHCalifornia-Sized Area of Ice Melts in AntarcticaThursday, May 17, 2007NASAAreas of snow melt, shown in yellow and red, as seen by NASA's QuikScat satellite in January 2005. The yellow line indicates shoreline.Warm temperatures melted an area of western Antarctica that adds up to the size of California in January 2005, scientists report.Satellite data collected by the scientists between July 1999 and July 2005 showed clear signs that melting had occurred in multiple distinct regions, including far inland and at high latitudes and elevations, where melt had been considered unlikely."Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past, with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula," said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado, Boulder. "But now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite analysis."
On the other hand...http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=7509 Dr. James McClintock (marine biologist at UAB) today, in an op-ed piece published by the Birmingham News, claims that Antarctica is “warming quickly”. Dr. McClintock, I am sure, is an excellent marine biologist, and I would not even make an effort to challenge his knowledge of that science. But, what is his background in atmospheric science? And, where does that claim come from?Here is what Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) Joe D’Aleo says about this:“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.And, from climate scientist Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona: “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what’s happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”
That's a good insight - particularly that there may be a tendency for media to focus on one particular region. Is there any credibility, do you think, to the lack of sun flare activity I've heard of that could bring a cooling trend (another minor ice age like in medieval times I believe)?
Well, there is the story that came out today about the Heliosheath being bent out of shape from what was previously known (or assumed). www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080702-voyager-crosses-shock.htmThis is due to the gasses and magnetic fields of interstellar space squashing the shape of the heliosphere. If what folks are saying is correct about the ecliptic planes of the solar system and the galaxy aligning by 2012, that could have a big effect on our highly magnetic sun.
More on global cooling... excerpt taken from an article by Phil Chapman, geophysicist (Australian), www.theaustralian.news.com"...The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.""Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.""That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.""It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."
yoohoo david 19.5...said""Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.""really :-) It was due to the fact that Napoleon Buonaparte lost the campaign against his friend and foe Alexander I, by leaving his Grande Armee into the claws of a logistic nightmare and a Russian winter after he hastely fled to France. By Jove!!:-) have we already come so far that historical wars supposedly where won or lost due to sunspots?? Pathetic to coin an understatement.
Yo D-19.5,The Wilkins Ice Sheet is recipient of somewarm ocean currents that other Earth changeshave routed there.There's also a 200-year warm-current cycle inEarth's oceans that the phytoplankton tend tofollow, which is why there is a precipitousdrop in atmosphereic O2 levels.Of course, "trash islands" floating on theocean surfaces don't help matters, but theyare not the controlling factors in the O2produced reaching the surface.The Earth's climate is sun-driven. And everyso often, the Sun goes bonkers.Watch out for Solar Cycle #24...it's gonnabe a doozy.:-)Hathor - Sun bathing at Wreck Beach;-))P.S.: I think Mike covered the other pointsquite nicely. Thank you, Sir Mike!:-)
"The United States is the only major industrial nation to reject the Kyoto Protocol that mandates cuts in carbon emissions, with Bush arguing that it is unfair as it makes no demands of fast-growing emerging economies." - Yahoo News article, July 6, 2008.For the record, I agree.
Yo Dave,RE:"The United States is the only major industrial nation to reject the Kyoto Protocol that mandates cuts in carbon emissions, with Bush arguing that it is unfair as it makes no demands of fast-growing emerging economies."Al Gore, busted.Hear, hear!(Nice to see you agree!):-)Hathor - Balancing the balances;-)P.S.: My point? And how did Al Gore getinto it?Simple---he ain't got no "buds" in China---which is probably why he went there recently.(Same story in India.)I hear he came back empty-handed...as wellas empty-headed!The U.S. is the only place on Earth where hecan play his "carbon credits" game! Oh, youknow---his latest money scam!X-))))
re: my previous post about Landsat(June 30, 2008 11:16 PM):I spoke with my friend on Sunday, July 6, 2008, and he said the U. S. Landsat cameras with better-than 1984-era resolution are all still out of order.He uses high resolution satellite images to analyse and document such things as crop damage from adjacent landowners' mis-application of herbicides and pesticides, and is currently required to purchase contemporary images from foreign spsce entities.Gort
Post a Comment