Global Warming

So the earth does not have a ozone layer on earth by your view of the water layer over Titan. Its abundantly clear in the link I supplied you that a water layer exists within the magnetosphere of Titan. Its a fact nothing to dispute, no more no less disputable than the ozone layer presently covering the earth. The suns increased output verified by links I supplied is the forcing of the water vapor. The link mentioned its about the water vapor not the water droplets, etc... Their quoting from the Russian Scientists given lithium, beryllium has not been destroyed the sun by your belief that the sun is an older star is bogus because after only 7,500 years no lithium should be detectable if the suns core is hotter than 3 million degrees.You do understand that this means the sun is less than 7,500 years old if the sun is hotter than 3 million degrees within the core there would be no lithium remaining.If the sun became a star on day 1 then by the 24 hour day the sun was a star for around 6,000 years is not the problem. The problem is if the suns core is heating up driving (forcing the water vapor to feed global warming, etc...These Russian scientists pretty much have asked the appropriate questions that the present neutrino flux is not a problem with the present temp of the sun given lithium and beryllium gases are not being destroyed it all indicates the sun is quite young.

Ahh, and why would you suspect that? Because it tends to destroy your theory? You think that the experiemnts performed didn't take into account background noise from the signal they were measuring???

Does it matter if the numbers are multiplied by some fudge factor to justify their theory.

This doesn't make any sense. Of course the Earth has an ozone layer - that has nothing to do with Titan, a moon over 1.2 billion kilometers from the Earth. Um, no. It's abundantly clear that you saw "ionized water vapor" in microscopic quantities in Titan's magnetosphere, and from that you spun an elaborate fantasy of a "water canopy".But that's a flight of fancy. There's no such thing, and to offer a tenuous cloud of ionized water as a "water canopy" is to assert that when I fill the bathtub there's an ocean in my apartment. False. Solar output has been decreased (overall) since 1992, so it can't be the source of the vapor. The major forcing of the climate's warming trend, as identified by the IPCC, is human greenhouse gas emissions. The Russian Scientists? There's no such organization.And you still haven't addressed any of my points, or answered any of my questions. If the sun is only 13,000 years old then what was the Earth orbiting all that time? To assert such a young age for the sun is ludicrous.

Al Gore, speaking about "An Inconvenient Truth", is one of todays guests on "Fresh Air". The interview originally aired on May 30, 2006. http://www.npr.org/...Look for the audio link at the page top, right under the "Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'"You may also wish to look at the "Related NPR Stories" links found down page.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Nope.Try again.Real Climate Dot.org is authored or hosted by the authors of the Slap happy Hockey Schtick nonsense.The problem with the 'Hockey Stick' results was the use of Proxy Data from tree rings.And, sadly or conveniently, that failed to reveal or ignored the higher temperatures of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP)?Now, who wouldn't want to argue against the empirical evidence of the MWP now would you?Or defend the 'Hockey Stick' graph and data that did not or could not reflect this reality?Ahem:Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisalby Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso and David R. LegatesApril 11, 2003FULL TEXT: (PDF)Page Not Found - Marshall StreetAhem:Quote:A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called "Physics for Future Presidents." Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national security. Global Warming Bombshell

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

Facts?I'm not the one making the wild Doom and Gloom predictions!Doh.Try and ignore the following Research..................Estimation of the solar fraction and Svensmark factorby Peter DietzeTaking into account the impact of solar variability for global warming, best-fit studies have revealed that solar forcing is amplified by at least a factor 4 whereas CO2 doubling should be reduced to less than 1C.The Svensmark factor represents the amplification of global temperature changes in comparison to the measured changes in direct solar radiative forcing.According to an observation-based hypothesis, the reason for this factor is that the intensity of cosmic rays which increase the cloud coverage, is strongly suppressed by solar activity (solar wind) [H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestrial Phys. 59, 1225, (1997)]. A further contribution for irradiance amplification may be the fact that haze and clouds partly dissolve with increasing solar activity before the mixed ocean layer warms up and thus evaporation increases.A best fit climate simulation using variable stretch factors for increasing solar and decreasing CO2 sensitivity was presented by Eric Posmentier, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in [Global Warming - the continuing debate, ESEF (1998)]. In Fig.1+2 on p.164-165 (here combined) the authors show the observed global temperature change (11-year running mean), the best fit for GHG only, the best fit for solar only and the best fit for a combination of GHG with solar. Only 43% of the warming for the last century is to be allocated to GHG whereas 57% to solar.http://www.john-daly.com/fraction/fraction.htm

I was saying "DON'T FEED THE BEARS!"Are you suggesting that the citizens of Churchill, Canada should feed the Polar bears???Yikes.How cruel of you!Love 'em or Feed 'em?http://www.chem.ucla.edu/...xplorations/churchill/cindex.htmHow is that sea ice in Churchill, Manitoba?Weather Hotlink:http://www.theweathernetwork.com/...iving/pages/CAMB0033.htmEdited by Richbee, : EditEdited by Richbee, : Added Weather Link for the Froggie

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

The only nonsense here is your post. I haven't got the slightest idea what you think you're talking about.

Posting bare links is a forum rules violation.How about some actual content in your messages, from those links. It should have some direct connection to the topic "Global Warming".And to others - Please stop feeding Richbee's bad behaviour.This is an official warning, enforceable by possible suspension.No replies to this message at this topic. If anyone feels they must reply to this message, go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.Getting cranky,Adminnemooseus

---

Huh? With statements like this you really give the impression that you have no clue... which is surprising given the lucidity of most of your ideas.There is no multiplication. The correct flux of neurinos has been discovered. End of story. Next?

If one wants to argue that the current warming is caused by increased solar output, he should address the current stratospheric cooling.The stratosphere is warmed basically two ways:* Incoming solar UV* Outgoing longwave (thermal) infrared from belowA significant increase in insolation (incoming solar radiation) should cause warming in both the troposphere and the stratosphere.However, if the flow of heat from the surface and troposphere to the stratosphere is somehow blocked, say, by doubling the CO2 content of the lower atmosphere, you get a simultaneous warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Like what seems to be occuring now. Edited by gene90, : No reason given.

"If" all the experiments are right, and "nobody is making any mistakes", it seems that NO choice of neutrino mass matrix really fits all the data!The suns core nucleur reactions if its heating up a bit would not the sun be producing a bit more neutrino's and would not the cosmic increases in energy tend to cause more upper atmospheric clouds to form which would reflect a bit more infarad radiation back to the earth.If so then more cosmic energy so more flavors would converted from neutrino's by the atmosphere thus more energy being imparted to the oceans too in respect to this global warming senerio.Increases of global temperature has been documented since 1795 at Armagh Observatory supporting the sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.-----------------------------Again, this could be due to neutrino oscillations. But what's REALLY cool is that the numbers seem to depend on where the neutrinos are coming from: from the sky right above the detector, from right below the detector - in which case they must have come all the way through the earth - or whatever. Neutrinos coming from different directions take different amounts of time to get from the upper atmosphere to the detector. Thus an obvious explanation for the experimental results is that we're actually seeing the oscillation process AS IT TAKES PLACE.If this is true, we can try to get detailed information about the neutrino mass matrix from the numbers these experiments are measuring!And this is exactly what people have been doing. But they're finding something very strange. If all the experiments are right, and nobody is making any mistakes, it seems that NO choice of neutrino mass matrix really fits all the data! To fit all the data, folks need to do something drastic - like posit a 4th kind of neutrino!http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week130.htmlScientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.In general, the more cosmic rays that reach the Earth, the more low cloud there is. However, a higher solar activity leads to lower cosmic ray flux and reduced low cloud.
Low clouds cool the Earth by reflecting more solar radiation back into space, so a drop in the amount of low cloud contributes to global warming.High cloud does the opposite and tends to warm the Earth by reflecting more of the Earth's infra-red radiation back to the ground.It may be that changing cloud cover has caused global warming over the past century or so.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It may be that changing cloud cover has caused global warming over the past century or so.

---

Avenues like this should be studied, but it doesn't address stratospheric cooling.

And to think they believe Co2 increases cause global warming when it appears to have just the opposite effect.Perhaps the increasing amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere is buffering the small amounts of atmospheric Co2 increases from fossil fuel.-----------------There has been a 2 ppmv increase of stratospheric water vapour since the middle 1950s. This is substantial given typical current stratospheric values of 4-6 ppmv. Photochemical oxidation of methane in the stratosphere produces approximately two molecules of water vapour per molecule of methane. The increase in the concentration of tropospheric methane since the 1950s (0.55 ppmv) is responsible for at most one half of the increase in stratospheric water vapour over this time period. It is not clear what is responsible for the remainder of the observed increase in stratospheric water vapour.Object not found!