Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[saggs]

This thread has gone in more circles than a NASCAR race car on a Sunday afternoon. 

[Bodhi]

This thread has gone in more circles than a NASCAR race car on a Sunday afternoon. 

Spun by those that refuse to answer questions posed to them.  So be it.

[MORAY37]

Actually, you are wrong.  I know it is hard for you, but, you missed the entire premise of what I was saying with regards to the nut and weight.  Those birds sank as far as they did because of their weight.  They weren't built up on by 250 feet of snow.

Sir, if that were true, the engine blocks would have folded the entire structure on itself, because they are the heaviest points on any airframe. In fighters, the engines were usually 60% or more of the weight of the plane.

 The wing tips would have folded over top, because they are the lightest, along with the tail.  On a P-38, the fuselage would have bent at the connections to both engine blocks, because the cockpit is far lighter than either engine.  At the very least, some rivets would have popped at the wingspar...

Nothing of the sort happened.

Snow piled up and became ice, entombing those planes, and moving them almost 2 miles.....exactly what happens in a glacier, due to it's fluidity.  


  By your estimation, then, the two B17's should be further under the ice, due to it's higher weight.  Nope.  It's in exactly the same place it was relative to Glacier Girl, and covered by exactly the same amount of ice.  Objects don't "free fall" through solids.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/FEATURE-glaciergirl-backstory.html?c=y&page=4

Within days, the radar teams had pinpointed the exact location of all eight airplanes. And it immediately became obvious why they hadn’t been located earlier. The shifting ice had carried the airplanes about two miles from their original location. And a high-pressure steam probe revealed that they lay beneath 264 feet of solid ice.

You are completely wrong.

[MORAY37]

Spun by those that refuse to answer questions posed to them.  So be it.

AGAIN, what is your question?

and AGAIN, I'm a biologist.... my work is completely separate from any of this.  Please cease your personal attacks on me, NOW.

[MORAY37]

Wednesday and early Thursday had the most solar activity in the whole of 24 Cycle.

4 M class flares, with the largest an M 3.4.  A ton of C class flares...  Solar wind pushed up into the 500 km/s^-1 range.

We can say with certainty the mysteriously extended 24 month slumber of minimum is over.  The sun is awake again.   It generally takes a year or two to move back up into historical norms for each 11 year cycle..... I suppose we'll find out more of what's really going on then.

 Someone who knows much more than me about all this said this to me... "2013 is going to be interesting here on earth."  She feels this extended minima in between cycles has masked a lot of things that are going on. I hope she isn't right, honestly.

[CAP1]

Wednesday and early Thursday had the most solar activity in the whole of 24 Cycle.

4 M class flares, with the largest an M 3.4.  A ton of C class flares...  Solar wind pushed up into the 500 km/s^-1 range.

We can say with certainty the mysteriously extended 24 month slumber of minimum is over.  The sun is awake again.   It generally takes a year or two to move back up into historical norms for each 11 year cycle..... I suppose we'll find out more of what's really going on then.

 Someone who knows much more than me about all this said this to me... "2013 is going to be interesting here on earth."  She feels this extended minima in between cycles has masked a lot of things that are going on. I hope she isn't right, honestly.

and coincindentially, at least in my area, it's much warmer than the last few weeks. couple days, it was in the 50's. monday is supposed to be in the 60's, then cold again i think.

so once again, it comes down to the sun. 

[MORAY37]

and coincindentially, at least in my area, it's much warmer than the last few weeks. couple days, it was in the 50's. monday is supposed to be in the 60's, then cold again i think.

so once again, it comes down to the sun.  

CAP, the sun supplies every watt of power to the planet.  It does come down to the sun, but it is magnified by the atmosphere around the planet.

But, again, you are confusing weather with climate.

The solar flux has just barely moved past the lowest part of minima.  Today it's at 80.6.

As you can see, the average is much higher.  As you can see the sun spends a majority of its' time way above a flux of 100, averaging roughly around 160, and going up into the high 200's.


Tied into Solar Irradiance. (how much energy the earth receives)



If you spend some time thinking about it, you'll realize why people are a bit pessimistic about temperatures, when you're seeing 50's and 60's in January, now.  We are way under average solar flux.... but the total irradiance isn't shifting.  This means that the energy the sun puts out isn't changing outside of normal parameters observed.  But global mean temperature HAS.  If the energy average coming into the system doesn't change, but the system does trend in either direction, it's the system that is causing the trend.  General lab science.

You should see temp following flux, in short.  You don't.  You can see the bounce in temperature when the flux is high and low (note the peaks in temp in 1980, 90, 2000, when flux was highest), but the fact remains it trends up in the long term....  This is indicative of a system retaining energy.

[Penguin]

Correct, and not only that, the nut and ice cube weren't to scale either, that would be like dropping France on Greenland!

Now here's the question, we have always retained some energy in the atmosphere (wouldn't be here otherwise due to temperature swings), but has the capacity gone up or down?  Answer this correctly and we can completely prove either side.

If the capacity has gone up, you can see it's man-made.

Widewing, I didn't appreciate that "numbskull" comment.  You wouldn't want Skuzzy to shut this down before you could prove your point would you?

-Penguin

[Widewing]

Correct, and not only that, the nut and ice cube weren't to scale either, that would be like dropping France on Greenland!

Now here's the question, we have always retained some energy in the atmosphere (wouldn't be here otherwise due to temperature swings), but has the capacity gone up or down?  Answer this correctly and we can completely prove either side.

If the capacity has gone up, you can see it's man-made.

Widewing, I didn't appreciate that "numbskull" comment.  You wouldn't want Skuzzy to shut this down before you could prove your point would you?

-Penguin

Does anyone else believe that I was referring to Penguin with my comment: "Even at the office..... Trying to prove a point, only to be seconded by a well known numbskull. Yeah, that helped."

Does Penguin work in my Engineering office? No.

Frankly Penguin, if you had Bill Gates' fortune, you would still be 50 cents short of a clue.


My regards,

Widewing

[Penguin]

Oops!

I just put two and two together, remembering the "Junior" joke.  Ah well, if you wrestle in the mud, you're gonna get dirty.

But anyway...

I'm waiting for your response to my argument.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Correct, and not only that, the nut and ice cube weren't to scale either, that would be like dropping France on Greenland!

Now here's the question, we have always retained some energy in the atmosphere (wouldn't be here otherwise due to temperature swings), but has the capacity gone up or down?  Answer this correctly and we can completely prove either side.

If the capacity has gone up, you can see it's man-made.

Widewing, I didn't appreciate that "numbskull" comment.  You wouldn't want Skuzzy to shut this down before you could prove your point would you?

-Penguin

if i'm thinking correctly, the earth's atmosphere will radiate heat out into space. for something to prevent this, it needs to insulate in the upper atmosphere. co2 is heavier than air, so this isn't gonna do that.

[E25280]

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
This is indicative of a system retaining energy.

Your conclusion may be correct if the data used to create the graphs wasn't cooked . . . but it is.

That's what started the thread in the first place, remember?  Climate scientists falsifying data?  Remember?

Hello?

[Widewing]

Your conclusion may be correct if the data used to create the graphs wasn't cooked . . . but it is.

That's what started the thread in the first place, remember?  Climate scientists falsifying data?  Remember?

Hello?

Or, dimwitted IPCC members who can't read...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_un_climate_change


My regards,

Widewing

[Bodhi]

See Rule #4

[Bodhi]

AGAIN, what is your question?

and AGAIN, I'm a biologist.... my work is completely separate from any of this.  Please cease your personal attacks on me, NOW.

Again kiddo, I have repeatedly asked you why you are amongst a show of hands in science saying man-made global warming is real amidst a fraud of epic proportions perpetrated by those at the CRU as well as the UN, and our own Government. Why are the flawed and "proven" wrong numbers still being circulated as "proof" of man-made global warming?  It's a lie.

I am a business man.  I make money in a lot of different ventures.  Why is it that the floor is falling out of the man made global warming technology and investment is the goreacle credits?  Why?  Because it was a freaking sham.  Carbon credits are yet another sham.  Just big rich guys with an idea to make more billions.