It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes I would be plenty warm enough in the sun shone/shine... Where does cold come from? Where does almost ALL THE HEAT COME FROM???
There is no data to prove that every single body in the solar system is warming - not even most of the planets.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by littlebunny
Read my earlier comment again:
There is no data to prove that every single body in the solar system is warming - not even most of the planets.
4 planets warming is not proof of the entire solar system warming!
There's many more than 450 papers that support man-made global warming. Why don't you actually provide some science from the papers you support, rather than waving around a batch of papers?!
[edit on 6-12-2009 by john124]
Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by littlebunny
To your post of 8:29
you have the right idea, we are being controlled and manipulated but the wrong group. You have just decided now to speak up? You have decided these Climate scientists are the hoaksters trying to control you? What do they get out of it bunny? Do you think it might be Exxon_Mobil getting something out of this? If you continue to blame the poor scientist working for peanuts...consider yourself completely and thoroughly duped.
Follow the money.
Republican Conservatives are the manipulators/the Illumnati warriors of old, organized and with a specific agenda: Maintain a perpetual state of WAR enabling a few to control the many through fear and outrage. Heritage and entitlement go hand in hand, while tremendous sums of money funneled to advance our “muscular military” are siphoned off the top - like icing from a cake.
Idle hands threaten the status quo so we work long hours at low wages keeping our noses to the grindstone in hopes of attaining the American dream - A dream constantly being pushed a little farther out of reach. If your head happens to bob up from the sand to see where your money is going, it’s pushed back down by another worry. When you can't take it anymore you’re pitted against another worker who’s made to seem responsible for these stifling conditions. The two of you fight but never get close to the truth. You ain't getting no vacation.
You are right. There is a conspiracy.
Republican-Conservatives backed by major corps like Exxon want to drill for natural gas, they come from coal states, some want to drill oil off our coasts. Do ya think they are going to let a little thing like global warming stop them from using these resources. No. They will devise some way to make you doubt it is happening so they can make their money drilling selling burning and ripping people off. You are only a "worker bee" not the elite and you will never be the elite. It isn't designed that way. Climate change is not the hoax- this is the hoax.
Originally posted by MaxBlack
I find it ritualistic in nature that the Copenhagen gathering begins on the aniversary of Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941.
It was the day of infamy that most remember from knowing their history and as such it is odd that the beginning of the global government would pin its beginning on such an auspicious date. It is done as if to undermine the fight for freedom vs the fight for the creation of a communist global authority. From what I have read once you agree to enter into the treaty there is no way to get out and more importantly it is a type of communist organization with no nations voting to authorize anything.
These criminal international despots want complete control over us and want no one or any electorial system of votes to impeade that control. It is for this reason alone that it alarms me that Obama has requested of the DOD to build a million man army to be used against Americans during the coming created financial collapse and social crisis. It further alarms me that the Obama regime would agree to send 30K soldiers to Afgahnistan while covertly attempting to disguise the return of 200K soldiers from European, Asian and other countries around the planet as part of building that million man army.
Time will tell but at present I feel that the noose of time is slowly constricting around the neck of America. One could hope that logic and openmindness exists at the Copenhagen gathering but all evidence points to a contrived global warming claim in order to buy time for the these international criminals to penetrate and corrupt many of the infastructure organizational people stuctures that help support a move from democractic rule to a fascist dictatorship.
We should observe with care what transpires next in regard to climate gate because it will signal much about what might lie beyond Copenhagen's gathering over a hoax of planetary proportions.
Originally posted by mushibrain
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by unicorn1
reply to post by komp_uk
Many thanks for posting this. Star and flag! Star and flag also to the much maligned Nick Griffen. I think he might just have got my vote....
so you have no problem with more CO2 in the air
fossil fuels use oxygen to burn which humans need to live, fossil fuels produce CO2 which kills humans.
we may be able to adapt to cooler and hotter parts of the world, but we can't adapt to less oxygen and higher concentrations of deadly gases. to me anyway this is pretty simple, and should not be based on political thinking.
[edit on 6-12-2009 by jimmyx]
jimmyx, oxygen does not evaporate into the space it's still here, recycled for our consumption. Actually the same goes for CO2 trees need CO2 do they not? So aren’t we helping trees by burning fossils? What I am saying, don't be played by either side. Less toxins, less crap in our oceans is great, but fiddling the numbers about AGW in order to push global government is not great. On the other hand, close all borders as nationalists want is also not great. You want to globalize freedom of movement, trade and exchange between people, but close borders on governmental control keep the governance as localized as possible (without paying too much for localization, there is a happy middle somewhere). Like the internet, at least for now.
Can anything on this Earth survive without Sun light? I think not!!!
Let alone, I do believe the moon is extremely HOT on one side and extremely cold on the dark side... its been awhile since I had to study the moon, but I guess I can go look for sources...
Oh, and it gets cold here in the Northern Hemisphere because the angle of our planet has moved ever so slightly away from the Sun… Tiz summer time down south… I guess the core of the Earth is responsible for that… no no, CO2 is! How incredibly laughable!
Are you now willing to admit you were completely uneducated with regards to what is happening within our solar system?
"There is no data to prove that every single body in the solar system is warming - not even most of the planets.
There is some news making the rounds that Earth is not the only planet experiencing global warming. Mars, for example, possibly appears to be getting a bit warmer, as are Jupiter, Neptune’s moon Triton, and even Pluto.
First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we’d expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets. So any really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter or especially Pluto, if real, are very unlikely to be due to the Sun.
Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called "cherry picking"; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?
I have heard nothing about them in these arguments, and I suspect it’s because there’s not much to say. If they are not warming, then deniers won’t mention them, and scientists won’t report it because there is nothing to report ("News flash: Phobos still the same temperature!" is unlikely to get into Planetary Science journals). However, I can’t say that with conviction, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any planetary scientists reading this blog entry, please contact me. I’m interested in hearing more.
Third, if you actually read the articles about the specific cases of planetary warming to which I linked above, you see that they all have separate explanations:
Mars: To start, is Mars even warming globally at all? Perhaps not — it might be a local effect. And if it is global, there already is an idea of why that might be happening: it would be due to periodic changes in its orbit, called Milankovitch cycles. The Earth has them too, and they do affect our climate. And the guy who is proposing that the Sun is warming Mars doesn’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think his science is a little suspect. His reasoning is certainly specious– he says if Mars and Earth are both warming, it must be due to the Sun. As I point out above, that is clearly not necessarily the case. Even if this martian warming turns out to be true, it may just be a natural effect of the shape of the orbit of Mars.
Plus, let’s think about this: Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth. If the effects of Earth’s global warming are subtle enough to argue about at all, then it’s safe to assume the changes on Pluto are completely irrelevant to the argument.
So where does that leave us? When I look at all of this, I see a handful of the 100 large solar system bodies showing some evidence of local warming (Jupiter’s spot), some evidence of systemic warming with known causes that are a lot more likely than the Sun heating up (like well-understood orbital variations), and some evidence that any warming experienced by these bodies is possibly being exaggerated in the reporting.
I also see cherry-picking, with no mention of the other planets and moons in the solar system.
And what of the Sun? Is it possible that the Earth’s warming is caused by our nearest star?
Of course it’s possible. There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up the Maunder minimum for some interesting reading), and it would be foolish to simply deny this. However, this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming "Yes it’s due to the Sun" or "No it’s not due to the Sun" is certainly naive.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by littlebunny
The blog has links for the explanations to why some of the planets are warming. You can always use google to further your understanding as well.
This source explains the MilanKovitch Cycles on Mars: www.homepage.montana.edu...
You're possibly one post away from being added to the ignore list. If you continue to be in denial, then there's only so much I can be bothered to say to you.
I welcome healthy scepticism, but not anti-science denials.
Originally posted by john124
See you then.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Thanks to buddhasystem, I have decided to finish some calculations I started some time back. I am posting them here. The following will be used:
- Due to charcter limitations, I will be avoiding the use of exponential expressions. I apologize for any difficulty this may cause; it causes me difficulty as well, but is an inherent weakness in the font systems used on the Internet and tends to cause confusion itself when used.
- All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:
Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.
- m = meter
- cm = centimeter (0.01m)
- km = kilometer (1000m)
- g = gram
- kg = kilogram (1000g)
- J = Joule
- kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)
- W = Watt
- s = second
- °K = degree Kelvin
- The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangable for purposes of temperature variance.
- All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.
It has been theorized that the use of antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.
All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of
r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km
A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²
We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):
1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²
1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)
175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s
That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:
100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s
We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:
175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr
Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2
Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:
V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³
V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³
V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³
= 8,694,154 km³
Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:
[align=center]1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K
1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K
1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K
Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as
1,214,400,000 kJ/km³
Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by john124
I am afraid I'll have to agree with this last fellow John, littlebunny.
No I am not invested in green stocks. I am invested in survival of the species and protecting the atmosphere of our earth. After all, this is the only atmosphere we have.
For a little bunny you sure are antagonistic but then I have a little bunny and he has an awful nasty temper too. On him it is cute though,