The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by bkelly

It is common knowledge that there are solar interruptions of radio transmissions. However, you claimed, "we have seen more solar interruptions of radio transmissions in the last decade than ever before."

Any support for this alleged increase other than, "Well, we're seeing interruptions now"?

bkelly

Yeah, well there are more radio transmissions being broadcast than even before, so I'm sure the number of interruptions is the highest in this decade.

[LordKelvin]

I have a brilliant solution. Let's launch a solar shade that will cost billions of billions of dollars, lower the average temperature of the Earth by 6-7 degrees Celsius, and kill ourselves off in one fell swoop by inducing a man-made Ice Age.

/sarcasm

[GlobalWarmin]

Negative rep only makes me stronger and more condescending. But thanks for letting me know I've still got it.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Yeah, well there are more radio transmissions being broadcast than even before, so I'm sure the number of interruptions is the highest in this decade.

I was waiting for someone to call me on that...

Solar activity is very random and we had some horrible sunspots in, IIRC, 2004 and 2005, but, yes, the reason we are seeing so many radio interruptions is because we're using frequencies and methods (satellite) that are much more susceptible to interference.

That doesn't change the fact that bkelly's statement was wrong.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by bkelly

All right, we'll focus on the shrinking ozone causing global warming.

I'm making progress on my research. It's complicated and interesting stuff.

LordKelvin, your original hypothesis was that more UV radiation was getting through the holes in the ozone at the poles, melting the ice caps. I think a prediction this theory would make would be that the UV radiation would be significantly higher at the poles.

What would you think about a test that shows the extra energy getting through these holes isn't enough to cause the warming we've already seen?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by bkelly

So, are you suggesting that more particles of solar wind are getting through the magnetosphere and that increase is the cause of warming?

I think that's a very unlikely theory for many reasons:

While researching ozone, I realized there's another reason that makes this theory quite improbable - aurora and geomagnetic storms occur in the ionosphere, which is about 45 miles above the troposphere, the residence of most of our greenhouse blanket. Much of the heat from such events would be lost into space so an even larger change of the solar wind would be necessary for us to see an effect.

And FYI, the "greenhouse blanket" is the one into which we're adding CO2 according to global warming advocates. However, even without this extra CO2, it is responsible for raising the Earths climate by about 33 degrees C.

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

White House Tried to Silence EPA Proposal on Car Emissions
June 26, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062502713.html

Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
June 27, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us...jZ1SDGUfY1ZPOg

[Switch]

The global warming argument is that human industrial activity is augmenting the natural process of climate change to the point where it is happening more rapidly than would otherwise occur and is producing irreversible ecological damage. A better name to use is anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change is a natural process. So is rain.

If we stand outside with a hose and spray water into the air, are we seeing the natural process of rain?

[Kerostasis]

The last few pages have been somewhat painful to read. As much skepticism as I have over anthropogenic global warming, sometimes I get the impression Kelvin doesn't notice that the North and South poles alternate pointing at the sun every year. And some of his arguments are grasping at straws so hard that I'm afraid to even try and support them. So I'll limit my contribution here to one point:

Originally Posted by bkelly

You second hypothesis was that the recent warming of the Earth is natural, a continuation of the warming the planet has seen since the end of the last ice age. I did not say it before, but two predictions from this hypothesis sprang to my mind:

1) In general, the planet would have been been warming since the end of the last ice age.
2) The rate of warming we see today would be unexceptional when compared viewed in context of the warming since the end of the last ice age.

What do you think? Is my list of predictions a complete list of the primary testable effects that we would expect if your hypothesis were true?

Just before the Kelvin saga began, we were discussing the implications of a particular news story. That story recorded an exceptionally fast temperature spike (with no known human industrial causes), followed by an exceptionally fast temperature drop, followed by several other milder but longer term temperature swings. One of the implications of this would be that your list of predictions here, while a possible result of his hypothesis, is nowhere close to being an inevitable result of his hypothesis and therefore contributes very little to our ability to test this hypothesis.

[LordKelvin]

I would appreciate it if I wasn't subjected to needless ridicule. The points that I made, and that were consequently (at least in theory) refuted, I acknowledged as such.

As for the ozone holes: bkelly, you say that there is a 'layer' of greenhouse gases in the ionosphere. I had always been taught that the ionosphere has very thin air quality... that high up, there are very few air particles. Therefore, i do not find it plausible that radiation would be absorbed there by gases that are so few and far between. It is the magnetic field of the Earth that protects us from such radiation... if it were to fail, the result would be catastrophic.

You also mentioned that the weakening of the magnetic field would also have to be greater for particles to penetrate. We are also close to a magnetic pole shift, which is also weakening the magnetic field of the Earth. Until the poles fully switch, the magnetic field will be at less than its full potential. Couple that with stronger solar winds, and you get a huge amount of radiation seeping in at the poles.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

As much skepticism as I have over anthropogenic global warming, sometimes I get the impression Kelvin doesn't notice that the North and South poles alternate pointing at the sun every year. And some of his arguments are grasping at straws so hard that I'm afraid to even try and support them.

Hey, at least he's willing to put his thoughts on the table.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

One of the implications of this would be that your list of predictions here, while a possible result of his hypothesis, is nowhere close to being an inevitable result of his hypothesis and therefore contributes very little to our ability to test this hypothesis.

Perhaps, but for now we've agreed to focus on the ozone hypothesis. We can talk about your concern of the other when we get back to it.

bkelly

[ScratchMonkey]

I just want to remind you all that I'm lurking here. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who reads the thread but doesn't present arguments. Those who argue one side or the other, I see as salesmen with a product to sell. We lurkers are the customers, and we can choose to buy not just one or the other, but also nothing at all. So as you make your presentations, consider that it's not about winning a contest. You're trying to make a sale here.

[LordKelvin]

Bhahahaha. I am not trying to 'sell' anything. You believe what you want based on the evidence. I merely enjoy intellectual debate on the subject.

If there's anything that has become sensationalist and market oriented nowadays, its the scientific community. You can allow then a healthy amount of skepticism on their findings.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

As for the ozone holes: bkelly, you say that there is a 'layer' of greenhouse gases in the ionosphere.

Um, I think you need to go back and reread what I wrote. First, the post about the "greenhouse gas blanket" and the ionosphere were another reason your solar wind theory was improbable. It had nothing to do with the ozone holes discussion. And second, my whole point was that the ionosphere is 45 miles above the greenhouse gases, certainly not "in".

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

You also mentioned that the weakening of the magnetic field would also have to be greater for particles to penetrate.

Not really. I was just following the train of thought that for more particles to be getting into the atmosphere, either more particles need to be coming from the sun or our defenses need to be weakening. My statement about the effects of a weakening magnetic field are speculation.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Couple that with stronger solar winds, and you get a huge amount of radiation seeping in at the poles.

1) Alleged stronger solar winds. So far, CingularDuality has only backed up his assertion with word games and a forceful statement that I am fallacious.

2) If particles are only getting in at the poles, then our 10% weaker magnetic field is still strong enough to repel anything not in magnetic alignment. You're not going to get "a huge amount of radiation" until that ceases to be the case.

3) I'm still at a loss to understand how these particles become heat once inside the magnetosphere.

4) And as I described in one of the two posts you mixed together, the solar wind remains 45 miles above where it would need to be for its heat to be significant.


But to get us back on your ozone hypothesis, I asked you a question in the first of my two posts that you seemed to have scrambled. Can you reread it and tell me your thoughts?

bkelly

[ScratchMonkey]

You know what makes a great sales tactic? It's when I'm kicking the tires of the car and the guy accuses me of "denying" his brand, and that I'm just a stupid unscientific hick. I'm so out of there.