My own Pseudo-Science

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:02 am

My Facebook friends will already be familiar with this. Not my Facebook friend? You're probably not cool enough.

After hearing about the G8 summit and smelly hippies hanging a global warming banner on Mt Rushmore, and since Al Gore is still a hero to millions I figure that I'd join the fray. Armed with my senior year earth science knowledge, I took a look at some facts and made my own inconvenient truth. Personally, I think mine is more plausible and will option the movie. Still with me?

Lots of attention has been paid to greenhouse gasses. What about looking at the source of our heat: the sun? I say to you all that global cooling is coming to the point that global warming will be welcomed. Anyone remember Time magazine telling us an ice age was coming back in the 70's? Does anyone know what the sun is up to these days?
Solar flare activity fires out solar radiation that whips by our planet deflected by the ozone layer. This activity is know as solar wind. One of the benefits to this solar wind is it deflects cosmic rays away from our atmosphere. Without solar wind activity these particles enter our atmosphere and crystalize forming clouds. These clouds block sunlight which causes temps to cool. What would be the impact on global temperatures if there was no solar wind?

Here are some links to two NASA briefs. Both talking about what they are observing with the sun which has gone deadly silent. Anyone notice any more clouds in the sky where you live?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

I propose that we will all freeze before we burn and reducing greenhouse gasses will only make the problem worse (and destroy our economy).

JL Rockies: As much of an environmental expert as Al Gore.

I hope the "smelly hippies" reference does not make this political.

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:14 am

some of us CB and Ham fellas watch the sun spot records all the time to guestimate when you'll get the extra DX , which is next to never now except long DX due to thunder storms and local DX (under 300mi) is like non existent

haven't really paid any attention to clouds to be honest

i've always felt that global warming was a process that maybe we assisted in speeding up by a few months at best.. as a natural part of the cooling warming process expecially since our greenhouse gas output was higher 100 years ago than it is now by several fold

but anyway

i kinda see omgz globalz warmingzz

as one of those things certain people with influence use to get things that they want

similar to how our parents used to tell us stuff that doesn't make much sense now that we aren't nieve - since with not near as innocent a purpose

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:26 am

Well, since you had to pass a test to become an operator, that makes you more qualified to tell us we're going to die than our vanquished VP.

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:43 am

i'll have to leave the qualified Dooming to one of the ham guys

i just do CB on SSB for the time being, i haven't even studied for the test yet, although i do have a partially decent grasp of the stuff

but.. just the same, they can tell you that the sun is like hmm, 7 months late now on the last prediction for the start of the new cycle

and i do believe the last prediction was ontop of an entire YEAR that had gone by since it was supposed to start again, so technically its 19 months late and had so far been for the most part consistent

but what does tend to happen when it's late even by a month or so, is that it has rather gifriggingantic sunspots

which if what you're sayin is true, then once it starts back up, i'd suspect to see quite a bit more clouds, cooler weather and worse winters

which im sure will be written off as "Oh this is what happens right before we burn todeath..." because oh.. theres no friggin way they could be Wrong..

by the way..

al gore's already said that.. the whole "Oh.. um, yes it will get colder before we fry.. didn't i mention that? .. Ah..AhemAhem..."

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:55 am

You read it wrong. The fact that the sun has gone silent and there a drop in solar winds, thats what makes the clouds block out the sun. NASA says it's the quietest since the space age.

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:06 am

ahh! thanks for the correction

i also thought though, that solar winds also caused a sort of reflection that blocked a bit of solar heat as well

im more under the impression that none of us know half of what we think we do in terms of global science mostly cause certain groups of scientists if ya want to call them that, conveniently forget anything that happened 1000 years ago because they don't have paper or digital records in the form of what weve had for the past 50-100 years

i mean.. kinda hard to have those "METRICS"

but i'm pretty sure it isn't the first ice age that weve exited to enter a new one

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:22 am

actually

speak of the devils

http://www.earthweek.com/2009/ew090710/ew090710c.html

now let's see if they continue

--

this entry was from 2008

From Space Weather News for Jan. 4, 2008

Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. The wait is over.

A magnetically reversed, high-latitude sunspot emerged today. This marks the beginning of Solar Cycle 24 and the first step toward a new solar maximum. Intense solar activity won't begin right away. Solar cycles usually take a few years to build from solar minimum (where we are now) to Solar Max (expected in 2011 or 2012). It's a slow journey, but we're on our way!

so.. as you can guess, just because there's a sun spot when we haven't seen one in 2 years, which we have.. doesn't really mean a heck of a lot

Billnis · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:51 am

JeepinJarhead03 wrote:

i've always felt that global warming was a process that maybe we assisted in speeding up by a few months at best.. as a natural part of the cooling warming process expecially since our greenhouse gas output was higher 100 years ago than it is now by several fold

Boy, you really need to back up those statements, the first one is an opinion, but what have you learned to base that opinion on?!

Human impact on global warming:
10,200 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments were asked two questions:
Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? 90 percent of the scientists agreed.
Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 82 percent of the scientists agreed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

Green house gas output increases according to NOAA since pre-industrial revolution:
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrati[url]ons of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the[/url] pre-industrial concentration)."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Boiler · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:30 am

I think a good rule of thumb is to try to leave as little mark on the environment as you have to. I'm not sure why so many people fight this. The fact that politics plays a role bugs me too. Why do we have to argue for and against pollution? I'm not saying "lets air condition the earth!". I'm just saying if the window was open when we got here, lets leave it open.

I look at it this way: if we reduce greenhouse gas emmissions and find out that we weren't really warming, what have we hurt? Some pocketbooks...maybe.

But if we do nothing and find out it's all true....

GeoJeeper · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:09 am

I don't know about you loonies, but I believe everything that Al Gore says... After all, he did invent the internet. :shock:

Boiler · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:23 am

GeoJeeper wrote:

I don't know about you loonies, but I believe everything that Al Gore says... After all, he did invent the internet. :shock:

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:34 pm

Quote:

Boy, you really need to back up those statements, the first one is an opinion, but what have you learned to base that opinion on?!

it helps to get information from scientific orgs that aren't funded in whole or in part by 'fight global warming organizations' that actually make millions and billions of dollars a year to perform questionable research and omit important information from their reports time after time

keep in mind that while this is an off topic forum, this is in whole a Jeep forum, and if you pull out your hair anytime someone says something that you feel is opinion, or isn't based on "what you've read" you're going to cut your wrists by the time you have a heated discussion about what lifts best...

Guess what else releases greenhouse gasses. Massive wildfires and volcanoes. The first red flag of any greenhouse gas report that says that Humans were responsible for 3/4ths of greenhouse gas release over the past 100 years is the fact that those reports lumped wildfires and volcano emissions in with fossil fuels being burned to artificially inflate the statistics

because that's what they were PAID to report.

you also must consider the time frame in which emissions are relevant

just because someone farts this year doesn't mean the ocean is going to carbon exchange it this year

unfortunately, nasa is one of those orgs. that receives funding to make such reports

100% of people don't agree with global warming makes about as much fact at X% of scientists believe in it

It's all relative to who they poll, and who they leave out. In order to come up with such a number the report would have to totally omit entire sectors of the scientific community which disagree with the claimed impact of our carbon emissions since along the supposed history of the earth, humans carbon emissions account for a percent of a percent of the total carbon output.

Billnis · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:31 pm

Jarhead, what did I say that you find to be improper and unappropriate?

Are you saying that Science Daily and NOAA are funded by advocacy groups? Again you make a statement with nothing to back you up.

When someone posts a statement as fact, "our greenhouse gas output was higher 100 years ago than it is now by several fold", they need to back that up before anyone can take them seriously. I was just asking for you to back up your statements. Maybe you are right, but am I supposed to just take your word for it?

I backed up mine, you can approve of my sources or not, but I listed my sources.

No one claims that humans create all greenhouse gases, but we have the power to change our behavior, so by doing that we can lessen the effect humans have on our planet.

Humans cause a signifcant amount of the fires.
"We've estimated that deforestation due to burning by humans is contributing about one-fifth of the human-caused greenhouse effect -- and that percentage could become larger," said co-author Thomas W. Swetnam of The University of Arizona in Tucson.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423142332.htm

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:46 pm

no i really didn't find anything inappropriate with it, i apologize for my initial remark it was before I had put on my patch this morning

certain departments of nasa are very accurate for some things

certain departments aren't, they receive money and funding for projects based upon how happy they make other departments who have such-and-such goal

global warming is simply one of those things that it does not matter how many "facts" or "reports" are put out, you simply will not ever win over most people to one side or the other

here's a set of facts for you, and you can make out of it what you want, i will not be offended by your opinion or take of it, like i said i appologize whole heartedly for my remark earlier

just in terms of CO2 (US Department of Energy 2000) - another report will come out next year
288,000ppb was the preindustrial baseline, 68,520ppb in natural additions 11,880ppb in MAN MADE additions 368,400ppb for a total concentration accounting for 99.438% of all greenhouse gasses...

EXCLUDING water vapor

and water vapor constitutes 95% of the earths greenhouse gas effect and is 99.999% of natural origin

i think at the worst, we can agree to disagree on the total impact of humans, and atleast agree that according to the USDOE's figures that natural CO2 emissions account for more than human CO2 emissions :oops:

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:02 pm

As I said at the top, greenhouse gasses be damned, an ice age is coming first. Why is it always someone from CA that starts trouble?

wheeee32 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:18 pm

JL Rockies wrote:

As I said at the top, greenhouse gasses be damned, an ice age is coming first. Why is it always someone from CA that starts trouble?

B/c they are the ones that are falling off into the ocean eventually. :wink:

JJsTJ · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:53 pm

bring on the ICE! My cocktail is getting warm!

OT section sux. maybe we should just close it.

back to Jeeps and wheeling....

Boiler · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:41 pm

JJsKJ wrote:

OT section sux. maybe we should just close it.

back to Jeeps and wheeling....

X2

JeepinJarhead03 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:56 pm

he didn't really start anything i did by over-reacting to what he said in my half-awake nicotine craving back-pain and arthritus plagued joints state

but...

it is kinda funny that hes from California! :lol:

god forbid someone bring up
CARB

... oops! :oops:

InCommando · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:22 pm

I always find it odd when people who claim to be greenies use i/c engines burning fossil fuels for entertainment, such as 'wheeling. What hypocrites. It hasn't happened in this post, but that always cracks me up.

It had been reported that a 2000 vehicle was about 98% more efficient than a 1970 model. Some 2009 models are 99% pollution free at the tailpipe. The law of diminishing returns will tell you that going after that remaining 1-2% is a major waste of money. But apparently it makes people in some circles feeel all warm & fuzzy inside to want such nonsesnse. You will note I said " at the tailpipe" because the electric car doofs fail to realize were virtually all of our electricity comes from.

True, for those of us of a certain age, we recall these same idiots like Bono & Gore swearing our wasteful ways were causing a new ice age and we would freeze to death by, uh, now. Of course, Bono did his part last week by taking a private jet to St Barths. :lol:

My own Pseudo-Science

Who is online