To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Global Warming? Or New Freeze?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > Space & Earth Sciences News

Masked Marauder
There has been some discussion that global warming will in turn, "turn off" the Atlantic conveyor belt causing another ice age. I have tracked this topic on again off again with some interest, as it seems that regardless of the cause, global warming seems to be happening.

(Take that with a grain of salt).

If the salinity of the oceans reach a critical point (and no one seems to know what that truly is) the cooler water will prevail from ice melt, and create a cooling trend across the world. This has happened in the past, based on evidence.

So, instead of investing in AC, you might consider investing in heaters? blink.gif


With that, anyone care to comment?

MM

kjw
QUOTE
Masked Marauder Posted on Today at 6:41 AM So, instead of investing in AC, you might consider investing in heaters?
i would say invest in both laugh.gif

the problem, i see is that it is very difficult to model environmental change of this magnitude.

the melting of summer ice in the arctic is way ahead of any model i have seen. does this mean global warming is speeding up or our models suck (now there's a joke if anyone wants it)

the scenario you describe is possible, but it is surprisingly difficult to predict. as it relies on an extremely complex system ie ice, water, land mass and the atmosphere. if we can not model the ice bit, i would not say we could model the entire system with accuracy.


SteveA2
The drop in ocean temperatures causes ice to melt slower and reflects the invalidity of the global warming claim (and not the convoluted rational attempting to claim it validates it). If the oceans had warmed, so that ice melted faster ... well the oceans would have still been warmer. Also notice that cold water sinks anyway so it has less short term influence on surface temperatures.

The global warming hype has been costly and damaging. The ultimate factor determining average temperatures on Earth is simply the nominal temperatue at which energy is radiated back into space at the rate at which it's absorbed (and the Earth will continue to cool slowly over time as the interior is still much hotter than the surface and so the net heat flow is into space).

Consider this simple experiment - put some ice in a glass of water and wait 5 minutes and measure the temperature. Now repeat the same experiment with the same quantity of water and ice and surface area of the glass etc., but put it under a heat lamp and then measure the temperature ... the inflow of heat does not cool the ice or water and it's a shame people try to pose this stuff as anything remotely resembling a scientific debate. It's entirely political with the motive being an excuse to further politically monopolize control over global energy resources (with costly effects to most everyone).
Zarkov
http://www.physorg.com/news138548051.html

QUOTE
"There is little time left to get a solid negotiating text on the table. Clearly the clock is ticking," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"People in a burning house cannot afford to lose time in an argument," he said, citing an Ashanti proverb.

The Accra gathering must strive to "reach agreement on the rules and tools" that developed countries will use to cut greenhouse gas emissions,



Well if the escape plan from the burning house is falwed, and one occupant knows it

then an argument is in order.... or as I would, just leave the idiots to cook.

The problem is simply this

What are you earthlings going to do...if your game-plan is totally flawed ????

(Oh BTW, it is totally flawed)

LOL, run around in circles... in fact y'all will only make matters worse.....

pathetic earthlings!
Sapo
QUOTE (kjw+Aug 21 2008, 03:53 PM)
i would say invest in both laugh.gif

I really thought about posting before the inevitable happened. If you'd care to continue in a rational discussion, a different venue might be the answer.

D
kjw
QUOTE
Sapo Posted on Today at 7:25 AM I really thought about posting before the inevitable happened. If you'd care to continue in a rational discussion, a different venue might be the answer.
smile.gif the 5m3 of confetti that just fell out of my celing was very nice, thankyou smile.gif
barakn
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Aug 21 2008, 02:41 PM)
There has been some discussion that global warming will in turn, "turn off" the Atlantic conveyor belt causing another ice age...

If the salinity of the oceans reach a critical point (and no one seems to know what that truly is) the cooler water will prevail from ice melt, and create a cooling trend across the world. This has happened in the past, based on evidence.

The "conveyor belt" in question is the North Atlantic Drift, and if it shuts down the cooling is not "across the world" but mostly limited to northern Europe. In fact, the shut down of this circulation implies warm water is pooling up somewhere further south, perhaps locally exacerbating global warming.

And thanks for the useless analogy, SteveA2. You're always good for a laugh.
SteveA2
QUOTE (barakn+Aug 22 2008, 04:24 AM)
The "conveyor belt" in question is the North Atlantic Drift, and if it shuts down the cooling is not "across the world" but mostly limited to northern Europe. In fact, the shut down of this circulation implies warm water is pooling up somewhere further south, perhaps locally exacerbating global warming.

And thanks for the useless analogy, SteveA2. You're always good for a laugh.


Your ignoring that the convection of ocean currents is powered by thermal differences. The greater the thermal differences the greater the differential pressure and flow.

Thank you for your "shutting down" of the "conveyor belt" analogy, but physics doesn't go on strike.
philip347
Ice age definatly.The Pentagon came out ion a news article and said this.
We as a society are in real trouble if we don’t cut the bull sh*t and start constructing a space fleet now, in order to thin the population.

Our hidden technology is twenty times better than we’re being told, so the construction or even renting out of large ships to relocate mankind elsewhere is not a problem, “that is if you want to survive“?!

Mankind is no longer good as a slave, due to the factors of him being under stress with the normal wave of evolution that accompanies an ice age.

“I know that this is an ice age, due to my animals in general panicking this last spring, kind of asking me, Hey’ when’s the snow going to stop“!

Mankind is under stress, as what happens with the larger non sophisticated animals, is that the process of nature, starts to select them for rapid improvements in physiological advanments, not already established mankind.

So we are kind of getting pushed to the back burner, by nature itself.

Our weather patterns, could possibly go wacky in one day’s time and completely change conditions around major areas of population, killing or stranding millions.

This is our cue to quit the lying bull sh*t, tell the general public all it knows about how established the U.S. and other countries are with known species of aliens and get off here fast.

*Notes, Canadian farmers through contacts, say that the 2008 2009 winter, will be another tough winter.
Zarkov
QUOTE
The Pentagon came out ion a news article and said this.


reference please for my records
smile.gif
philip347
There are allot more links on this say,if you enter in the right search words.

I think that they made a mistake. It's not ten years from now, its on us right now.

How can I tell. Its the level of stress already imbued on mankind.

This past spring showed record prostate and gout related problems for men.

The why of this is so, as the body produces an extra hormone to get through protracted winters.This hormone acts as extras high grade fuel and makes the body flair up in certain areas, as the change to spring and summer is too rapid.

You can also tell within the winter, as there is kind of a funk extra heavy winters, such as the ice age puts you into.

Animals will become either very worried or nervous, or if they're hunters, extra aggressive, as there is marked competition noted in the food chain.

I'm very sure what I'm talking about, I've seen it first hand.

Links as asked below.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/25/MNG0O57R4R1.DTL

www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3313

www.rense.com/general49/end.htm

www.metafilter.com/31361/Secret-Pentagon-report-warns-climate-change

www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=644
Zarkov
Many thanks Philip347...that report was 2004..... and highly inaccurate

QUOTE
It's not ten years from now, its on us right now.


indeed... but most people think it will never happen...the controllers will not let it happen...LOL

thanks again
barakn
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 21 2008, 10:44 PM)

Your ignoring that the convection of ocean currents is powered by thermal differences. The greater the thermal differences the greater the differential pressure and flow.

Thank you for your "shutting down" of the "conveyor belt" analogy, but physics doesn't go on strike.

laugh.gif The only place physics is on strike is in your brain. I didn't ignore anything. You've ignored a handful of forces on water that influence ocean currents: winds, salt gradients, tidal forces, the Coriolis effect, etc.. In particular we've been discussing the shutdown of a current driven by thermohaline circulation. Think about it, especially the 'haline' part of that word.
SteveA2
QUOTE (barakn+)
laugh.gif  The only place physics is on strike is in your brain.


biggrin.gif

QUOTE (barakn+)
I didn't ignore anything.  You've ignored a handful of forces on water that influence ocean currents:


QUOTE (barakn+)
winds,


Winds are also driven by convection and temperature differences create pressure differentials that create these winds.

If Europe grew colder, that cold air would sink faster and draw in warmer air faster.

(You can't fool me. I'm not one to sit around and simply nod my head and agree with everything others believe in)

QUOTE (barakn+)
salt gradients,


You have multiple problems with this as:

1) If there was less salination on the ocean surface due to melting ice, this once again means that the water would be warmer, not colder.

2) The salt in ocean water causes it to freeze at a lower temperatue and hence salty water can convey less heat than desalinated water.

If surface water were less salinated, they would freeze earlier and effectively provide a buffer against colder ocean temperatures.

QUOTE (barakn+)
tidal forces,


Global cooling will not affect the orbit of the Moon.

QUOTE (barakn+)
the Coriolis effect, etc..


Wow, you're desparate aren't you?

QUOTE (barakn+)
In particular we've been discussing the shutdown of a current driven by thermohaline circulation.  Think about it, especially the 'haline' part of that word.


I have been. You apparently didn't recognize it.

The global warming scam has been pseudo science and colder temperatures are not some convolved proof that global warming predictions were correct. (Temperatures change over time though they can't deviate far from nominal because the Earth simply radiates energy faster into space if it has absorbed more over some period of time and similarly if we happen to reflect greater than average energy back into space for a while, this background radiation becomes lower and the Earth absorbs heat faster to maintain a balance ... the 1/10,000th of the atmosphere that is CO2 ascribed to possible human influences has a miniscule influence on temperatures and if temperatures had to chance +/- some small number of degrees on Earth, I'd pick warmer temperatures anyway, especially if it was due to CO2 because these are the conditions under which life on Earth tends to thrive best ... we'd be worse off if we went toward another Ice Age as CO2 levels have already dropped much over time, which slows plant growth and the Earth is no longer able to support life on the magnitudes it was able to do so when we had such creatures as dinosaurs around There's another problem with colder temperatures in that as ice and snow accumulates the Earth reflects even more energy into space and this tends to become a viscous cycle that's difficult to break out of and why the Earth tends to swing rapidly into Ice Ages - if we have some food problems now it would be many times worse if temperatures dropped, especially if CO2 levels dropped with them. If you go to an aquarium and see a lush tank full of algea, plants and fish, it's because they intentionally pump CO2 into the water ... CO2 is exhailed by living animals not much different from other waste products we "emit" ... one mans trash is a plant's treasure and nature has been doing recycling rather well for a long time, though if we want to help her out, pulling up some of the organic material that's been buried over time isn't going to hurt life on Earth. It's so ironic that we see environmental pressures to not dump organic materials in a landfill, yet at the same time we're suppose to not extract organic material from the Earth either ... wouldn't it be nice if someone could make up their mind? Are we suppose to remove carbon from the environment or not and who should be held responsible for impeding nuclear power if a reliance on petroleum is now seen to be a problem? I can go on but I need not. It's a scam pressuring for a globalized monopoly of natural resources pure and simple - that's the only pattern that remains the same throughout all this. If you happened to discover oil somewhere, you can bet an environmental agency will show up and assure they handle things for you because ... ummm ... there might be a red tailed fox within 10 miles of where you discovered it. Of course as soon as you're gone, the site will be opened up for business by one of their buddies).
barakn
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 23 2008, 12:27 AM)
1)  If there was less salination on the ocean surface due to melting ice, this once again means that the water would be warmer, not colder.

Since fresh water is not nearly as dense as sea water, it is equally as capable of displacing warmer sea water is it is of displacing colder sea water at the ocean surface. Thus your statement is bogus.
QUOTE
2)  The salt in ocean water causes it to freeze at a lower temperatue and hence salty water can convey less heat than desalinated water.

At temperatures where fresh water has frozen and thus no longer carries the energy from its heat of fusion, saltwater still retains its heat of fusion and thus is obviously conveying more heat than the freshwater. Once again your statement is bogus.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
2)  The salt in ocean water causes it to freeze at a lower temperatue and hence salty water can convey less heat than desalinated water.

At temperatures where fresh water has frozen and thus no longer carries the energy from its heat of fusion, saltwater still retains its heat of fusion and thus is obviously conveying more heat than the freshwater. Once again your statement is bogus.
If surface water were less salinated, they would freeze earlier and effectively provide a buffer against colder ocean temperatures.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the water at high latitudes will sink or not. If it doesn't because the water doesn't have enough salt, and that includes your scenario where an ice buffer forms, then no warm water from further south will be drawn in to replace it. And at that point, it won't matter whether there's an ice buffer between the cold air and the cold water or not.
QUOTE
Global cooling will not affect the orbit of the Moon.

I never said so. I was supplying a list of all the forces that affect ocean currents to expose your fraudulent claim that only temperature gradients are involved. I like that you used the phrase "global cooling." It indicates that you still have no idea what the actual theory is about, which may explain why you are having an impossible time coming up with a cogent argument.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Global cooling will not affect the orbit of the Moon.

I never said so. I was supplying a list of all the forces that affect ocean currents to expose your fraudulent claim that only temperature gradients are involved. I like that you used the phrase "global cooling." It indicates that you still have no idea what the actual theory is about, which may explain why you are having an impossible time coming up with a cogent argument.
The global warming scam blah blah rant rant hand waving by one of their buddies

rolleyes.gif
SteveA2
QUOTE (barakn+)
Since fresh water is not nearly as dense as sea water, it is equally as capable of displacing warmer sea water is it is of displacing colder sea water at the ocean surface.  Thus your statement is bogus.


This irrelevant because it violated the conditions by which the fresh water would have existed in the first place. If we back up, the reason why such fresh could be claimed to increase was due to the hypothesis that if saltier ocean water were warmer, then there would be more fresh water from glacial melting.

So now we have warm fresh water on the surface and the question would now be what happens as temperatures grow colder. It's easy to see that this additional heat storage provides a buffer against colder temperature because fresh water freezes at higher temperatures than salt water, so you simply return to the previous state with fresh water as ice and the remaining salt water being able to carry colder temperatures after much of the fresh water is frozen.

If the salinity of the ocean dropped, it would provide a buffer against cold temperatures.

QUOTE (barakn+)
At temperatures where fresh water has frozen and thus no longer carries the energy from its heat of fusion, saltwater still retains its heat of fusion and thus is obviously conveying more heat than the freshwater.  Once again your statement is bogus.


I agree entirely but notice that this is the case "At temperatures where fresh water has frozen" as you said. So now you're saying that temperatures had to first drop in order to freeze the fresh water, so that salt water can convey the heat back and melt it.

So once again, we're back at normal temperatures.

QUOTE (barakn+)
That's not the issue.  The issue is whether the water at high latitudes will sink or not.


Ok, let's look at when such water would sink due to salinity and temperature - greater salinity increases the density of water and so does colder (differential) temperatures. So cold, salty waters tend to sink the most and move toward the equator to be warmed and rise again (the temperature differential between the equator and polar latitudes powers this and the greater the differentials, the faster the flow).

If northern latitudes grow colder, then first the fresh water freezes, which provides a buffer against colder temperatures as it releases its stored thermal energy and remaining saltier waters release their heat as well and sink and pull the colder temperatures down to flow back toward the equator.

This occurs continually though the amount of ice varies over time depending upon whether temperatures are colder or warmer.

QUOTE (barakn+)
If it doesn't because the water doesn't have enough salt, and that includes your scenario where an ice buffer forms, then no warm water from further south will be drawn in to replace it.


If the fresh water doesn't freeze, then the water is already warm, so that's fine.

If temperatures drop further and freeze much of the fresh water, then we have saltier water remaining and these sink as usual and return back to the equator.

QUOTE (barakn+)
I never said so.  I was supplying a list of all the forces that affect ocean currents to expose your fraudulent claim that only temperature gradients are involved.  I like that you used the phrase "global cooling."  It indicates that you still have no idea what the actual theory is about, which may explain why you are having an impossible time coming up with a cogent argument.

rolleyes.gif


As you can see my comments have been consistant all along. You've been thinking the system gets stuck somehow and positive feedback creates locally runaway temperatures but that oceans are fluid and seek to redistribute temperature differentials and minimize such differences. The exchange between fresh water and ice actually assists this.

The runaway condition occurs if things grow colder and we have ice move toward the equator, in which case much of the solar energy is reflect back into space by snow and ice and temperatures swing toward an ice age. That's why temperature changes tend to be more rapid at the beginning and end of ice ages.

But again, go back and recognize that all your comments regarding a colder Europe and fresh water are conflicting because fresh water freezes first. If temperatures dropped, then any fresh water around is actually what helps keep things from growing cold as fast. If temperatures remain low, then when much of the fresh water has already frozen temperatures can proceed to drop further, so you should actually be looking at what happens when there's less fresh water if you're trying to say temperatures in Europe could grow colder.
MisterBelfry
QUOTE (SteveA2+)
It's so ironic that we see environmental pressures to not dump organic materials in a landfill, yet at the same time we're suppose to not extract organic material from the Earth either ... wouldn't it be nice if someone could make up their mind?
QUOTE (barakn+)
I like that you used the phrase "global cooling." It indicates that you still have no idea what the actual theory is about, which may explain why you are having an impossible time coming up with a cogent argument.


Neoproterozoic snowball Earth hypothesis
Page488
The results of a GCM simulation using a 50 m slab ocean shows that under late Precambrian conditions of a 6% reduced solar constant, sea-ice and subfreezing temperatures occur from the poles to the Equator once atomspheric CO2 concentrations fall below a threshold of 1700 ppm, (Jenkins and Smith 1999).

Application of a simple energy budget model shows the precarious balance between the two endpoints of complete global freeze-up and an ice-free Earth, and also illustrates the hysteresis in CO2 conditions that control the planetry shift between these two disparate conditions (Fig 2).

Origins: Genesis, Evolution and Biodiversity of Microbial Life in the Universe
MisterBelfry
Evolution sucks.

However, I probably should note this as well from the same page 488.

"The Neoproterozoic glaciogenic sequences are overlain by thick caps of carbonate specifically meters to tens of meters of dolostone and limestone. These are thought to represent the rain-out and subsequent carbonate precipitation of inorganic carbon that had built up in the atmosphere and ocean (Hoffman et.al. 1998). These cap rocks are usually found above sequences showing glacial disturbance and are geographically widespread implying a global-scale process. The rocks indicate rapid depositional processes and severe perturbation of the global carbon cycle (Hoffman et.al. 1998)."


Evolution has the build-up of inorganic carbon as slow. Devolution goes much faster. It would have to if God's re-creation week is to scale.


MrB.
barakn
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Aug 24 2008, 04:00 AM)
Neoproterozoic snowball Earth hypothesis
...
Evolution has the build-up of inorganic carbon as slow. Devolution goes much faster. It would have to if God's re-creation week is to scale.

This is irrelevant and off-topic. The particular cooling we've been discussing is mostly limited to Europe and is related to a particular current in the North Atlantic. The Snowball Earths hypothetically occurred during breakups of supercontinents when there were a lot of tropical continents and equatorial flood basalts. As these situations do not apply to the current continent configuration, no one is suggesting that a global glaciation like this is imminent except a few ignorant posters in this thread. Obviously your intention was to hijack this thread and turn it into another debate about evolution vs. creation.
SteveA2
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Aug 24 2008, 10:00 AM)
[/QUOTE]

Neoproterozoic snowball Earth hypothesis
Page488
The results of a GCM simulation using a 50 m slab ocean shows that under late Precambrian conditions of a 6% reduced solar constant, sea-ice and subfreezing temperatures occur from the poles to the Equator once atomspheric CO2 concentrations fall below a threshold of 1700 ppm, (Jenkins and Smith 1999).

Application of a simple energy budget model shows the precarious balance between the two endpoints of complete global freeze-up and an ice-free Earth, and also illustrates the hysteresis in CO2 conditions that control the planetry shift between these two disparate conditions (Fig 2).

Origins: Genesis, Evolution and Biodiversity of Microbial Life in the Universe


It might not even take a 6% decrease in solar output.

If we measure temperatures from absolute zero, room temperature is close to (273+~25)~=300 degs. Kelvin or an equivalent measurement from absolute zero in Fahrenheit would be (459+~70)~=530 degs (if we set the Fahrenheit scale to begin with 0 at the coldest temperatures possible).

The rate of radiation of heat back into space grows proportional to the fourth power of this temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation.

This rapid non-linear growth helps maintain uniform temperatures though, but if the solar output drops by 6% percent, then even ignoring additional loses in absorption by snow and ice, the temperatures should stabilize at about (1-.06)^(1/4)~=98.5% of present temperatures and though this might not seem too large a difference, we have to scale these relative to absolute zero, which would be about a 1.5% change of 300K, which would be ~4.5degs celsius or in terms of Fahrenheit a 530*1.5%~=8 degs Fahrenheit.

If we then considered the additional drop in absorbed energy due to ice and snow and first made an assumption (what I'd consider to be a conservative estimate) that an additional 1/3rd of the surface of the earth would be covered with ice or snow, and we made a rough estimate that at least 40% of the previously absorbed radiation was reflected back into space, this would create roughly an additional 1/3*.4~=13% lose in absorbed energy, which would be close to catastrophic for Earth, but it's not quite as significant as the same drop in solar output because this would most immediately affect areas that were already cold and in effect, this lose acts more toward shifting the latitudes at which ice and snow are lying, toward the equator, but this would not have quite as significant an impact on areas distant from this, but consider that such a drop in temperatures near this boudary would further encourage more ice and snow to accumulate further toward the equator, it's not a very stable system.

On the other hand if we had an increase in solar output by 6% and the temperatures increased, we would not see this effect as providing positive feedback toward warmer temperatures.

With regard to CO2. I did some comparisons between the Earth and Venus and it would appear than even if CO2 levels by over a million times the amount they're claimed to have been raised by human activities, the north and south poles would still be quite confortable in terms of temperature to live (except for the fact that the atmospheric pressures would be crushing and you'd die within minutes from breathing the atmosphere ... so if CO2 is a concern, it's not in terms of temperatures and we're so incredibly far removed from having CO2 be at levels that could be considered to be a health concern it would be laughable for someone to try to claim that ... CO2 levels inside the body are many many times higher than in the atmosphere).

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+)
Evolution sucks.


I agree though it appears difficult to avoid.
barakn
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 24 2008, 02:06 PM)
It might not even take a 6% decrease in solar output.

Since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of this happening, this is also irrelevant.
MisterBelfry
QUOTE (MisterBelfry @ Aug 24 2008, 04:00 AM)
QUOTE

Neoproterozoic snowball Earth hypothesis
...
Evolution has the build-up of inorganic carbon as slow. Devolution goes much faster. It would have to if God's re-creation week is to scale. 
---------Barakn:
This is irrelevant and off-topic. The particular cooling we've been discussing is mostly limited to Europe and is related to a particular current in the North Atlantic.
...
Obviously your intention was to hijack this thread and turn it into another debate about evolution vs. creation.



Whatever! The topic title is "Space & Earth Sciences News - Global Warming? Or New Freeze?"

If anything, neoproterozoic has to be news. :rollseyes: And besides, the opening post mentions the "Atlantic conveyor belt". My records show I have had some interest in this area. Eleven months ago, I downloaded a particular document titled,
Chapter 5
"The Role Of The Mediterranean Outflow In The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation."

Other than that {mow and moc for short, "w" stands for waters and by common knowledge, gcm stands for general circulation model(s) (The atmosphere and waters are intimately connected, just like the book of Genesis implies.)}, I have been more or less an innocent bystander. Less innocent, I suppose, since I started posting here, in this section, of the forum. Regarding my previous post, I would have to say it pretty much secured, to my satisfaction, that this whole global warming farce\fraud is due to Evolution and the attendant gradualism.

"... so if CO2 is a concern, it's not in terms of temperatures" That has been my conclusion as well. That is why I liked your use of the word ironic, Steve.

MrB.
barakn
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Aug 25 2008, 05:34 AM)
The atmosphere and waters are intimately connected, just like the book of Genesis implies.

Oh, don't be modest. Genesis get far more specific than that. It says the sky is a dome separating an ocean of water above us from the ocean below. Furthermore it says the stars, Sun, and Moon are objects that are affixed to the dome. In short, it is a completely unrealistic representation of the planet we live on.
MisterBelfry
Wrong{or maybe you don't know how right you are}, you are, on two counts or more.

For one thing, I don't remember reading "dome".

However, I do recall 'firmament'{as an ether?}.
MrB.
A little background to
Galileo’s Theory
1985
About eight years ago, one of the authors of these Letters, N.M. Gwynne
[N.M.G.], was by chance put on enquiry that the heliocentric theory of the solar system, which he had always “known” to be true, might be as devoid of solid evidence in support of it as is the theory of evolution. He pursued the enquiry and found, not only that this was so, but also that both the scientific and the Biblical evidence proved, independently of each other, that the earth was the non-orbiting, non-rotating, fixed centre of the universe.

Following this discovery and further researches, N.M.G. then wrote this paper, “Galileo Versus the Geocentric Theory of the Universe”. It sets out in detail the relevant scientific and Biblical evidence demolishing the heliocentric arguments and proving the geocentric position to be the correct one, gives a brief history of the process by which the heliocentric theory came to be accepted so completely that, unlike the theory of evolution, it was no longer even questioned, and also includes some of the more extraordinary, and less-known, highlights of the Galileo affair.
...
A lie will always need another to give it credibility, and the second lie yet another lie, and so on. And that, incidentally, is one reason why the exposure of lies is so important: if we can smash but one lie that is important and central, we make many others totter so that a relatively light push can bring them tumbling down in its wake.
So, those of you who are still with me, let us embark on our journey; ...


To elaborate on this further I return to Walter van der Kamp and the passage from
which I quoted in paragraph 15, this time starting a few sentences earlier.
"Darwin’s theory of evolution, it seemed to me, was only a last logical and consequent step in the theories about origin and evolvement which gradually and inevitably followed in the chain of events set in motion by Galileo’s victory. It being once accepted that human science has legitimate authority in questions of how to interpret the revealed text of Scripture, the fences were down, and the modern world picture could not but grow up and conquer... I found it significant that Creationists concentrated their defense of Genesis 1:1-19 on the age of Planet Earth, but not on its place. Yet where in the text of Genesis, or for that matter in the whole Bible, is there even the faintest hint that God, having created the Earth in the beginning, demoted it on the fourth day to one spinning, whirling and
cork-screwing lump of matter out of many?... There were, to be sure, the thoughts of the wise, who get round this obstacle by positing phenomenal language, accommodating to the simple understanding of Adam, and whatnot.

But why were the use of these clever devices restricted to Genesis 1:1-19, not to the rest of the chapter the story of the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel and more of those scientifically indigestible fairy tales... Reading Genesis 1, while banning all preconceived notions and brain washing from my mind, I had to conclude not only that Genesis 1:20-31 totally clashed with any evolutionary theory whatever but that Genesis 1:1-19 emphatically implies and assumes a unique Earth, just three days older than the Sun, Moon and Stars. Now I “knew”
of course that Copernicus and Galileo had proved that the Earth goes around the Sun...." (Walter van der Kamp in Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, May 1980: p.5)
Does the Bible specifically deny that the earth is in motion? There are indeed many
passages in Holy Scripture to which Copernicus does violence.

First, van der Kamp rightly draws attention to Genesis 1:1-19. Earth was created on
the first day, the sun not until the fourth. A puzzle arises from the statement that light also appeared on the first day, three days earlier than the sun and moon which are now the main sources of light; but it is not irreconcilable, for whatever given source it may appear from is only a state or “affection” of the ether. God could have created luminiferous (lightbearing) ether on the first day, and until the third day supplied in some other way the influence on the ether which is now supplied by sources of light; and indeed this possibility is rendered even less offensive to reason when it is remembered that the Bible states that none of the organisms partly dependant on the sun for survival, such as animals and plants, existed on earth until they were created on the fourth, fifth and sixth days. Far harder to accept than this is the notion, which has no scriptural support, that for four days the earth circled around a theoretical point unoccupied by the non-existent sun.
MisterBelfry

QUOTE
Oh, don't be modest. Genesis get far more specific than that. It says the
sky is a dome separating an ocean of water above us from the ocean below.
Furthermore it says the stars, Sun, and Moon are objects that are affixed to the dome. In short, it is a completely unrealistic representation
of the planet[sic] we live on.

Addresses in PDF:
for the file http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/or...pdf/galileo.pdf

by
N. Martin Gwynne
Riverview Arthurstown New Ross Co. Wexford Ireland

for the file http://www.cen.ulaval.ca/warwickvincent/PDFfiles/179.pdf
GLACIAL PERIODS ON EARLY EARTH AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
EVOLUTION OF LIFE
by WARWICK F. VINCENT, DEREK MUELLER, PATRICK VAN HOVE
Centre d'études nordiques, Université Laval, Québec City, QC GIK 7P4,
Canada.
AND by CLIVE HOWARD-WILLIAMS
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
MisterBelfry
Or Firmament:
QUOTE
The Snowball Earths hypothetically occurred during breakups of supercontinents when there were a lot of tropical continents and equatorial flood basalts. As these situations do not apply to the current continent configuration, no one is suggesting...


-------->Showtopic= 20315, forum= 24.

Posted by: MisterBelfry Feb 25 2008, 04:13 PM
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX


QUOTE (RealityCheck Feb 11 2008 @ 10:07 PM)

The UBIQUITOUS natural and widespread RADIOACTIVITY doses would have created mutation RATES that would not ever be approached again NOW, even in laboratories.......because the widespread nature and possible synergies across the variety/combinations of 'doses' at any one stage in a bacteria's life-cycle could not practicably be reproducible NOW in ALL its possible permutations THEN.

In such 'hostile' and fast-changing mutation environment then, only the most 'stable/self-reparing types of genes/bacteria would have 'evolved/emerged' from that early 'testing cauldron' environment billions of years ago.

Just an observation.


QUOTE (from my last posted link)

Dr. Carl Baugh in his book Panorama of Creation presents an interesting scenario as to what this firmament above the atmosphere actually was. The Hebrew word for firmament is "raquia" which means to pound out or compress thin sheets of metal. Dr. Baugh puts forth the case of a layer of near metallic hydrogen compressed under supercold conditions.

Hydrogen in this state is

Crystalline

Transparent

Fiber optic

Superconductive

Ferromagnetic

On each side of the hydrogen would be a 10-ft. to 20-ft. layer of frozen crystal clear ice.

Under this layer would be a hyperbaric atmosphere of about 35% oxygen. Bubbles in ancient amber have been found with this content of oxygen. That concentration of oxygen would oxidize all things unless held under a hyperbaric pressure. Dr. Baugh estimates that the pressure at sea level would have been about 32 lbs./ in2 instead of the 14 lbs. now present. This high level of oxygen and high pressure would explain the huge dinosaurs that existed. Scientists have been mystified as to how the biggest of the dinosaurs could have delivered oxygen throughout their body given the assumption of todays pressure and oxygen level. Hyperbaric systems have been used successfully in burn units where severely burned people have been healed much quicker than if left under normal conditions.

This near metallic hydrogen layer would also alter the light. The light coming through would be devoid of all UV and short wave blue radiation and would be a light pink or magenta color. The fiber optic quality of the layer would make sure the sky would never be completely dark. This may be the lesser light talked about later.

The pink spectrum is the color that plants grow the best in. The pink light and hyperbaric oxygen content together could explain the enormous plants that were in existence back then. A researcher grew a tomato plant under these conditions and the plant has produced over 10,000 tomatoes and is still producing several years later. A man under such conditions could run 200 miles and not get tired assuming he was in fit shape otherwise.

Pink light also causes the human brain to secrete norepinephrine, a natural tranquilizer and neurotransmitter. Pink light causes the brain to work at its maximum.


Posted by: MisterBelfry Feb 22 2008, 07:05 PM
Amazon.com: Panorama of Creation: Books: Carl Baugh
Fact: Plant life was much larger and possessed higher vitamin and mineral content to ... but given that Dr. Baugh's suggested theories of a pink sky, et al, ...
www.amazon.com/Panorama-Creation-Carl-Baugh/dp/1879366010 - 175k - Cached - Similar pages

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: EVOLUTION VS CREATION[
Dr Baugh, op. cit., p.56-64]:. On day number six, the final animal life was created, .... When a plant is grown under pink light, it is superior. ...
www.biblestudymanuals.net/k75.htm - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION, CONT.

Before the Flood, man was dominated by various spectra of pink light. ... A contributing factor to the enormous size of plant life before the Flood was ...
www.biblestudymanuals.net/k13.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from www.biblestudymanuals.net »

Online Christian Teen Forums, Blogs, Chat, Arcade and Directory ...It had a particular pink light it produced when sunlight hit it, .... It is a requirement for animal and plant life to grow to the size they grew to in the ...
www.christianteenforums.com/ index.php?showtopic=31466&st=325 - 225k - Cached - Similar pages

THE PHYSICS OF CREATON
The pink light and hyperbaric oxygen content together could explain the enormous plants that were in existence back then. A researcher grew a tomato plant ...
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/physics.html - 69k - Cached - Similar pages

barakn
First of all, the word 'firmament' is used to represent the word "raqiya`" or "raquia" meaning "an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground." You stated that it means "to pound out or compress thin sheets of metal." It should have been immediately evident that you were wrong because you supplied the definition for a verb when the word in question is a noun. There are many translations of the Bible that use 'dome' instead of 'firmament.' Your unfamiliarity with 'dome' is due to your rigid adherence to one particular Bible. There are many references by post-diluvian authors in the Bible that confirm they believed in a solid surface in the sky. Look at Job 37:18, Ezekiel 1:22-23, Isaiah 40:22.

Dr. Baugh is an idiot, as evidenced by his belief that 10-20 ft thick layers of ice can provide enough pressure to contain metallic hydrogen. Current estimates are that metallic hydrogen forms at 5 million atmospheres.

QUOTE
The pink spectrum is the color that plants grow the best in. ... A man under such conditions could run 200 miles and not get tired assuming he was in fit shape otherwise.

Oh really? Can you provide evidence of anyone running 200 miles under pink light?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The pink spectrum is the color that plants grow the best in. ... A man under such conditions could run 200 miles and not get tired assuming he was in fit shape otherwise.

Oh really? Can you provide evidence of anyone running 200 miles under pink light?

Pink light also causes the human brain to secrete norepinephrine, a natural tranquilizer and neurotransmitter

Norepinephrine is a stress hormone involved in the fight-or-flight response. It's a good thing you're not a doctor treating anxiety patients because after giving them your "tranquilizer" you'd have to peel them off the ceiling.
Zarkov
I haven't read this but

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/...new-little.html

QUOTE
Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? It sure could, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming.

The Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state. The unexplained phenomenon has been the topic of much intense scientific debate, as well as other millennial scale events.

Now an 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming. Could we be preparing for the wrong scenario?

A sunspot is a region on the Sun that is cooler than the rest and therefore appears darker. One theory is that a strong solar magnetic field, which causes plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, which in turn leads to a cooler surface.

Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, notes that pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He believes this is the reason why the world cooled rapidly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman writes in The Australian today. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

However, scientists from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research published a report in 2006 that claims the Sun likely has a negligible effect on climate change. Another study, recently published study in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters, by researchers from Lancaster and Durham Universities found that there was no strong correlation between cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover. If that is correct, it would mean the lack of sunspots is not necessarily an indicator of higher cloud cover and subsequent future cooling.

While it’s true that some world regions have experienced record colds recently, other areas do seem to be warming up. In Australia, The Bureau of Meteorology says that temperatures there have been warmer than the 1960-90 average since the late 1970s. Even though there have been some cooler years mixed in, overall they are now 0.3C higher than the long-term average. Other countries are experiencing similar upward trends. On the other hand, since widespread temperature records have only been kept for a relatively short period of the Earth’s history, it’s hard to know exactly what these increases mean from a long-term perspective.

Cooling, or “Little Ice Age” proponents like Chapman, say that it could still swing either way. He proposes preventive measures to slow any potential cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. "My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades."

Canadian scientist Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council has also noted that solar activity has entered into an unusually inactive phase, but what they means—if anything—is still anyone’s guess. Another scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences agrees with Chapman. Sorokhtin believes that, in spite of the results of certain recent studies, lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the cold brought on by inactive solar phases.

But while Sorokhtin is advising people to "stock up on fur coats", the vast majority of prominent scientists believe the bulk of evidence points towards an overall warming trend, and that anomalies and exceptions to the rule do not make a significant dent in this consensus.

The Daily Galaxy asked climate expert Thomas Reichler, what he has to say about it. According to him, anyone claiming that the Earth isn’t getting warmer, or that it’s perhaps even getting colder, simply isn’t looking at the actual data.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, “and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists, so I’m certainly not alone in that certainty.”


more at link

it is all twaddle.... but an Ice Age like none before it, is imminent!!!
MisterBelfry
>>> Look at Job 37:18, Ezekiel 1:22-23, Isaiah 40:22. <<<

I did. The last two are not as helpful to something rock solid but I will have to investigate the simile.

>>> Dr. Baugh is an idiot, <<<

That may well be! I think it is fair to say that what was above before Noah's ark is no more and was highly unstable. As I am pretty sure one cannot rightly interpret a flood that was not global.


>>>Oh really? Can you provide evidence of anyone running 200 miles under pink light? <<<

There is some scripture on that, I suppose. But again, the comparsion is probably about the oxygen levels - which I notice - no dispute.


>>> Norepinephrine is a stress hormone involved in the fight-or-flight response. It's a good thing you're not a doctor treating anxiety patients because after giving them your "tranquilizer" you'd have to peel them off the ceiling. <<<

I see that Susan A. Greenfield(1995 p.152) doesn't quite contradict Dr.? Baugh.

"Serotonin would facilitate the formation of gestalts without much influence in arousal; acetylcholine would generate moderate levels of arousal. Together these two substances would enable the formation of gestalts large enough for consicousness in dreaming states, as well as when moderately aroused and paying attention while awake. Dopamine and noreprinephrine would counteract these tendencies, during conditions of higher arousal, by restricting the size of gestalt formatiion in that they would provide conditions favoring the generations of rival gestalts."

MrB.
MisterBelfry
>>> Job 37:18 <<<

That was a bit strange, for me. I could not find "bronze" or "mirror" in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance! It is unlikely that I am going to become a 'King James only' person over this. So the word strong in this verse means...


QUOTE
The Daily Galaxy asked climate expert Thomas Reichler, what he has to say about it. According to him, anyone claiming that the Earth isn’t getting warmer, or that it’s perhaps even getting colder, simply isn’t looking at the actual data.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, “and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists, so I’m certainly not alone in that certainty.”


Hey Zarkov, I saved this for a good time from our mutal 'friend'. That time seems to be now.


From: macx ® 6/04/2007 10:31:58 PM

Subject: re: Climate change and the sun post id: 2884761

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
March 19, 2007

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

Scientists have traditionally relied upon indirect data gathering methods to study climate in the Earth's past, such as drilling ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Such samples of accumulated snow and ice drilled from deep within ice sheets or glaciers contain trapped air bubbles whose composition can provide a picture of past climate conditions. Now, however, a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest river.

Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Auroras are bright glows in the night sky that happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking variations in the sun's activity.

Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally "spotty," that was not the case for the particular 850-year period they studied.

"Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt," she said. "These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time."

A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts and the deaths of kings.

"A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating their accuracy," Ruzmaikin said. "They have been successfully used by aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale variations."

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

"Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa," said Ruzmaikin. "The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources - Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya - are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa's climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis."

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun's ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation's influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River's sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

Study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

macx
Hey Zarkov, I saved this for a good time from our mutal 'friend'. That time seems to be now.


From: macx ® 6/04/2007 10:31:58 PM


<><><><><><><><>

Good grief.

Trust I find you well Mr Belfry.

I see Mr Zarkov is still pontificating about all things scientific!


rolleyes.gif

Ah well, back to what I was writing.

All the best.

macx
Zarkov
QUOTE
http://www.physorg.com/news139030253.html

>> Arctic Ocean sea ice has melted to the second lowest minimum since satellite observations began, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Sea ice melt recorded on Monday exceeded the low recorded in 2005, which had held second place.

With several weeks left in the melt season, ice in summer 2008 has a chance to diminish below the record low set last year, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

"It's an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level," said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.

"This is not surprising but it is alarming," said Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska.

"This was a relatively cool summer, and to have ice decrease to the second lowest minimum on record

demonstrates that global warming's ongoing impact is profound."

The National Snow and Ice Data Center, based at the University of Colorado, reported the ice Monday melted below the 2005 minimum of 2.05 million square miles set on Sept. 21 that year. Exact figures will be released Wednesday.

Through the beginning of the melt season in May until early August, daily ice extent for 2008 closely tracked the values for 2005, the center said.

In early August 2005, the decline began to slow. In August 2008, however, the decline has remained steadily downward at a brisk pace.

The most recent ice retreat primarily reflects melt in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast and the East Siberian Seas off the coast of eastern Russia, according to the center.

Summer sea ice last year shrunk to about 1.65 million square miles, nearly 40 percent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000. Most climate modelers predict a continued downward spiral, possibly with an Arctic Ocean that's ice free during summer months by 2030 or sooner.

Krenz said the announcement Tuesday showed that last year's record low sea ice was not an anomaly. As ice covers fewer square miles of ocean, he said, warming will accelerate.

"It's going to accelerate climate change through changes in the reflectance of the Arctic," he said. "It's going from bright ice to a much darker ocean."

More square miles of dark ocean will absorb more heat. More warmth will accelerate melting of Arctic permafrost, allowing organic matter now frozen to melt and add to the greenhouse gas problem, he said. >>>>



Read this, understand this... this says emissions are not the cause of Global Climate Change.....

when the Arctic is gone, y'all will soon follow

earthlings your doom approaches

LOL

All your scientists still are befuddled!!!!

pathetic earthlings
Zarkov
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7585645.stm

QUOTE
Researchers say the Arctic is now at a climatic "tipping point".

"We could very well be in that quick slide downwards in terms of passing a tipping point," said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the Colorado-based NSIDC.

"It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now," he told the Associated Press news agency.

Most of the cover consists of relatively thin ice that formed within a single winter and melts more easily than ice that accumulated over many years.

A few years ago, scientists were predicting ice-free Arctic summers by about 2080. 



Game over guys... no water, no food.... ooooh, nasty earthlings will play games

The Arctic has reached a point where ice freeze = ice melt... no more massive fresh water inflows onto the sea.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Researchers say the Arctic is now at a climatic "tipping point".

"We could very well be in that quick slide downwards in terms of passing a tipping point," said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the Colorado-based NSIDC.

"It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now," he told the Associated Press news agency.

Most of the cover consists of relatively thin ice that formed within a single winter and melts more easily than ice that accumulated over many years.

A few years ago, scientists were predicting ice-free Arctic summers by about 2080. 



Game over guys... no water, no food.... ooooh, nasty earthlings will play games

The Arctic has reached a point where ice freeze = ice melt... no more massive fresh water inflows onto the sea.

Then computer models started projecting earlier dates, around 2030 to 2050; and some researchers now believe it could happen within five years.

That will bring economic opportunities, including the chance to drill for oil and gas. Burning that oil and gas would increase levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere still further.


Pathetic earthlings.. money money money...... y'all on the brink and THEY still think Global Climate Change is caused by emissions!


I give Earth a few years left... then y'all eat each other
like too many rats in a cage with no food or water.....

sometime after that... Ice Freeze and welcome snowball Earth and....

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road !!!!
MisterBelfry

Tipping Point What Tipping Point?

This tipping point:
"Building Jerusalem is Jehovah, The driven away of Israel He gathereth. Who is giving healing to the broken of heart, And is binding up their griefs. Appointing the number of the stars, To all them He giveth names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power, Of His understanding there is no narration. Jehovah is causing the meek to stand, Making low the wicked unto the earth. Answer ye to Jehovah with thanksgiving, Sing ye to our God with a harp. Who is covering the heavens with clouds Clouds clouds clouds, Who is preparing for the earth rain, Who is causing grass to spring up on mountains, Giving to beast its food, To the young of the ravens that call. Not in the might of the horse doth He delight, Not in the legs of a man is He pleased. Jehovah is pleased with those fearing Him, With those waiting for His kindness. Glorify, O Jerusalem, Jehovah, Praise thy God, O Zion."


"BBC"

"physorg"

"dailygalaxy"

As ice covers fewer square miles of ocean, he said, warming will accelerate.


Most of the cover consists of relatively thin ice that formed within a single winter and melts more easily


This is not surprising but it is alarming," said Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska.

With several weeks left in the melt season, ice in summer 2008 has a chance to diminish below the record low set last year,



"Read this, understand this... this says emissions are not the cause of Global Climate Change.....

when the Arctic is gone, y'all will soon follow"

Hey, dude Zarkov, it is not going to be gone. It will be more clear in the Summer. They can't even predict with confidence a handful of weeks ahead of them. The tipping point could be the other way.


Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, notes that pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He believes this is the reason why the world cooled rapidly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.


"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman writes in The Australian today. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

...

"There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase," Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, "and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists, so I'm certainly not alone in that certainty."

Reichler is probably right, but it wouldn't be the first time if the fringe opinion turned out to be onto something. But from a broader perspective, does it really matter who's "right" as far as preparations go? Whether the climate gets cooler or warmer, or does nothing at all,

people will still need massive amounts of energy. Even if we were to
take the reverse approach and intentionally increase greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere in order to stave off cooling, it would likely have
little effect other than to further pollute the environment with
standard energy consumption's many toxic byproducts.

Are humans the major factor in the current warming trend? Maybe, maybe
not. But what can't be disputed is that humans are polluting the
planet. Current and future weather conditions do not change the fact
that using oil and coal for energy isn't a good long-term idea. The
need desire for cleaner energy, cleaner air and cleaner water has never been greater. ...


Posted by Rebecca Sato via Zarkov's(aka mud, &c.) second link of this thread and edited by yours truly,

MrB.

From: mud ® 2/06/2007 11:29:03 AM
Subject: re: Greenhouse gas post id: 2989618

Scrubbed CO2 ends up in the sea. With a warming sea, CO2 is degassed.

The Antarctic waters are saturated and can not absorb any more CO2. As the seas warm more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere... a double whammy tongue.gif ph34r.gif

The current observed rise in atmospheric CO2 has many causes, the least being anthropogenic sources.

Far more serious problems underly climate change, CO2 is just an obvious symptom. Obvious in the sense that the Sun orbits the Earth !
MisterBelfry

Good grief.

...

Ah well, back to what I was writing.
<<<
Hey, Macx
But you have an encore of sorts!

From: macx ® 12/01/2008 5:53:19 PM

Subject: Alligators the Arctic post id: 3368903

Hmmmmm.....

Sheets of ice existed during very hot periods of Earth's history
when there were alligators living in the Arctic, a new international study has found.

Ice sheets were present 91 million years ago during one of
the hottest periods of life on earth, experts said in a study
in the January 11 issue of Science.

That runs counter to the popular notion that glaciers could not have existed in a so-called "super greenhouse" climate, a time when alligators lived in the Arctic
and tropical surface ocean temperatures soared to 35-37 degrees Celsius.

US, British, German and Dutch scientists discovered evidence
of a 200,000-year era of widespread glaciation during the
Turonian 'super-greenhouse' period of the Cretaceous, the research said.

At the time, ice sheets were roughly 60 per cent the size of the current Antarctic ice cap.

The team got their evidence from analyses of sediments deposited
in the western Equatorial Atlantic Ocean at that time, they said.

- AFP

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01...?section=justin

____________

...and please, let's not have a GW/AGG melee. Think of this as another piece of the jig-saw.

macx

Trust I find you well Mr Belfry.
<<<
Yes(and yourself).

I see Mr Zarkov is still pontificating about all things scientific!
<<<
I suppose the pope of ZeaIsland and the tribe of metal-free
family members(may his tribe increase) has to be a magnificient bridge builder.

MrB.
Zarkov
cretins, it seems impossible for anyone here to remain scientific and sensible

QUOTE
it is not going to be gone


The Arctic does not have to be ice free.... gone as you put it

Once the effective equilibrium is reached

ice melt = ice freeze
The Arctic has reached its new equilibrium.... it may keep melting or it may not
that does not matter

It was the massive inflows of fresh water that confused the climatic picture in the Northern hemisphere.... allowed more rain to fall...etc... brackish water = higher evaporation

this will STOP now.

and the Northern Hemisphere will now play catch up with the Southern Hemisphere, dry out,

and far more people will need diminishing primary resources

cf rats in a increasingly hostile space

LOL

From now as the article stated

It is all downhill now... and there can be no brakes
SteveA2
QUOTE (Zarkov+Aug 29 2008, 11:08 PM)
cretins, it seems impossible for anyone here to remain scientific and sensible



The Arctic does not have to be ice free.... gone as you put it

Once the effective equilibrium is reached

ice melt = ice freeze
The Arctic has reached its new equilibrium.... it may keep melting or it may not
that does not matter

It was the massive inflows of fresh water that confused the climatic picture in the Northern hemisphere.... allowed more rain to fall...etc... brackish water = higher evaporation

this will STOP now.

and the Northern Hemisphere will now play catch up with the Southern Hemisphere, dry out,

and far more people will need diminishing primary resources

cf rats in a increasingly hostile space

LOL

From now as the article stated

It is all downhill now... and there can be no brakes


Yes, the ice coverage is seasonal and so there are always differences in salinity that depend on the season. Any drift in absolute ice levels is minimal and limited in comparison to the seasonal changes.

It's good that the climatologists appear to be giving up. They weren't going to fix anything anyway, so now that we're doomed and effectively past the tipping point, we can get back to our normal lives and not worry about being harrassed anymore regarding it. Whew, glad that's over with! We finally resolved the global warming 'crisis'. Global warming won and so everyone can go home ... the show's over, europe froze, hurricanes destroyed the place, penguins starved and the sky fell. Sad ... but life goes on. I guess we'll just have to pick up the pieces and rebuild. laugh.gif (Where'd the 20 foot oceans rises go though? That's what stumps me ... all this supposed runoff and the ocean level's virtually unchanged. Let's go frisk people for stashing ocean water and see if we can find where it went. Where are our "eco-friendly" environmental warriors when you need em?)
Zarkov
QUOTE
but life goes on. I guess we'll just have to pick up the pieces and rebuild.


LOL laugh all you like.... but there is no day after tomorrow!


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
but life goes on. I guess we'll just have to pick up the pieces and rebuild.


LOL laugh all you like.... but there is no day after tomorrow!


Where'd the 20 foot oceans rises go though? That's what stumps me


the seas won't rise... if anything as time unfolds they will fall... and freeze solid.

This is NOT Global Warming....

You may now go out for refreshments.... INTERMISSION

The show will resume in a few months
MisterBelfry
QUOTE
I see Mr Zarkov is still pontificating about all things scientific!
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I see Mr Zarkov is still pontificating about all things scientific!
Hey Zarkov, I saved this for a good time ...That time seems to be now.


QUOTE
Application of a simple energy budget model shows the precarious balance between the two endpoints of complete global freeze-up and an ice-free Earth, and also illustrates the hysteresis in CO2 conditions that control the planetry shift between these two disparate conditions (Fig 2).



http://members.aol.com/Rosendalhe/temperat.htm

Absorbed solar energy at the surface is partitioned into sensible and latent heat, i.e., it is utilized for warming the air, water and soils or for evaporating water or melting snow and ice where available. Desert areas lack soil moisture much of the year, so nearly all absorbed energy goes into sensible heating of soils and air.


Adding water vapor at lower levels has the same effect as heating at these levels. Air rich in water vapor is lighter or less dense than dry air. It may be a little hard to understand that when you add water vapor, the air actually becomes lighter. That is because a given volume of air contains a set number of molecules of the mixture of the various atmospheric constituents. Thus the lighter water (H2O) molecules displace heavier nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) molecules resulting in a lighter mixture. Water vapor also contains the potential for latent heat release within the lower portion of the atmosphere as the air expands and cools during ascent.

Solar radiation in the form of heat is transmitted over 150 million km of empty space from our sun to earth to keep our planet a hospitable place fit for life. This energy, with the help of greenhouse gases, keeps temperatures at a comfortable level in most parts of the world and is the source of the general circulation of the atmosphere and oceans. One greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is present in only very small amounts, but is still of utmost importance. Not only does it help determine the temperature of the earth but it is also importance in the exchange of O2 and CO2 between plants and animals. Another greenhouse gas or substance of immense importance is water (H2O), which is present in its three basic states and is well distributed over much of the surface of the earth. Earth has thus often been referred to as the water planet. Many factors thus combine to give earth a pleasant climate where life has adjusted well to these environmental conditions.

Energy from the sun is mainly absorbed at the earth's surface, the so-called active surface. Temperatures here are typically the warmest, and are also the most variable, in both the atmosphere and the ocean. The temperature distribution in the ocean is simpler than in the atmosphere since water is an incompressible fluid and thus does not exhibit the large changes in temperature due to pressure changes that we find in air. Warm water typically is less dense and will be situated above cold water unless large salinity differences exist. Salinity differences makes it possible over some limited areas to have colder fresh water overlying warmer more saline water.

Over much of the earth's surface, however, we have the very stable conditions of warm less saline water overlying colder more saline water. This may particularly be the case where rainfall greatly exceeds evaporation, such as over much of the tropical western Pacific, or where fresh or brackish river water flows out over the highly saline sea waters, such as near the mouth of the Amazon River.

Within the Mediterranean Sea evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation and the salinity is higher than in the Atlantic in spite of large river inflows from the Nile and the Black Sea. This higher salinity water flows out into the Atlantic across the sill at Gibraltar and it can be traced for a considerable distance as it slides underneath the Atlantic water masses of same temperature. The hydrologic cycle in the atmosphere with its evaporation and precipitation and runoff from the continents thus affects ocean circulations in important ways.

Sunlight and heat penetrate only a very limited distance into water and keep the surface waters warm. Nearly all the heating takes place in the upper 10 meters or so of the ocean. Conduction takes care of some of this vertical heat transfer. Winds and waves mix the water in the boundary layer of the ocean, reducing the vertical temperature gradient within this mixed layer. An occasional storm or hurricane may supply added mixing. Depending on the time of the year, this may result in increased storage of warm water in a deeper layer than otherwise would be the case just like a circulation pump in a swimming pool will result in increased heat storage. This added heat storage by mixing by storms is best accomplished during the heating cycle of spring and summer. Heat stored in the oceans thus is a source of added evaporation and rainfall and kinetic energy in general.

During the diurnal and annual cooling cycles, water parcels cooled by radiational heat loss or evaporation or sensible heat loss will gently sink down and find the level of their new density and be replaced by water from below. Down deeper (and at variable depths seasonally and across the globe) we find the thermocline where temperatures drop off with depth rather rapidly. Below the thermocline, temperatures drop off at a slower rate again, and down still deeper the temperatures are rather uniform and close to freezing.

This cold, dark region contains the majority of the water in the oceans. Much of this deep water has its origin in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica and in the North Atlantic at high latitudes. Here the ocean is nearly isothermal and well mixed, and the normal vertical stratification is lacking. This lack of static stability means that vertical motions of water masses may occur with greater ease. The cold surface waters will be free to sink and spread equatorward, while warmer or less saline surface waters spread in laterally to replace the sinking water.

In the case of fresh water, we have the peculiarity that water has a maximum density at about 4 C. Thus water colder than 4 C (and ice, of course) is less dense and will stay at the surface during the autumn and early winter cooling cycle. The fact that ice floats on water is a peculiarity that is not shared with many substances in nature. Just imagine what earth would be like if the oceans filled up with ice from the bottom!

On the horizontal scale across the earth, sea surface temperatures vary from the freezing or melting point of salt water, near minus 2 degrees Celsius along the margins of the ice at high latitudes, to 30 C over a large region of the equatorial western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Sea surface temperatures are largely a function of the radiation balance. There is some modification of sea surface temperatures due to evaporative cooling and sensible heat transfers from water to air. These latter effects can be large in winter near the east coasts of continents. Along the east coasts of Asia and North America, the very cold air from the continent blows out over open water and is heated and moistened from below. The waters give up large amounts of sensible and latent heat to the atmosphere and are cooled in the process. Heavy snow squalls often occur and additional latent heat exchanges take place as heat is added to the air when snow flakes form, and taken away from the ocean, as the snow drops into the water and melts.

Water vapor content of air is an important variant that affects both the rate of evaporation and radiative heat losses. High dewpoint temperatures found over warm waters of the tropics help maintain the high sea surface temperatures by limiting both evaporation and the rate of outgoing radiative heat losses. The 30 C (86 F) sea surface temperatures seem to be an upper limit as to how warm the large scale deep ocean can get within the radiation climate here on earth. There are, however, some enclosed ocean areas with light winds and poor mixing in both the atmosphere and the ocean where we can develop a shallow warm surface layer where water temperatures may exceed 30 C by a degree or two. Such areas include the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California) during summer and early fall.

Over the open ocean, in the absence of a strong advection of cold or warm air, the air temperature is usually within a degree of the sea surface temperature with the relative humidity close to 85 to 90 percent. A typical report from the warm, near equatorial central and western Pacific would thus have an air temperature of 30 C (86 F) and a dewpoint temperature of 26 C (79 F). Evaporative cooling would be only moderately intense in this environment and excessive rainfall would likely mean slightly lower salinities in this region. Atmospheric pressure would also be relatively low, say at 1005 mb versus about 1012 mb in the eastern Pacific, as a heat induced trough of low pressure would be present. A trough of low pressure will generally result in light and variable winds with attendant high humidities in a deep layer of the atmosphere with no subsidence inversion. This is the conditions under which heavy convective cloud clusters may form and there is tendency for tropical storms to form within this region.

The strongest evaporation over the oceans occurs where winds blow from higher toward lower latitudes, such as to the east and equatorward of the subtropical high pressure centers. Rapid evaporation also occurs over the middle and higher latitudes in the fall and winter months when the vertical exchange of heat and moisture between ocean and atmosphere is most intense. That is, within the large cyclonic circulations that are the migratory winter storms, and also where the cold air flows off the continents out over the relatively warm ocean. The violent snow squalls of the Great Lakes of North America or over the Sea of Japan are manifestations of the very rapid evaporation and subsequent precipitation as cold air moves out over open water.

In contrast, evaporation over land areas is more closely tied to the solar radiation cycle, assuming soil and vegetation moisture is available. Even in desert areas with little or no soil moisture do we find that heat storage in soils and rocks helps bring about a minor time lag in the period of the most intense evaporation.

There are parts of the oceans where evaporation is quite low, such as within the southerly or southwesterly air flow to the west and northwest of subtropical high pressure cells of the northern hemisphere. Here air masses with dewpoint temperatures as high or higher than the sea surface temperature flow northward over progressively cooler waters. Under these conditions there is little or no evaporation and thus no evaporative cooling of the surface waters. There may even be a slight warming, latent as well as sensible heating, of the surface waters, as moist and warm air flows northward over progressively colder waters. Much of the latent heat of condensation will be released within the air mass itself as fog develops. Some condensation of moisture may however also take place onto the cold water surface causing warming.

Latent heat of condensation occurs profusely on ice and snow and is a very important factor in causing very rapid melting, such as of hail stones falling through humid air on the way to the ground. Very rapid melting with resultant flooding may also occur, for instance, when warm and moist air ahead of a cold front blows across snow cover, or over the ice fields and glaciers of Greenland and Iceland, or Alaska. The demise of glaciers and ice fields at the end of the ice ages is therefore to a large extent caused by high humidities and not just by high air temperatures, though the two tend to go together.

SteveA2
QUOTE (Zarkov+Aug 30 2008, 07:37 AM)

LOL laugh all you like.... but there is no day after tomorrow!


the seas won't rise... if anything as time unfolds they will fall... and freeze solid.

This is NOT Global Warming....

You may now go out for refreshments.... INTERMISSION

The show will resume in a few months


I know the global warming hype is latest monopoly scam over energy. Too bad the pseudo science is so well funded and the media rarely gives even a "balanced" (whatever that really means ... sort of like we need to be fed half truths so that some "balance" can be maintained) view on the subject. (If Bill Clinton, George Bush or Al Gore etc. say we need to save polar bears or make yet more sacrifices ... always for the sake of the children ... they get plenty of sound bites covering that)
MisterBelfry
QUOTE
The Snowball Earths hypothetically occurred during breakups of supercontinents when there were a lot of tropical continents and equatorial flood basalts. As these situations do not apply to the current continent configuration, no one is suggesting that a global glaciation like this is imminent except a few ignorant posters in this thread.


From: Ian ® 1/05/2007 12:59:19 PM

Subject: re: Gulf Stream Warms Europe? post id: 2927854

Just to confound the issue a bit more – It seems that the terms used for the various currents are widely confused –

Wiki –

The Gulf Stream is a western-intensified current, largely driven by the wind stress; its extension, the North Atlantic Drift, is largely Thermohaline circulation driven. Speculation that global warming might affect the Thermohaline circulation, perhaps leading to relative cooling in Western Europe, often erroneously refers to the Gulf Stream, whereas it is the North Atlantic Drift which might be diminished by shutdown of the Thermohaline circulation.

And -

However, the Economist is using the term [Gulf Stream] in a much more colloquial (and common) sense that conflates this current with the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC, often conflated with the Thermohaline Circulation) which involves convection in the waters around Greenland and the deep currents that cool the deep ocean. This use of the term is often synonymous with northward ocean heat transport (the North Atlantic Current) that contributes to Europe's warmth and which have often been fingered as a particularly sensitive aspect of the climate. While in one sense the water flow associated with the MOC does contribute to the Gulf Stream, it is definitely the junior partner, and so any changes in the MOC are not going to threaten the Gulf Stream in any existential way. However, a shutdown in the MOC does not make as good a headline as a shutdown in the Gulf Stream, and so this misuse persists in the media and public alike (though not in the Day After Tomorrow - they used 'North Atlantic Current' throughout!).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...he-gulf-stream/
SteveA2
I can't believe the level that environmental pseudo science has dropped to, to even imagine salinity could have any significant effect at all on temperatures inland.

The rise in ocean levels over more than the past 100 years has been a very constant 0.07" per year. (That's about 1 inch in 14 years)

That means that, assuming all this rise occured from such melting and/or runoff, even if the rates doubled which is virtually impossible to imagine occuring from the current trends, not only would this not be sustainable for long (because you couldn't have ice continually melthing), but it would only give an additional 1/14th of an inch of fresh water to the ocean over a period of an entire year (and that's simply not going to happen because we'd have to see increasing rates of such runoff first, if the cause was, as politicians desire, due to the miniscule atmosperic CO2 content attributed to human actions).

And on top of that, to claim that this would cause colder inland tempertures is ludicrous because it would have taken increased temperatures to create that runoff on the first place, and even if physics went on strike and such a thin layer of fresh water did not mix over time and reduce the salinity gradient, then we'd still have a layer of fresh water that would provide a buffer against freezing temperatures because of it's ability to freeze at higher temperatures than salt water and reabsorb colder temperatures.

This stuff is so far from science it's pitiful, though given the quality of public education and sheer quantity of propoganda people are being feed these days, it's entirely understandable, but still sad to see. Literally we might as well call it a new state religion and get it over with.
Zarkov
QUOTE
even imagine salinity could have any significant effect at all on temperatures inland.


In the thaw of a "natural Ice Age Cycle", the sea becomes very saline..... too much ice on the lands... it gets too salty inhibiting seawater evaporation... which leads to reduced cloud cover....which leads to warming (higher temperatures inland..everywhere) and thus ice melt...---> fresh water onto the sea etc--->thaw

then the cycle passes an equilibrium and a new Ice Age starts.....

Today the marine oil layer is acting like a too salty sea...and evaporation is inhibited...leading to loss of cloud cover and warming.... leading to a thaw....fresh water inflows....

BUT any fresh water is still under the marine oil layer....

so no clouds... ====>warming and drying... frying and burning....

In the Northern hemisphere the fresh water inflows are artificially creating a moderate climate (ATM).... now that the Arctic has reached equilibrium... that climate will dissipate, and frying drying and burning will be the new weather

This would sort itself out in time.... without further oil inflows the oil would be broken down//

but this is modern man's delight and that will not happen

so y'all dry and fry and war and chaos..... after that the marine oil layer will be broken down..After The Gold Rush....silver space ships to the Sun

BUT, meanwhile because the seas have become massively overhot.... evaporation will produce massive cloud banks....--->Ice Age like none before it

Earthlings you know not what you do... y'all are screwed by your own "cleverness and ignorance" combined

pathetic earthlings....children with no real understanding of just what you are

a shooting star in the night, bright and gone
MisterBelfry
"Water vapor content of air is an important variant that affects both the rate of evaporation and radiative heat losses. High dewpoint temperatures found over warm waters of the tropics help maintain the high sea surface temperatures by limiting both evaporation and the rate of outgoing radiative heat losses. The 30 C (86 F) sea surface temperatures seem to be an upper limit as to how warm the large scale deep ocean can get within the radiation climate here on earth. There are, however, some enclosed ocean areas with light winds and poor mixing in both the atmosphere and the ocean where we can develop a shallow warm surface layer where water temperatures may exceed 30 C by a degree or two. Such areas include the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, parts of the Gulf of Mexico and ..." Gustav, anyone? Does it take more than supercomputers to fine tune the steering mechanism?

QUOTE
In the thaw of a "natural Ice Age Cycle",

No one knows. Read the rest of Psalm 147 {& Job 36:29a}. If it wasn't for this thread, I don't know when I would have come across rime ice in verse 16* or the frazil ice term in some numerical calculations on the shelf life for Antarctica and maybe elsewhere.

"The scientific literature has competing ideas about the importance of surface winds versus the advection of warm water from below in reducing the sea-ice concentration in the Ross Sea Polynya." See verse 18.

>>> Literally we might as well call it a new state religion and get it over with. <<<
Europe turns on its heritage as it is prophesied - Revelation 17:15-8. Even though, in that last "cloud" link, I blame lawyers in Washington, D.C., it is Europe that has to gain a competitive advantage by overly monkeying with pseudo-science and capital gains in the free market. What did this little piggy do? The identity of the ten toes(Daniel two) is still open to interpretation. I think Revelation seventeen rules out any twelve toed{or greater} image of Daniel chapter two!

MrB.
*another translation has it, "hoar-frost thick as ashes".
Zarkov
Read this lunacy

QUOTE
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=phoenix-confirms-water-mars

>>  NASA has confirmed that chunks of soil that vaporized on Mars last month after NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander dug them up really were water ice.

The space agency announced yesterday that Phoenix detected water vapor in a soil sample fed Wednesday to its gas-analyzing instrument.

NASA researchers said readings from the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyzer (TEGA) indicated that ice in the soil melted at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degree Celsius).

The result confirms 2002 observations by the Mars Odyssey orbiter, which detected ice in the form of subsurface hydrogen atoms at the planet's poles.

"We've seen evidence for this water ice before in observations by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and in disappearing chunks observed by Phoenix last month, but this is the first time Martian water has been touched and tasted," said TEGA lead scientist William Boynton of the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in a statement.

Collecting the soil sample from a two-inch- (five-centimeter-) deep trench dubbed "Snow White" took some doing. Phoenix dug a series of holes into the hard trench bottom with its drill-like rasp and twice scooped up dirt with its robotic arm for delivery to TEGA.

But both times, when the scoop was upside down, the icy soil clung fast and the samples were discarded.

Phoenix collected more scrapings on Wednesday, which NASA expected to be dry and therefore easier to handle, because most of it had been exposed to the air for two days, causing the ice to evaporate. But some ice remained.

In light of the success, NASA spokesperson Dwayne Brown says the agency extended the $420-million, 90-day mission by five weeks to September 30, at an additional cost of $2 million.

The mission length was chosen based on how much energy that Phoenix could collect from the relatively weak sunlight at various far northern locations on Mars.

The planet's northern hemisphere summer solstice occurred in mid-July, so the amount of sunlight declines each day, but NASA said there is enough for an added five weeks.

NASA spokesman Guy Webster of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena said the Phoenix team expects to complete all the experiments it had planned for the first 90 days within that period.

That includes tests to see whether Martian water thaws or has thawed and to inspect it for raw materials of life such as carbon-based molecules.

Webster said the extra five weeks will be used to study seasonal changes and to dig in additional locations around the craft.

The confirmation of water came a day after NASA announced that a shiny patch beneath Phoenix dubbed "Snow Queen" had shown changes in appearance, including the emergence of short cracks, which may represent slowly sublimating ice.>>>


Their desperation knows no logic.

MisterBelfry
>>> Their desperation knows no logic. <<<

Yes, Lunacy ohmy.gif sad.gif
<TITLE>

Limits for Combustion in Low O2 Redefine Paleoatmospheric Predictions for the Mesozoic -- Belcher and McElwain 321 (5893): 1197 -- Science</TITLE>

Reports
Limits for Combustion in Low O2 Redefine Paleoatmospheric Predictions for the Mesozoic

C. M. Belcher* and J. C. McElwain
Several studies have attempted to determine the lower limit of atmospheric oxygen under which combustion can occur; however, none have been conducted within a fully controlled and realistic atmospheric environment. We performed experimental burns (using pine wood, moss, matches, paper, and a candle) at 20°C in O2 concentrations ranging from 9 to 21% and at ambient and high CO2 (2000 parts per million) in a controlled environment room, which was equipped with a thermal imaging system and full atmospheric, temperature, and humidity control. Our data reveal that the lower O2 limit for combustion should be increased from 12 to 15%. These results, coupled with a record of Mesozoic paleowildfires, are incompatible with the prediction of prolonged intervals of low atmospheric O2 levels (10 to 12%) in the Mesozoic.

School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin (UCD), Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Science 29 August 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5893, pp. 1197 - 1200
DOI: 10.1126/science.1160978


* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: claire.belcher{at}ucd.ie
MisterBelfry
On the second day of Creation, the waters covering the earth's surface were divided into two great reservoirs—one below the firmament and one above, the firmament being the "expanse" above the earth now corresponding to the troposphere. The mechanism whereby this result was accomplished, together with any side effects, has not been revealed. p. 229
Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood.


http://members.aol.com/Rosendalhe/temperat.htm
A vertical profile of temperature through the atmosphere will show a lower portion, called the troposphere, where temperatures generally decrease with height. This is the region where our weather occurs and clouds clouds are present. The troposphere extends up to 60,000 feet or so in the tropics with temperatures there near minus 70 C and pressure near 100 mb. This is the level of the tropopause where the temperature no longer falls as you move up in the atmosphere. This is the boundary between the troposphere below and the stratosphere above. At high latitudes the tropopause is lower and warmer. Its height may be as low as 30,000 feet in polar regions with temperature of minus 50 C and pressure at 300 mb.
Zarkov
QUOTE
On the second day of Creation, the waters


Right there.. that is when the Bible becomes a work of fiction... for only DOG knows the truth

Unfortunately for the authors, LIFE created water, not DOG

Meanwhile back in Hell, the Northern Hemisphere is still hot hot hot, condensation cloud limiting
while the Southern Hemisphere is freezing, coldest August, ice clouds reigning

Interesting how "researchers" twist and turn, tweak their models, pervert their super computers and still can't come up with realistic predictions

To be sure to be sure, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has only risen, and egg is dripping from every expert's face

The oil on the marine micro-layer hypothesis has predicted all the unfolding data.... from go to woe

and woe won't be too far away now

pathetic earthlings
MisterBelfry
>>> Right there.. that is when the Bible becomes a work of fiction... for only DOG knows the truth

Unfortunately for the authors, LIFE created water, not DOG <<<

Dog Chicken Egg

Page 240:
"As we have seen, these waters apparently existed in the form of a great vapor canopy around the earth, of unknown but possibly very great extent. As vapor, it was quite invisible but, nevertheless, would have had a profound effect on terrestrial climate and meteorological processes."
QUOTE

Ice sheets were present 91 million years ago during one of
the hottest periods of life on earth, experts said in a study
in the January 11 issue of Science.

That runs counter to the popular notion that glaciers could not have existed in a so-called "super greenhouse" climate, a time when alligators lived in the Arctic
and tropical surface ocean temperatures soared to 35-37 degrees Celsius.

US, British, German and Dutch scientists discovered evidence of a 200,000-year era of widespread glaciation during the Turonian 'super-greenhouse' period

Page 240:
"The constant battle of "fronts" would be mostly absent, so that antediluvian climates were not only warm but also without violent windstorms."

It is of interest to note that compared with my last cloud link in my previous post, page 241 has a footnote of a "Salt and Rain" article in Scientific American, vol197, October 1957 by Woodcock.

A quick look at google's caches:
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Reference
No. 52-14.
SEA-SALT NUCLEI STUDIES
conducted during the period
October 1, 1951 - December 31, 1951

...

During this period, D. C. Blanchard and A. H. Woodcock
traveled to Honolulu in order to participate in the cloud physics project of the Pineapple Research Institute, Hawaiian
Sugar Planters' Agsociation, Territorial Cattlemen's Council, and the U. S. Weather Bureau.
They expect to remain in Hawaii until mid-July 1952.

During this trip to Hawaii the tentative primary goals are these:
1. To collect further data concerning the relationship
between the numbers of large salt particles in the air and the occurrence of rain on Oahu (see first results during June 1951, WHOI Reference No. 51-87).

2. To aid local people in setting up a routine daily sampling of atmospheric salt with the objective of studying the long-term variations of the amounts of salt and of rainfall.

3. To make specific tests of the general relationship between atmospheric salt and rain drops which was proposed in WHOI Reference No. 51-71.

Evidently, one of the intrepid adventurers wrote a book
From Raindrops to Volcanoes: Adventures with Sea Surface Meteorology
By Duncan C. Blanchard

and even more interesting to my cloud link is that it is referenced in this chapter:

Hamilton and Gaia TIM LENTON 257
dimethylsulfide, DMSP, algae

About the EDITOR & CoAUTHOR?:
W. D. Hamilton (1936-2000) has been described by Richard Dawkins as 'a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin'. His work on evolutionary biology continues to influence scientists working across a wide variety of disciplines, including evolution, population genetics, animal behaviour, genetics, anthropology, and ecology. This third and final volume of Narrow Roads of Gene Land contains Hamilton's key papers published between 1990 and 2000, ...

Many of the papers in this volume continue his work on sex, and particularly its relation to parasitic disease, but other topics covered include the Gaia theory, the colours of autumn leaves, and the still-controversial hypothesis that the AIDS pandemic accidentally originated in a polio vaccination campaign in Africa. Each of the co-authored papers in this volume is preceded by an introduction written by one of Hamilton's co-authors, following the model of the previous two volumes in this series, which brings the reader closer to Hamilton's extraordinary personality and intellect, providing the intellectual and physical contexts within which each piece of research was developed.
~~~~~~

What I was going to say, "I have never heard of him." LOL !!
What I can say, is that I have confused George C. Williams with William D. Hamilton. Indeed, even Tim Lenton is mentioned in Frank Ryan's book. On the same *freaking* page, that I have left off at post #264180 (for crying out loud)!

So, I will paste the end of that post(with a corrected typo) here and add on to it.

"The last to come on board were leading neo-Darwinians, notably William Hamilton of Oxford. As mentor to Richard Dawkins, he had played an important role in formulating the "selfish gene" approach. He had also been extremely hostile to Gaia. But after he realized that Lovelock had introduced the possibility of cheating into his Daisyworld modeling, Hamilton reconsidered his opposition. Lovelock had indeed included daisies that were a neutral gray color and had a 5 percent advantage over the others.

According to Darwinian theory, they should have taken over. But Daisyworld showed that they did not. ...Hamilton finally remarked to Lovelock, "You have convinced me that the earth is self-regulating, but I can't for the life of me see how natural selection could ever possibly have led to it." Hamilton's conversion appeared complete in a paper he wrote with Lovelock's successor, Tim Lenton, that examined the importance for organisms of finding ways to spread their seeds. The title of the paper was "Spora and Gaia." One suggestion arising from Hamilton's new line of thinking was that through dimethyl sulfide, ocean-living algae may have evolved a mechanism of stimulating wind currents to spread their airborne spores to richer pastures. At this point Hamilton became very interested in Gaian thoery, perfoming model experiments on the regulation of dams by beavers. He delivered a paper on this subject at a meeting in Oxford, declaring at the end of his talk that he now saw Gaia as a new Copernican revolution in biological thinking. "We wait," he said, "for an Isaac Newton to explain how it all works."
"...William Hamilton died unexpectedly from malaria contracted during a field trip to Africa. His death was a great loss in many ways, not least for the fact that of the leading proponents of neo-Darwinism he was the best equipped to continue to probe its interactions with Lovelock's theory." Phillip E. Johnson has called G. Williams, "one of the world's most respected and influential evolutionary biologists," and a mentor to Richard Dawkins too too, hence my confusion!

MrB.
tikay
QUOTE (philip347+Aug 22 2008, 06:50 AM)
Ice age definatly.The Pentagon came out ion a news article and said this.
We as a society are in real trouble if we don’t cut the bull sh*t and start constructing a space fleet now, in order to thin the population.

Our hidden technology is twenty times better than we’re being told, so the construction or even renting out of large ships to relocate mankind elsewhere is not a problem, “that is if you want to survive“?!

Mankind is no longer good as a slave, due to the factors of him being under stress with the normal wave of evolution that accompanies an ice age.

“I know that this is an ice age, due to my animals in general panicking this last spring, kind of asking me, Hey’ when’s the snow going to stop“!

Mankind is under stress, as what happens with the larger non sophisticated animals, is that the process of nature, starts to select them for rapid improvements in physiological advanments, not already established mankind.

So we are kind of getting pushed to the back burner, by nature itself.

Our weather patterns, could possibly go wacky in one day’s time and completely change conditions around major areas of population, killing or stranding millions.

This is our cue to quit the lying bull sh*t, tell the general public all it knows about how established the U.S. and other countries are with known species of aliens and get off here fast.

*Notes, Canadian farmers through contacts, say that the 2008 2009 winter, will be another tough winter.

You GO first this time... biggrin.gif
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (tikay+Oct 1 2008, 02:35 PM)
You GO first this time... biggrin.gif

Why me?

And why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

MM
tikay
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 3 2008, 06:51 AM)


According to Darwinian theory, they should have taken over. But Daisyworld showed that they did not. ...Hamilton finally remarked to Lovelock, "You have convinced me that the earth is self-regulating, but I can't for the life of me see how natural selection could ever possibly have led to it." Hamilton's conversion appeared complete in a paper he wrote with Lovelock's successor, Tim Lenton, that examined the importance for organisms of finding ways to spread their seeds. The title of the paper was "Spora and Gaia." One suggestion arising from Hamilton's new line of thinking was that through dimethyl sulfide, ocean-living algae may have evolved a mechanism of stimulating wind currents to spread their airborne spores to richer pastures. At this point Hamilton became very interested in Gaian thoery, perfoming model experiments on the regulation of dams by beavers. He delivered a paper on this subject at a meeting in Oxford, declaring at the end of his talk that he now saw Gaia as a new Copernican revolution in biological thinking. "We wait," he said, "for an Isaac Newton to explain how it all works."
"...William Hamilton died unexpectedly from malaria contracted during a field trip to Africa. His death was a great loss in many ways, not least for the fact that of the leading proponents of neo-Darwinism he was the best equipped to continue to probe its interactions with Lovelock's theory." Phillip E. Johnson has called G. Williams, "one of the world's most respected and influential evolutionary biologists," and a mentor to Richard Dawkins too too, hence my confusion!

MrB.

Thanks for the link...looks interesting! wink.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
You have convinced me that the earth is self-regulating, but I can't for the life of me see how natural selection could ever possibly have led to it


LIFE as a SINGLE super-organism,...YES

Nice to see some input that "can't be explained by Darwinian theory"

Dog knows that LIFE has not "evolved" by chance

meanwhile DOG knows that LIFE has a life cycle

and, pathetic earthlings, that life cycle here on your rock is about to end

You have flowered, you have seeded... and now the parent can only be a perennial or an annual

with the miserable level of earthling understanding, your mother LIFE will be an annual

After seeding, then your mother dies...along with YOU!

Time that you stood up and said,

"I love my mother LIFE, even above myself, and I will do anything that is necessary to protect her !!!"

Failing that kiss your arsole goodbye, and I will see you in another time another place in another space !!

Capracus
QUOTE (BigFairy+Oct 2 2008, 11:16 AM)
HE PROCLAMATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEW PHLAN

U FAIL
hawksecho
Regarding Darwin's observations: The search for the so called missing link would require finding human remains in "a state of flux". Since this would mean the remains of what became the dominant species to greatly overshadow and "link" consisting of a few or even one generations. We know that observations in the whole organism in it's functioning state, as will as independent components examined in controlled (laboratory) conditions illustrate this. (Ah...Is this the forum on space, or did I miss something?)





Zarkov
Earth is the space, to buy a refrigerator or not is the topic

Meanwhile, I now note many TV ads have ice clouds as their backgrounds...

look up and wonder
MisterBelfry

'No Sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent



A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.


This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity
Dr Piers Forster

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.


The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.


Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Published: 2007/07/10 23:00:30 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

SOURCE UNKNOWN:
ii) the total CO2 content in the atmosphere, by volume, is about 0.54%. In terms of greenhouse contribution CO2 comes a very poor third.... about 90% of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, but you also need to explain its reflective capability when in cloud form - which varies. The second is CO2 at 0.54%. Less than a fifth can be associated with all man-made contribution. It is a very small amount. We are talking in parts per million here.
From other sources I've found this assessment of atmospheric greenhouse gases from 2000 by volume

________________- Total% -% Natural - % Man-made
Water Vapour........ - 95.000% - 94.999% - 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide...... - 3.618% - 3.502% - 0.117%
Methane (CH4)....... - 0.360% - 0.294% - 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) - 0.950% - 0.903% - 0.047%
Misc. gases.............- 0.072% - 0.025% - 0.047%
Total .......................-100.00% - 99.72 - 0.28%
(By volume ranking understates Methane's actually greater greenhouse effect.)
iii)
the main focus on climatic temp change in the last seventy years should be warming the temperature of the upper atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is focused.... in theory temperature should be increasing faster up there if the green house effect is the cause. No such faster increase in temperature has been found (although regularly searched for).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.