Ok, I tried to talk to the professor today and he wouldn't even hear what I had to say, I mentioned the topic and he said he wasn't interested, he said he didn't know enough about the frequencies I was talking about to say, but directed me to electrical engineering and the prof there wasn't in. I'm meeting up with my friend who works for one of the leading makers of ultrasound equipment in the world tonight. The answer rich is hidden in the UHF band of the electromagnetic spectrum and the way that VHF transmissions are partially refracted off the ionosphere by what are called sporadic-E propagation which used to be a rare thing but has started to happen more frequently. The refracted portion of the VHF frequency has been altered but the solar radiation shortening the wavelength to a UHF frequency 2450MHZ to be exact which as it so happens is the frequency of microwave ovens, the microwaves are hitching a ride with the solar radiation (and photons) on a path toward earth called Schuman resonances. There is a long story about how I figured this out, but if you look at the historic data of radio broadcasting since the 1906 you will watch the history of radio broadcast in the rise and fall of the global temperature. In fact the first collapse of this rise in temp happened in 1940 when the most damaging solar storm in history struck the planet causing unprecedented damage to the telephone and power grids. I could honestly go on about this and show you charts that would blow your *** mind! This is real kids and if you can imagine what happens when you stick an electrified fork in a microwave and you are looking at the US power grid!! So there you go kids, the US government is scheduled to shut off analog TV broadcast in the VHF frequency and sell it off for other uses, but we need to let them know that they have to shut it down NOW!!! Or the planet is going to short circuit again and this time it will be much worse. The frequency that causes the microwaves shifts with the Solar min and max and the last short circuit occurred on March 25th 1940 this I deduce is because there is more moisture evaporated into the atmosphere during the spring I also happened to notice that the "Shut Down your computer day" is scheduled for March 24th next month, I don't know if this is just a coincidence, but I would heed natures warning also if you can don't use Wireless LAN as it runs on a frequency 2480MHZ and those transmitters may be lightening rods waiting to happen also reduce power unplug anything you can to reduce the attraction of the lightening. This is no little lightening either kids this is the *** GOD throws down when he is pissed off!! I have contacted several offices and have yet to hear back. The copyright process takes four months and we may not have four weeks if this March 24th thing turns out to be true. If you know of anybody in physics or that may be able to shed light on these claims please get this to them!! This is extreeeemly important!! I don't know if I'm mad or saving the planet but my data is pretty detailed in this and I have been losing sleep over this one. So consider this my copywrite and save the *** planet yo, peace out tribers, Ethan Clark 2007 Maybe I'm wrong, but I have no doubt in my mind and I will gather with any one of you and show you what I'm seeing, but I would like this to reach scientists how know more about this thanks
Are you saying microwaves are causing global warming? They can be easily detected and if the air was full of them we would all have cataracts.
Cataract cases on plateau on the rise
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2004-11-10 22:13
The latest medical research from China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau shows plateau residents have a higher incidence of cataracts than plains residents.
The news was found during recent epidemiology research on cataracts among 2,360 elderly people living at altitudes above 3,500 metres. The research was jointly launched by Hui Yu, the Dean of Eye Studies at the People's Hospital of Northwest China's Qinghai Province, and other ophthalmologists from the hospital.
During recent years, cataracts have become the number one threat to the eye health of China's elderly. Approximately 5 million elderly Chinese suffer from cataracts, with an annual increase of 8-10 per cent. About 60 per cent of Chinese people over 60 suffer from cataracts.
The Tibet Autonomous Region has become a place with a very high incidence of cataracts. The cataract rate on the plateau is double that of the rest of China. Each year, cases of cataract blindness in Tibet increase by 5,000, making cataracts Tibet's number one cause of blindness.
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2004-11-10 22:13
The latest medical research from China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau shows plateau residents have a higher incidence of cataracts than plains residents.
The news was found during recent epidemiology research on cataracts among 2,360 elderly people living at altitudes above 3,500 metres. The research was jointly launched by Hui Yu, the Dean of Eye Studies at the People's Hospital of Northwest China's Qinghai Province, and other ophthalmologists from the hospital.
During recent years, cataracts have become the number one threat to the eye health of China's elderly. Approximately 5 million elderly Chinese suffer from cataracts, with an annual increase of 8-10 per cent. About 60 per cent of Chinese people over 60 suffer from cataracts.
The Tibet Autonomous Region has become a place with a very high incidence of cataracts. The cataract rate on the plateau is double that of the rest of China. Each year, cases of cataract blindness in Tibet increase by 5,000, making cataracts Tibet's number one cause of blindness.
Each year, cases of cataract blindness in Tibet increase by 5,000, making cataracts Tibet's number one cause of blindness.
The microwaves are absorbed by the moisture before enough of it ever makes it to lower altitudes to affect our eyes and it doesn"t take alot when you have a gaint electrified fork in a microwave to heat things up
The hardest part to imagine is that we seem to think that we can refract all kids of frequencies right around the range of microwaves 2450Mhz and microwave propigation won't occur
If sporadic E propigation is on the rise and VHF is bouncing back but only a portion of that frequency is absorbed by the D layer on it's way back down Where the hell does the rest of the fequency go? Struck by solar radiation I think it picks up power as it is a blend of a lower frequency and a higher one
This makes the UHF conciderabky more powerful than the originating VHF Ideas please? Iwould love to hear more thoughts on this please
The microwaves are absorbed by the moisture before enough of it ever makes it to lower altitudes to affect our eyes and it doesn"t take alot when you have a gaint electrified fork in a microwave to heat things up
The hardest part to imagine is that we seem to think that we can refract all kids of frequencies right around the range of microwaves 2450Mhz and microwave propigation won't occur
If sporadic E propigation is on the rise and VHF is bouncing back but only a portion of that frequency is absorbed by the D layer on it's way back down Where the hell does the rest of the fequency go? Struck by solar radiation I think it picks up power as it is a blend of a lower frequency and a higher one
This makes the UHF conciderabky more powerful than the originating VHF Ideas please? Iwould love to hear more thoughts on this please
The earth it's self is developing a giant cataract in the form of NLC's in the Mesosphere
All I'm saying is shutting off analog television sooner than later and just letting the frequency stay quiet for 5 years wouldn't be that expensive of a test to see if it made a difference wouldn't you think??
If there are any ideas that might prove this wrong I would really like to hear them please. I don't mind you guys picking this idea apart, in fact if someone could tell me that this isn't so I might sleep better at night. Just think about it anyway. When television came on in 1940 the refracted frequency changed out of the 2450Mhz band and in 1938 At&T bell invented coaxial cable shielding RF, after the solar storm knocked out all those power lines you know they must have been replaced by shielded cable. The amount of solar radiation bombarding the RF getting refracted changes with the solar min and max so in the early days of radio broadcast the transmitters could reach a wider range of frequencies than they can now and I think the vacume tubes used in particular were culprit to this but in the 40's transistors were used. All these factors reduced the effects of microwave effect on the power grid. in 1925 there wer 536 stations broadcasting. If these low frequency long wavelengths were getting blasted by short high frequencies of solar radiation in the NIR spectrum might it cause a lot of microwaves? Assuming this is plausable. Just think about it a little. in 1912 the government put a halt on nearly all AM transmissions during the war and when they allowed it again it took off, look at the temp at that time there was a fluctuation that shows this. Just think
The ionosphere has it's own frequency if you continually bombard it with another frequency higher or lower your going to change the ionosphere frequency eventually through a catalytic reaction.
Microwave radiation is scattered and higher levels of radiation are emitted when it comes in contact with crystalized water vapor which is now forming as NLC's in the atmosphere this is going to cause microwaves emitted to be all over the spectrum including 2450Mhz which has a perticular knack for heating water vapor and keep in mind this is solar radiation powered microwaves of a greater magnitude...same frequency...more power! You know what happens to water that is super heated in a microwave it becomes explosive due to the glass being colder...now think about that explosive energy forming in the upper atmosphere. It will blow a hole allowing the lighening up there and ANY solar energy to blast down to equalize itself with the power grid....the electrified fork in the microwave... ideas?
Microwave radiation is scattered and higher levels of radiation are emitted when it comes in contact with crystalized water vapor which is now forming as NLC's in the atmosphere this is going to cause microwaves emitted to be all over the spectrum including 2450Mhz which has a perticular knack for heating water vapor and keep in mind this is solar radiation powered microwaves of a greater magnitude...same frequency...more power! You know what happens to water that is super heated in a microwave it becomes explosive due to the glass being colder...now think about that explosive energy forming in the upper atmosphere. It will blow a hole allowing the lighening up there and ANY solar energy to blast down to equalize itself with the power grid....the electrified fork in the microwave... ideas?
The last rise in Temperature began at the same time that FM began to overtake AM broadcast. FM is VHF and with increasing sporadic E propagation. Could it be that a pattern here in a rise of upper atmospheric microwaves bouncing back and fourth between the NLC's and the upper clouds in the troposphere? Throw a little nuclear radiation from testing in the 50's and the Abomb in there and watch it go
QUOTE (Ethan Clark+Feb 24 2007, 07:04 AM)
The answer rich is hidden in the UHF band of the electromagnetic spectrum and the way that VHF transmissions are partially refracted off the ionosphere by what are called sporadic-E propagation which used to be a rare thing but has started to happen more frequently..
Here can be some connection to the increased formation of so called noctilucent clouds, which are responsible for Mars warming, too. These clouds can reflect the UHF waves.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YongLiLiang.shtml
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YongLiLiang.shtml
That is well above the freezing temp of CO2 at -78 C.
Say again? I'm not talking about daytime averages.
Here can be some connection to the increased formation of so called noctilucent clouds, which are responsible for Mars warming, too. These clouds can reflect the UHF waves.
QUOTE (Ethan Clark+Feb 24 2007, 07:04 AM)
..hrow a little nuclear radiation from testing in the 50's and the Abomb in there and watch it go ..
The microwaves are having nothing to do with the noctilucent clouds formation hopefully, while the nuclear tests certainly can, as the radioactivity catalyzes the mezospheric clouds nucleation by the same way, like the aerosols polution. The rise of carbon dioxide concentration at the end of 50's can be connected with the frequency of the atmospherics/ground nuclear tests and Chernobyl accident.
The microwaves are having nothing to do with the noctilucent clouds formation hopefully, while the nuclear tests certainly can, as the radioactivity catalyzes the mezospheric clouds nucleation by the same way, like the aerosols polution. The rise of carbon dioxide concentration at the end of 50's can be connected with the frequency of the atmospherics/ground nuclear tests and Chernobyl accident.
I've been wondering the same thing for a long time now. I heard somewhere that the USA's acceptable levels of microwave radiation levels are 100 times higher New Zealand and 40 times higher than Russia. I'm glad people are starting to get serious about it. I wouldn't doubt the idea at all. But what do I know?
Well microwave exposure in a work environment is one thing, microwave oven leakage is something else.
The limit for microwave leakage in the US is a measly 1 milliwatt per square centimeter at a distance of 5 cm from the oven.
As far as the workplace, the Threshold Limit Values (TLV) for the lower microwave frequencies, ie the ones your body absorbs, from 3,000 megahertz to 15,000 megahertz, are supposed to be less than 10 milliwatts per square centimeter.
So if you say New Zealand exposure levels are 100 times lower then they would be restricting exposure to 0.1 milliwatt per sq cm.
Both 10 milliwatts and 0.1 milliwatt of microwave energy per sq cm are equally harmless as they aren't ionizing radiation.
Nor are they causing atmospheric warming.
Arthur
The limit for microwave leakage in the US is a measly 1 milliwatt per square centimeter at a distance of 5 cm from the oven.
As far as the workplace, the Threshold Limit Values (TLV) for the lower microwave frequencies, ie the ones your body absorbs, from 3,000 megahertz to 15,000 megahertz, are supposed to be less than 10 milliwatts per square centimeter.
So if you say New Zealand exposure levels are 100 times lower then they would be restricting exposure to 0.1 milliwatt per sq cm.
Both 10 milliwatts and 0.1 milliwatt of microwave energy per sq cm are equally harmless as they aren't ionizing radiation.
Nor are they causing atmospheric warming.
Arthur
We are not talking about microwave ovens here folks we are talking about a global sized oven and these 2450Mhz frequencies have the power of the solar radiation blasting them down. I think that might exceed the limits and might even cause a few cataracts along the way let alone the fat one forming in the Mesosphere. And lets not forget there is an electrified fork in there. Hell even a glass of water in an oven with a fork in it is bad enough. Now hook it up to a battery the size of the planet and sprinkle a little radiation on top. This can only be looked at seriously if WE do this no fairy is going to come out and do it for us. I think this is more than very likely and if you look at the history of AM transmission you can see it in the temperature rise. Now the rise in global temp last began to rise in 1973 at the same time that FM began to over take AM broadcast. FM is VHF, so now you not only have television broadcast with VHF but add the rise of FM and it's no wonder the UHF is propagating as sporatic E propagation grows. Now there are almost predictable patches of Sporadic E where before it was rare. Hobbiests all over the world are going Yay!! While the temperature rises and the spiecies of the planet are kicking the bucket. As this extinction moves up the food chain eventually we are going to go and the rise in temperature is going to cause pathogens to rise. Our children are going to get sick and we are going begin to die. I don't know about where you all live but I live in Seattle and there was more sickness than you can shake a pope at. An entire school closed down to the flu and two little girls under the age of 10 died of the flu and they were quite healthy. My girlfriend works at the hospital that they died in and she talked to the nurse who watched the mother first come into the room to find her daughter dead. This is our world and we are about to lose the human race if we don't figure this out. I'm giving it my best here and I would hope nothing less of any other human who wishes to survive. If all it took were to shut off the VHF and keep it off for a while our children may have a home to live in. If not the sun will again set upon the horizon even if there isn't a living thing known to man to watch it. Perhaps then the world will know peace.
I think I know of a system that has produce a wealth of data cataloging this resonance.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu
They're charting it as the development of a global consciousness, but their results could be reinterpreted to be changes in background radiation due to telecommunications devices and home electronics.
Also:
The temperatures in antarctica are cold enough to sublimate carbon dioxide directly into dry ice, which would then fall as snow and be bound up in the ice.
But as the balance shifts and the ice caps melt, more carbon dioxide is released from this long term storage.
The cycle will accelerate.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu
They're charting it as the development of a global consciousness, but their results could be reinterpreted to be changes in background radiation due to telecommunications devices and home electronics.
Also:
The temperatures in antarctica are cold enough to sublimate carbon dioxide directly into dry ice, which would then fall as snow and be bound up in the ice.
But as the balance shifts and the ice caps melt, more carbon dioxide is released from this long term storage.
The cycle will accelerate.
We're gonna need a bigger supply of TIN FOIL HATS.
Arthur
PS What is it about this site that attracts so many lunatics?
Arthur
PS What is it about this site that attracts so many lunatics?
The effects of high ferequency resonation fields on human awareness is another topic entirely, very interesting no doubt, but the physics involved in random number generation probably won't help as much here.
I think what we may be seeing is a cyclotronic motion of the frequency between the positive ion and the electron plasma of the ionosphere which is perpendicular to Solar radiation causing a maser like reaction like in a gyrotron. The gyrotron is a type of free electron maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). It has high power at millimeter wavelengths because its dimensions can be much larger than the wavelength, unlike conventional vacuum tubes, and it is not dependent on material properties, as are conventional masers. The bunching depends on a relativistic effect called the Cyclotron Resonance Maser instability. The electron speed in a gyrotron is slightly relativistic (comparable to but not close to the speed of light). Except in this case the radiation simulated is actually solar radiation. When the VHF signals hit the ionosphere the cyclotronic motion changes the frequency of the ionosphere itself causing catalytic reaction that over time causes the electrons in the ionosphere to perhaps lose energy. This in turn could cause the electrons and ions to gather closer forming sporadic E propogation and lower the distance of the ionosphere in order for the electrons and ions to keep there bond in the plasma state
I think what we may be seeing is a cyclotronic motion of the frequency between the positive ion and the electron plasma of the ionosphere which is perpendicular to Solar radiation causing a maser like reaction like in a gyrotron. The gyrotron is a type of free electron maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). It has high power at millimeter wavelengths because its dimensions can be much larger than the wavelength, unlike conventional vacuum tubes, and it is not dependent on material properties, as are conventional masers. The bunching depends on a relativistic effect called the Cyclotron Resonance Maser instability. The electron speed in a gyrotron is slightly relativistic (comparable to but not close to the speed of light). Except in this case the radiation simulated is actually solar radiation. When the VHF signals hit the ionosphere the cyclotronic motion changes the frequency of the ionosphere itself causing catalytic reaction that over time causes the electrons in the ionosphere to perhaps lose energy. This in turn could cause the electrons and ions to gather closer forming sporadic E propogation and lower the distance of the ionosphere in order for the electrons and ions to keep there bond in the plasma state
Tin foil hats will not help since one way of detecting microwaves in the air is that all metals will warm above the local norm due to climate.
People living at higher altitudes will suffer more from ultra-violet (UVB) radiation which the denser atmosphere lower down absorbs.
0.64% of the Chinese population suffers from cataracts
http://www.orbis.org/bins/content_page.asp...694-1166&lang=9
Much of it is age related though cigarettes can cause it too like the particularly strong and unregulated brands sold in China. Even excessive alcohol consumption can cause them.
People living at higher altitudes will suffer more from ultra-violet (UVB) radiation which the denser atmosphere lower down absorbs.
0.64% of the Chinese population suffers from cataracts
http://www.orbis.org/bins/content_page.asp...694-1166&lang=9
Much of it is age related though cigarettes can cause it too like the particularly strong and unregulated brands sold in China. Even excessive alcohol consumption can cause them.
Electron cyclotron resonance is a phenomenon observed both in plasma physics and condensed matter physics. An electron in a static and uniform magnetic field will move in a circle due to the Lorentz force. The circular motion may be superimposed with a uniform axial motion, resulting in a helix, or with a uniform motion perpendicular to the field, e.g., in the presence of an electrical or gravitational field, resulting in a cycloid. The angular frequency (ω = 2π f ) of this cyclotron motion for a given magnetic field strength B is given (in SI units[1]) by
.
where e is the elementary charge and m is the mass of the electron. For the commonly used microwave frequency 2.45 GHz and the bare electron charge and mass, the resonance condition is met when B = 875 G = 0.0875 T.
An ionized plasma may be efficiently produced or heated by superimposing a static magnetic field and a high-frequency electromagnetic field at the electron cyclotron resonance frequency.
sorry I can't get the equation to show up above, but you get the idea.
.
where e is the elementary charge and m is the mass of the electron. For the commonly used microwave frequency 2.45 GHz and the bare electron charge and mass, the resonance condition is met when B = 875 G = 0.0875 T.
An ionized plasma may be efficiently produced or heated by superimposing a static magnetic field and a high-frequency electromagnetic field at the electron cyclotron resonance frequency.
sorry I can't get the equation to show up above, but you get the idea.
Kaneda, where can I find measurements of the UHF 2.45 Ghz in the upper troposphere and mesosphere? can you help lead me in this direction? I'll poke around and see what I can find, Thanks
Check this link out it's heavy reading, but about half way down they start to get to the good stuff. It looks as though I might be right about the cyclotronic effect in these experiments they saw power levels rise x10 in microwaves beamed through the atmosphere. This paper has alot of really good data in it. I'm going to work on this and get back to you all if you have insights into this read let me know. I may have to chew on it, but if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing here this could be big proof in moving this VHF shut down to the next phase. There is no doubt in looking at the historical temperature rise in relation to broadcasting. I see it very clearly and if you look at the data you will see it too. Actually it seems I can't seem to get the link to work is there a trick or something to that? I'm a newbie and it won't let me. Anyway I'll get back to you I have some reading to do. Google:Environmental impact of high power density microwave beams
I'll be back
I'm sounding like Arnie now
I'll be back
I'm sounding like Arnie now
Kaneda doesn't seem to be here (list of active members, bottom of home page.) I tried posting a link but the board won't let newbies use them so from Kurasc, Kyoto-
I don't think there experiment would work if the atmosphere was full of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation. There are a number of microwave telescopes which work from the ground and I think that they would detect such radiation if it was in the atmosphere in significant amounts.
QUOTE
The METLAB has been established at the RASC in 1996. A radio wave anechoic chamber (RWAC) was designed for MET experiments and is placed in the METLAB. The size of the RWAC is 7 m×7 m×16 m. Inside the shield walls two different types of electromagnetic absorbers are installed. One is a commonly used absorber for low power EM waves. The other is a special absorber designed for large power microwaves. The maximum power level for the absorption is 1 W/c㎡ for 8 hour exposure. A quiet zone of 2 mφ is -30 dB at 2.45 GHz with condition that the path length is equal to 12 m. In addition to the RWAC, we have a MET system which is composed of a microwave power transmitter and a microwave receiver (rectenna array) in the METLAB. The microwave power transmitter consists of a 2.4 mφ offset parabolic antenna and a 5kW magnetron. The microwave frequency is 2.45 GHz. A rectenna array with diameter of 1mφ is placed in the RWAC. We also have a measurement system for the MET experiments. In the RWAC we have a 2mφ turntable and a 6×6 m X-Y positioner. In the measurement room we have a spectrum analyzer, signal generator, power meter, multi-meter and digital oscilloscope. These measurement facilities with a GP-IB controller are efficient for systematical development of the MET system.
I don't think there experiment would work if the atmosphere was full of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation. There are a number of microwave telescopes which work from the ground and I think that they would detect such radiation if it was in the atmosphere in significant amounts.
The noosphere project is built upon experimental data.
The origin of the mechanism producing the results are subject to interpretation.
Dry Ice being stored in the polar ice cap is not subject to interpretation. It's just a fact.
The origin of the mechanism producing the results are subject to interpretation.
Dry Ice being stored in the polar ice cap is not subject to interpretation. It's just a fact.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 25 2007, 07:41 AM)
Dry Ice being stored in the polar ice cap is not subject to interpretation. It's just a fact.
Don't think so.
The AVERAGE temperature in the coldest months in in some of the coldest areas of Antarctica is only -66 C. That is well above the freezing temp of CO2 at -78 C.
So although every now and then the temp gets below -78 (record at Vostok station is just 11 degrees colder at -89 C), the ANNUAL AVERAGE temp at Vostok is a BALMY (compared to dry ice) -55 C.
Thus no Dry Ice is being stored at the Southern Polar Ice cap.
Arthur
Don't think so.
The AVERAGE temperature in the coldest months in in some of the coldest areas of Antarctica is only -66 C. That is well above the freezing temp of CO2 at -78 C.
So although every now and then the temp gets below -78 (record at Vostok station is just 11 degrees colder at -89 C), the ANNUAL AVERAGE temp at Vostok is a BALMY (compared to dry ice) -55 C.
Thus no Dry Ice is being stored at the Southern Polar Ice cap.
Arthur
The cataracts are from ozone loss and increased ultraviolet. Sheep in the Andes show this also.
At a lab I worked at we autoclaved (20lbs pressure from steam at 128.C) a block of carbon dioxide ice with a light wrapping on it and there was almost no loss in mass. Just as well. Had the block quickly converted into CO2 gas, it could have been quite messy.
QUOTE
Vostok, Antarctica is the home of the coldest temperature on Earth at a cool -89 °C (183 K). At the Russian research station the temperature is regularly in the -30 to the -60 °C mark. This chilly weather is due to the exceptionally high speed of the arctic winds. The katabatic or downward type winds that bring the brisk temperature, travel with speeds up to 200 mph (about 90 m/s) from inland toward the coast of the continent. As one moves toward the higher region inland -- that is, toward the true pole -- the temperature drops from its normal -40 °C to -80 °C. The coldest temperatures usually occur during the winter months of around March 22. That is when Antarctica has completed days of darkness. Warmer temperatures, usually still well below freezing, occur during the all day summer months around September 22.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YongLiLiang.shtml
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Vostok, Antarctica is the home of the coldest temperature on Earth at a cool -89 °C (183 K). At the Russian research station the temperature is regularly in the -30 to the -60 °C mark. This chilly weather is due to the exceptionally high speed of the arctic winds. The katabatic or downward type winds that bring the brisk temperature, travel with speeds up to 200 mph (about 90 m/s) from inland toward the coast of the continent. As one moves toward the higher region inland -- that is, toward the true pole -- the temperature drops from its normal -40 °C to -80 °C. The coldest temperatures usually occur during the winter months of around March 22. That is when Antarctica has completed days of darkness. Warmer temperatures, usually still well below freezing, occur during the all day summer months around September 22. |
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YongLiLiang.shtml
That is well above the freezing temp of CO2 at -78 C.
Say again? I'm not talking about daytime averages.
You said CO2 was being STORED at the polar ice cap.
But any CO2 that sublimates out of the atmosphere on the relatively FEW occasions when temps drop below -78C in the winter then has to make it THROUGH the whole year of day time averages.
Something that it won't do.
Not in a place which has almost NO PRECIPITATION and has AVERAGE temps that are a relatively WARM -55 C.
It would be like assuming that snow or ice would persist in an area with annual average temps of 23C.
The ONLY way that could occur would be if the Winter accumulations were SO GREAT as to not completely melt before the next winter showed up.
BUT, with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a measly 380 PPM, and with temps dropping below -78 C only rarely, no such large accumulations of dry ice in the winter are possible.
Arthur
But any CO2 that sublimates out of the atmosphere on the relatively FEW occasions when temps drop below -78C in the winter then has to make it THROUGH the whole year of day time averages.
Something that it won't do.
Not in a place which has almost NO PRECIPITATION and has AVERAGE temps that are a relatively WARM -55 C.
It would be like assuming that snow or ice would persist in an area with annual average temps of 23C.
The ONLY way that could occur would be if the Winter accumulations were SO GREAT as to not completely melt before the next winter showed up.
BUT, with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a measly 380 PPM, and with temps dropping below -78 C only rarely, no such large accumulations of dry ice in the winter are possible.
Arthur
We're talking about a process that accumulates carbon dioxide as both a solid and as gas bubbles over *thousands* upon *thousands* of years.
I doesn't have to do it all in one winter.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env188.htm
The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280µL/L immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.
Care to make a small wager?
Say $10 (american), payable through a paypal account?
I doesn't have to do it all in one winter.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env188.htm
QUOTE
Frank,
Scientists have detected frozen
carbon dioxide at the poles on planets,
so it can happen and can accumulate if
the temperature stays low enough long enough.
Actually, carbon dioxide freezes at -57 C,
which is -70.6 F, a higher temperature than
you thought. Temperatures often reach lower
than this in Antarctica and sometimes in
the Arctic also, so it does not have to be
an ice age for carbon dioxide to freeze at
the poles.
Scientists have detected frozen
carbon dioxide at the poles on planets,
so it can happen and can accumulate if
the temperature stays low enough long enough.
Actually, carbon dioxide freezes at -57 C,
which is -70.6 F, a higher temperature than
you thought. Temperatures often reach lower
than this in Antarctica and sometimes in
the Arctic also, so it does not have to be
an ice age for carbon dioxide to freeze at
the poles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Frank, Scientists have detected frozen carbon dioxide at the poles on planets, so it can happen and can accumulate if the temperature stays low enough long enough. Actually, carbon dioxide freezes at -57 C, which is -70.6 F, a higher temperature than you thought. Temperatures often reach lower than this in Antarctica and sometimes in the Arctic also, so it does not have to be an ice age for carbon dioxide to freeze at the poles. |
The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280µL/L immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.
The quote
While a TRUE statement, the point of my previous post is that it does NOT stay LOW ENOUGH or LONG ENOUGH for any frozen CO2 to accumulate on the Earth's poles.
Nor does CO2 freeze at -57 C in OUR atmosphere.
It will, at that temp and a pressure of 5.1 bar, turn into a LIQUID though.
At the Earth's atmospheric pressure it goes directly from a gaseous state to a solid (sublimates), but NOT until the temp gets down to -78 C.
Something that only rarely happens even in the coldest month in Antartica.
And something that WILL NOT LAST at the AVERAGE ANNUAL temp of -55C that is found in Antarctica.
http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
Carbon dioxide will form "dry ice" at -78.5şC (-109.3ş F).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2
At temperatures below −78 °C, carbon dioxide changes directly from a gas to a white solid called dry ice through a process called deposition.
http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-properties.html
It freezes at -78.5 °C to form carbon dioxide snow.
CO2 is trapped in gas bubbles in the ice, but there are a very low percent of bubbles in the ice and the concentrations of CO2 in the bubbles are in general less then the current atmosphere, so it doesn't represent a "storage" of CO2 either.
Arthur
QUOTE
Scientists have detected frozen carbon dioxide at the poles on planets, so it can happen and can accumulate if the temperature stays low enough long enough.
While a TRUE statement, the point of my previous post is that it does NOT stay LOW ENOUGH or LONG ENOUGH for any frozen CO2 to accumulate on the Earth's poles.
Nor does CO2 freeze at -57 C in OUR atmosphere.
It will, at that temp and a pressure of 5.1 bar, turn into a LIQUID though.
At the Earth's atmospheric pressure it goes directly from a gaseous state to a solid (sublimates), but NOT until the temp gets down to -78 C.
Something that only rarely happens even in the coldest month in Antartica.
And something that WILL NOT LAST at the AVERAGE ANNUAL temp of -55C that is found in Antarctica.
http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
Carbon dioxide will form "dry ice" at -78.5şC (-109.3ş F).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2
At temperatures below −78 °C, carbon dioxide changes directly from a gas to a white solid called dry ice through a process called deposition.
http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-properties.html
It freezes at -78.5 °C to form carbon dioxide snow.
CO2 is trapped in gas bubbles in the ice, but there are a very low percent of bubbles in the ice and the concentrations of CO2 in the bubbles are in general less then the current atmosphere, so it doesn't represent a "storage" of CO2 either.
Arthur
Ok. Between liquid, gaseous and possibly solid CO2 stored in the Antarctic ice cap, while not an appreciable amount when compared to say, the polar caps of Mars... still has a sufficent quantity of CO2 able to speed the process of climate change.
I'm not saying we've got a CO2 ice cap.
I am saying that additional CO2 stored in the water and ice around Antarctica is in the process of being released due to the human contributions towards climate change. And that this additional volume of released CO2 represents enough of a balance shifter to speed it's own release.
I'm not saying we've got a CO2 ice cap.
I am saying that additional CO2 stored in the water and ice around Antarctica is in the process of being released due to the human contributions towards climate change. And that this additional volume of released CO2 represents enough of a balance shifter to speed it's own release.
Nope again.
For several reasons.
Most of the continent of Antarctica is getting COLDER, not warmer.
The ONLY significant warming trend is on the relatively small Antarctic Penninsula and that is because of a change in the LOCAL ocean currents.
But regardless, the majority of the contintent has AVERAGE ANNUAL TEMPS far lower than 0 C. thus no NET melting of Antarctica is occuring.
In fact Antarctica is, and will remain for the forseeable future, a NET SINK for H20 as well as a TINY amount of CO2.
Arthur
For several reasons.
Most of the continent of Antarctica is getting COLDER, not warmer.
The ONLY significant warming trend is on the relatively small Antarctic Penninsula and that is because of a change in the LOCAL ocean currents.
But regardless, the majority of the contintent has AVERAGE ANNUAL TEMPS far lower than 0 C. thus no NET melting of Antarctica is occuring.
In fact Antarctica is, and will remain for the forseeable future, a NET SINK for H20 as well as a TINY amount of CO2.
Arthur
QUOTE
thus no NET melting of Antarctica is occuring.
Care to make a small wager?
Say $10 (american), payable through a paypal account?
Can we use the last IPCC report to settle the bet?
Arthur
Arthur
Hmmmmm...
No.
No.
That's a shame, I could always use $10.
In case you are wondering though.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/415.htm#tab115
See table 11.6
Arthur
In case you are wondering though.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/415.htm#tab115
See table 11.6
Arthur
Hmmm...
Why is there a ton of information missing?
There's nothing for recent years in Antarctica.
How were you planning on winning this bet?
In fact, they're talking about an overall decrease of 25% in glacial mass by 2100 at the top of the page.
I hope you weren't hedging your bet on all that extra mass being dumped on Antarctica... because Einstein had a pet theory about what would happen in that scenario.
Why is there a ton of information missing?
There's nothing for recent years in Antarctica.
How were you planning on winning this bet?
In fact, they're talking about an overall decrease of 25% in glacial mass by 2100 at the top of the page.
I hope you weren't hedging your bet on all that extra mass being dumped on Antarctica... because Einstein had a pet theory about what would happen in that scenario.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 26 2007, 04:47 PM)
Hmmm...
Why is there a ton of information missing?
There's nothing for recent years in Antarctica.
How were you planning on winning this bet?
In fact, they're talking about an overall decrease of 25% in glacial mass by 2100 at the top of the page.
I hope you weren't hedging your bet on all that extra mass being dumped on Antarctica... because Einstein had a pet theory about what would happen in that scenario.
This is the LAST IPCC report.
They haven't released any newer report data.
You misread that line about the 25% decrease, it has NOTHING to do with our subject.
Don't know what you mean about missing data, not all scientists studied all areas.
Look at the bottom chart:
Using the MEAN data.
It shows Antarctica Accumulation at 4,089 billion kg/yr +/- 162
It shows Antarctica LOSSES at 2,623 billion Kg/yr +/- 533 (more uncertainty in losses)
or not quite twice the annual gain vs the annual loss.
If you take BEST CASE in your favor (i.e. use the LOWEST accumulation estimates and the HIGHEST loss estimates)
Then you STILL have
Accumulation at 3,927 billion kg/yr versus Losses of only 3,155 billion Kg year.
They incorporated this into a chart that makes it easier to understand:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig11-9.gif
You will note, that the HIGH and LOW estimates for Antarctica are both a NEGATIVE contribution to Sea Level rise.
Which it WOULDN'T be if it wasn't a NET SINK for H2O
Arthur
Why is there a ton of information missing?
There's nothing for recent years in Antarctica.
How were you planning on winning this bet?
In fact, they're talking about an overall decrease of 25% in glacial mass by 2100 at the top of the page.
I hope you weren't hedging your bet on all that extra mass being dumped on Antarctica... because Einstein had a pet theory about what would happen in that scenario.
This is the LAST IPCC report.
They haven't released any newer report data.
You misread that line about the 25% decrease, it has NOTHING to do with our subject.
Don't know what you mean about missing data, not all scientists studied all areas.
Look at the bottom chart:
Using the MEAN data.
It shows Antarctica Accumulation at 4,089 billion kg/yr +/- 162
It shows Antarctica LOSSES at 2,623 billion Kg/yr +/- 533 (more uncertainty in losses)
or not quite twice the annual gain vs the annual loss.
If you take BEST CASE in your favor (i.e. use the LOWEST accumulation estimates and the HIGHEST loss estimates)
Then you STILL have
Accumulation at 3,927 billion kg/yr versus Losses of only 3,155 billion Kg year.
They incorporated this into a chart that makes it easier to understand:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig11-9.gif
You will note, that the HIGH and LOW estimates for Antarctica are both a NEGATIVE contribution to Sea Level rise.
Which it WOULDN'T be if it wasn't a NET SINK for H2O
Arthur
I guess you were hedging your bet with that.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113751
Here's an argument against the idea though.
http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/hapgood_and_ecd.shtml
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113751
Here's an argument against the idea though.
http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/hapgood_and_ecd.shtml
?????
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 11:09 PM)
?????
Arthur
Arthur:
Well done. Another one bites the dust! The real crisis is clearly in our education system and the inability of people to think critically about what they read. It is amazing and scary.
Arthur
Arthur:
Well done. Another one bites the dust! The real crisis is clearly in our education system and the inability of people to think critically about what they read. It is amazing and scary.
I'd consider it critical thinking to cover both sides of the argument.
Einstein and Hapgood put forward the concept that the unbalanced mass of the Antarctic ice cap could store up enough angular momentum to cause the crust to realign itself to a new position to more evenly distribute the mass.
It's not that 'out there' of an idea. We're only living in the year 2007. Recorded human history only goes back to the end of the last Ice Age over North America.
However, in my latest copy of Discover magazine, the Grace satellites have revealed:
Which is it, then?
Are the Antarctica glaciers increasing or decreasing in size?
Sea ice doesn't count. It does not have the same effect on rebound that glacial mass would.
Which is it, then?
Are the Antarctica glaciers increasing or decreasing in size?
Sea ice doesn't count. It does not have the same effect on rebound that glacial mass would.
Sea ice doesn't count, unless it is affecting other measurements.
What it does support is the fact that the majority of the continent is getting colder.
As for Glaciers, they are mainly on the Antarctic Penninsula (and some coasts).
While they represent a SMALL FRACTION of the ice pack, they ARE the most variable part of the ice (along with ice shelves).
About 4 out of 5 glaciers on the Antarctic Penninsula are shrinking, the others are expanding.
Don't know about the other coastal glaciers (haven't checked)
The continent, with its estimated 30 million cubic km of ice, has been on a 20+ year cooling trend and for the vast majority of that ice, once there it remains as the inner areas almost never get above freezing.
So, as I posted the BEST ESTIMATES from MULTIPLE land based scientists are that Antarctica is a NET SINK for water.
The REMOTE sensing of GRAVITY indicates that the mass is going down.
Which may indicate OTHER changes not know by the land based scientists are going on.
They MIGHT be due to loss of H20.
It will probably take a decade or more to determine which is right.
The difficulty is though the amount seems large, the estimate of mass loss is only 0.0005 % on an annual basis
Arthur
ROFL!
And in answer to your question, the other lunatics.
Don't fully understand all this by way so my post only relates to that which I quoted no reflection on the true topic discussion.
Einstein and Hapgood put forward the concept that the unbalanced mass of the Antarctic ice cap could store up enough angular momentum to cause the crust to realign itself to a new position to more evenly distribute the mass.
It's not that 'out there' of an idea. We're only living in the year 2007. Recorded human history only goes back to the end of the last Ice Age over North America.
However, in my latest copy of Discover magazine, the Grace satellites have revealed:
QUOTE (Discover March 2007 - GRACE in Space+)
that the ice sheet covering Antarctica has shrunk by an average of 36 cubic miles of ice per year -- surprising, given that many climate models predict a thickening of the ice as higher global temperatures lead to more evaporation and precipitation. "It's very difficult for models to reproduce the physics of glaciers, and this shows that the models aren't as good as we'd like them to be," Velicogna says.
Velicogna and her colleagues also measured a dramatic loss of Greenland ice, as much as 38 cubic miles per year betweeen 2002 and 2005 -- even more troubling, given that an influx of fresh meltwater int the salty North Atlantic could in theory shut off the system of ocean currents that keep Europe relatively warm.
For those of you who don't know, the GRACE satellites measure minute changes in each other's orbit to determine mass differences in the Earth below.
It should be also noted that the GRACE satellites recently discovered a large body of water beneath the Asian plate that could easily contribute to the crustal shift or slip proposed by Einstein and Hapgood.
Velicogna and her colleagues also measured a dramatic loss of Greenland ice, as much as 38 cubic miles per year betweeen 2002 and 2005 -- even more troubling, given that an influx of fresh meltwater int the salty North Atlantic could in theory shut off the system of ocean currents that keep Europe relatively warm.
For those of you who don't know, the GRACE satellites measure minute changes in each other's orbit to determine mass differences in the Earth below.
It should be also noted that the GRACE satellites recently discovered a large body of water beneath the Asian plate that could easily contribute to the crustal shift or slip proposed by Einstein and Hapgood.
Discover is for laymen.
The problem with the GRACE data is it is not corroborated by other land based measurements.
In fact the other measurements show the OPPOSITE of what GRACE is showing.
Remember, grace doesn't measure ICE, it measures GRAVITY.
When you are dealing with REMOTE SENSING the problem is to insure what you are measuring is accurate.
This has yet to be done.
So a tad bit of scepticism is in order.
Like in ALL OF THE ASSUMPTIONS that they have to make to determine these values, and then have the ERROR BARS LARGER than what they are MEASUREING, should give you pause.
The fact is a MAJOR change that is still affecting Antarctica is POST GLACIAL REBOUND, which confuses these remote gravity measurements.
Antarctica only stopped melting after the last ice age about 4,000 years or so ago and the continent underneath all that ice is STILL rising.
As for Antarctic SEA ICE, its increasing
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
Arthur
The problem with the GRACE data is it is not corroborated by other land based measurements.
In fact the other measurements show the OPPOSITE of what GRACE is showing.
Remember, grace doesn't measure ICE, it measures GRAVITY.
When you are dealing with REMOTE SENSING the problem is to insure what you are measuring is accurate.
This has yet to be done.
So a tad bit of scepticism is in order.
Like in ALL OF THE ASSUMPTIONS that they have to make to determine these values, and then have the ERROR BARS LARGER than what they are MEASUREING, should give you pause.
The fact is a MAJOR change that is still affecting Antarctica is POST GLACIAL REBOUND, which confuses these remote gravity measurements.
Antarctica only stopped melting after the last ice age about 4,000 years or so ago and the continent underneath all that ice is STILL rising.
As for Antarctic SEA ICE, its increasing
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
Arthur
Quote
>>
Data from visual observations (about 100,000) and chemical analyses of marine water samples (several thousands) from all regions of the world's oceans were analyzed. The presence of dissolved and emulsified oil hydrocarbons in surface waters in concentrations of up to several µg/l (and in regions of increased petroleum pollution - up to several mg/l) was revealed everywhere. >>>
No sure what your problem is
Global warming is a myth, it is an artifact due to lack of cloud cover--->warming, or clear sky warming... but really no warming at all
Global Climate Change is due to petroleum oil in the marine micro-layer and this is reducing water evaporation --->lack of clouds, but also leading to Global Drought
In the hemispheres the North is melting because of rain instead of snow, the South is getting colder because the sea water there is getting more salty.
see http://omegafour.com/forum/
>>
Data from visual observations (about 100,000) and chemical analyses of marine water samples (several thousands) from all regions of the world's oceans were analyzed. The presence of dissolved and emulsified oil hydrocarbons in surface waters in concentrations of up to several µg/l (and in regions of increased petroleum pollution - up to several mg/l) was revealed everywhere. >>>
No sure what your problem is
Global warming is a myth, it is an artifact due to lack of cloud cover--->warming, or clear sky warming... but really no warming at all
Global Climate Change is due to petroleum oil in the marine micro-layer and this is reducing water evaporation --->lack of clouds, but also leading to Global Drought
In the hemispheres the North is melting because of rain instead of snow, the South is getting colder because the sea water there is getting more salty.
see http://omegafour.com/forum/
QUOTE
The fact is a MAJOR change that is still affecting Antarctica is POST GLACIAL REBOUND, which confuses these remote gravity measurements.
Which is it, then?
Are the Antarctica glaciers increasing or decreasing in size?
Sea ice doesn't count. It does not have the same effect on rebound that glacial mass would.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 27 2007, 06:38 PM)
Which is it, then?
Are the Antarctica glaciers increasing or decreasing in size?
Sea ice doesn't count. It does not have the same effect on rebound that glacial mass would.
Sea ice doesn't count, unless it is affecting other measurements.
What it does support is the fact that the majority of the continent is getting colder.
As for Glaciers, they are mainly on the Antarctic Penninsula (and some coasts).
While they represent a SMALL FRACTION of the ice pack, they ARE the most variable part of the ice (along with ice shelves).
About 4 out of 5 glaciers on the Antarctic Penninsula are shrinking, the others are expanding.
Don't know about the other coastal glaciers (haven't checked)
The continent, with its estimated 30 million cubic km of ice, has been on a 20+ year cooling trend and for the vast majority of that ice, once there it remains as the inner areas almost never get above freezing.
So, as I posted the BEST ESTIMATES from MULTIPLE land based scientists are that Antarctica is a NET SINK for water.
The REMOTE sensing of GRAVITY indicates that the mass is going down.
Which may indicate OTHER changes not know by the land based scientists are going on.
They MIGHT be due to loss of H20.
It will probably take a decade or more to determine which is right.
The difficulty is though the amount seems large, the estimate of mass loss is only 0.0005 % on an annual basis
Arthur
Ok... so it's not as cut and dry as we both first assumed, but apparently up for further analysis.
How about a 10 year bet, then?
$10 for me if it's shrinking, $10 for you if it's growing.
How about a 10 year bet, then?
$10 for me if it's shrinking, $10 for you if it's growing.
That's a Safe bet.
Your on.
Arthur
Your on.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 12:42 AM)
Sea ice doesn't count, unless it is affecting other measurements.
What it does support is the fact that the majority of the continent is getting colder.
As for Glaciers, they are mainly on the Antarctic Penninsula (and some coasts).
While they represent a SMALL FRACTION of the ice pack, they ARE the most variable part of the ice (along with ice shelves).
About 4 out of 5 glaciers on the Antarctic Penninsula are shrinking, the others are expanding.
Don't know about the other coastal glaciers (haven't checked)
The continent, with its estimated 30 million cubic km of ice, has been on a 20+ year cooling trend and for the vast majority of that ice, once there it remains as the inner areas almost never get above freezing.
So, as I posted the BEST ESTIMATES from MULTIPLE land based scientists are that Antarctica is a NET SINK for water.
The REMOTE sensing of GRAVITY indicates that the mass is going down.
Which may indicate OTHER changes not know by the land based scientists are going on.
They MIGHT be due to loss of H20.
It will probably take a decade or more to determine which is right.
The difficulty is though the amount seems large, the estimate of mass loss is only 0.0005 % on an annual basis
Arthur
Arthur:
The 36 cubic miles of ice also struck me as a minute % of the total mass. Then before I could ask - you had the answer.
Another way of thinking about the 36 cubic miles is that it amounts to 1/2" of precipitation for the continent!! This is I would guess well within the known variation in precipitation for the continent. Perhaps they are having a dry spell.
What it does support is the fact that the majority of the continent is getting colder.
As for Glaciers, they are mainly on the Antarctic Penninsula (and some coasts).
While they represent a SMALL FRACTION of the ice pack, they ARE the most variable part of the ice (along with ice shelves).
About 4 out of 5 glaciers on the Antarctic Penninsula are shrinking, the others are expanding.
Don't know about the other coastal glaciers (haven't checked)
The continent, with its estimated 30 million cubic km of ice, has been on a 20+ year cooling trend and for the vast majority of that ice, once there it remains as the inner areas almost never get above freezing.
So, as I posted the BEST ESTIMATES from MULTIPLE land based scientists are that Antarctica is a NET SINK for water.
The REMOTE sensing of GRAVITY indicates that the mass is going down.
Which may indicate OTHER changes not know by the land based scientists are going on.
They MIGHT be due to loss of H20.
It will probably take a decade or more to determine which is right.
The difficulty is though the amount seems large, the estimate of mass loss is only 0.0005 % on an annual basis
Arthur
Arthur:
The 36 cubic miles of ice also struck me as a minute % of the total mass. Then before I could ask - you had the answer.
Another way of thinking about the 36 cubic miles is that it amounts to 1/2" of precipitation for the continent!! This is I would guess well within the known variation in precipitation for the continent. Perhaps they are having a dry spell.
The issue of the ACCURACY of these satellite estimates is still a big concern.
I remember when the last IPCC report came out, a number of the Climate Scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC findings made a big deal about the fact that the IPCC had ignored the 20 years of contrary data provided by Satellites.
The position of the IPCC was the data was too new and that it was an indirect measurement of Surface Temps and so they wanted more time to insure that the satellites had the level of accuracy needed.
A lot of people felt that position was unscientific and self serving.
The Satellite data was produced by respected climatologists after all and their work was reported in peer reviewed climatology journals.
Then a group of Satellite specialists (Remote Sensing Systems) got involved and found out the climatologists had made some errors, the largest being not accounting for orbital drift (thus the temps were not taken at the same time each day which created an Artificial (but small) cooling trend in the data.
Then the climatolgists got involved and found that the RSS people had made some errors and the numbers changed again.
Last I checked the UN was referencing BOTH trends (UAH and RSS) and no one really knows which is correct (both claim theirs are).
Why?
Because NO ONE but this small group is trying to analyse the data.
There is no referee.
Which is why the whole concept of PEER REVIEW in climatology can take DECADES (if ever) to occur.
The history of these Proxy and indirect climatic measurements are LITTERED with scores of once believed data, like the infamous Mann Hockey stick, that have not held up.
So back to Antarctica, the point is the NEW satellite data, is also used as an INDIRECT way to measure ice mass changes and the apparent results disagree with the ground based measurements from a number of other researchers.
But the ground based measurements were only VERY ROUGH ESTIMATES.
Still, they were DECIDEDLY in the other direction from the Satellites.
And the much easier to measure Temp data supports the land based scientists (if most of the continent is getting colder how is the Ice mass going down?)
So which is right?
Only time will tell.
Arthur
I remember when the last IPCC report came out, a number of the Climate Scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC findings made a big deal about the fact that the IPCC had ignored the 20 years of contrary data provided by Satellites.
The position of the IPCC was the data was too new and that it was an indirect measurement of Surface Temps and so they wanted more time to insure that the satellites had the level of accuracy needed.
A lot of people felt that position was unscientific and self serving.
The Satellite data was produced by respected climatologists after all and their work was reported in peer reviewed climatology journals.
Then a group of Satellite specialists (Remote Sensing Systems) got involved and found out the climatologists had made some errors, the largest being not accounting for orbital drift (thus the temps were not taken at the same time each day which created an Artificial (but small) cooling trend in the data.
Then the climatolgists got involved and found that the RSS people had made some errors and the numbers changed again.
Last I checked the UN was referencing BOTH trends (UAH and RSS) and no one really knows which is correct (both claim theirs are).
Why?
Because NO ONE but this small group is trying to analyse the data.
There is no referee.
Which is why the whole concept of PEER REVIEW in climatology can take DECADES (if ever) to occur.
The history of these Proxy and indirect climatic measurements are LITTERED with scores of once believed data, like the infamous Mann Hockey stick, that have not held up.
So back to Antarctica, the point is the NEW satellite data, is also used as an INDIRECT way to measure ice mass changes and the apparent results disagree with the ground based measurements from a number of other researchers.
But the ground based measurements were only VERY ROUGH ESTIMATES.
Still, they were DECIDEDLY in the other direction from the Satellites.
And the much easier to measure Temp data supports the land based scientists (if most of the continent is getting colder how is the Ice mass going down?)
So which is right?
Only time will tell.
Arthur
Even a glacier that can't melt will still flow.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 28 2007, 10:29 AM)
Even a glacier that can't melt will still flow.
Yes, but it doesn't flow FASTER if the temps are going down.
Arthur
Yes, but it doesn't flow FASTER if the temps are going down.
Arthur
Is Broadcast Theory Plausible?
I have been researching global warming and noticed rather acute correlations in the historic broadcast of radio frequencies and the global rise in temperature. So this leads me to question if it is plausible to cause changes in the ionosphere that could result in temperature increase. I have been focusing my research on the properties of radio frequencies and their propagation through and refraction off the D, E, and F layers of the ionosphere. In reading studies done by the government involving beaming high powered microwaves through the ionosphere for the Solar powered Satellite (SPS) I may have gleaned insight into what could cause this. The studies show that there is no absolute threshold in terms of wattage or frequency that can cause Thermal self-focusing instability (TSI) which would cause an increase the collision of electrons and ions. In the SPS and MINIX experiments cyclotron wave instabilities were also found.
Could it be that the RF is increasing the particle collisions through a cyclotron wave instability causing the D layer of the ionosphere to have difficulty in maintaining the electron – ion balance that allows it to form water cluster ions, thus reducing its ability to filter solar radiation?
Could it be that the extra water vapor makes up the NLC’s because the increase in atomic activity doesn’t allow production of enough water cluster ions to block enough solar radiation to keep the planets temperature in check?
Without the water ion clusters is solar radiation less likely to deflect from its path toward earth?
These are the questions I think we need to ask.
The studies for the SPS system conclude that the ionosphere is highly unpredictable and can cause instabilities independent of amplitude or frequency which can result in frequency scattering and power amplification of up to 10 times. On a normal “good” day under typical ionospheric conditions with an electron density at 1012m-3 , the power flux threshold of Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) is only 0.000016. Wouldn’t it be safe to guess that on a bad day it could be 10 times as sensitive?
The ionosphere has dropped 4.8 miles in the past 38 years, NLC’s are forming in the upper mesosphere and there is lightning 10 times as strong as what we have down here which increase the instability factor by 400 according to the SPS report. Do you really think the ionosphere has had a “good day” in a really long time?
I am aware that the frequency of broadcast from a transmitting tower dissipates at the inverse square law and thus would have a minimal amount of power by the time it reaches the ionosphere. But if there is no threshold to the cause of TSI which could lead to all kinds of instabilities and the radio frequency is able to bounce with enough power to make it to our receivers, might it just be enough? If not on a localized scale like that which could have cause the short circuit in the electromagnetic balance in March 25, 1940 taking out massive amounts of telephone line and fusing parts of the power grid together, then perhaps on a global scale? A rise in temperature perhaps?
The WHO did a survey of the possible effects of the environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies and they say that broadcast transmitters represent the strongest sources of environmental radio frequencies (RF) energy. That a multitude of RF energy sources exist and all developed countries are blanketed with RF energy at highly variable levels over wide frequency ranges. Although they say they there is no basis to anticipate any environmental impacts of such fields that also say that if any exist they will be very widespread in view of the wide dissemination of the technology.
Don’t you think that the global rise in temperature might be the very basis for more studies on the widespread environmental impact of RF fields?
So I propose we as a planet do an experiment
Shutdown as much RF as we can without compromising security
for
one day
even if its only FM and VHF television broadcast
Give the sun one full rotation around the planet allowing the solar radiation to recharge the ionosphere and see if it gains altitude
In the few times in our history that broadcast transmission of RF has been hindered the temperature dropped rather quickly
I am not educated in these matters, but when all the studies done here say we don’t know enough about the instabilities in our ionosphere and we begin to see a pattern arise it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that maybe this could be happening?
Besides if it is…it would only take one day to find out
And it could save our planet
Thoughts and comments encouraged as I continue my efforts to understand the plausibility of this
Let’s put our heads together and think outside the box
I have been researching global warming and noticed rather acute correlations in the historic broadcast of radio frequencies and the global rise in temperature. So this leads me to question if it is plausible to cause changes in the ionosphere that could result in temperature increase. I have been focusing my research on the properties of radio frequencies and their propagation through and refraction off the D, E, and F layers of the ionosphere. In reading studies done by the government involving beaming high powered microwaves through the ionosphere for the Solar powered Satellite (SPS) I may have gleaned insight into what could cause this. The studies show that there is no absolute threshold in terms of wattage or frequency that can cause Thermal self-focusing instability (TSI) which would cause an increase the collision of electrons and ions. In the SPS and MINIX experiments cyclotron wave instabilities were also found.
Could it be that the RF is increasing the particle collisions through a cyclotron wave instability causing the D layer of the ionosphere to have difficulty in maintaining the electron – ion balance that allows it to form water cluster ions, thus reducing its ability to filter solar radiation?
Could it be that the extra water vapor makes up the NLC’s because the increase in atomic activity doesn’t allow production of enough water cluster ions to block enough solar radiation to keep the planets temperature in check?
Without the water ion clusters is solar radiation less likely to deflect from its path toward earth?
These are the questions I think we need to ask.
The studies for the SPS system conclude that the ionosphere is highly unpredictable and can cause instabilities independent of amplitude or frequency which can result in frequency scattering and power amplification of up to 10 times. On a normal “good” day under typical ionospheric conditions with an electron density at 1012m-3 , the power flux threshold of Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) is only 0.000016. Wouldn’t it be safe to guess that on a bad day it could be 10 times as sensitive?
The ionosphere has dropped 4.8 miles in the past 38 years, NLC’s are forming in the upper mesosphere and there is lightning 10 times as strong as what we have down here which increase the instability factor by 400 according to the SPS report. Do you really think the ionosphere has had a “good day” in a really long time?
I am aware that the frequency of broadcast from a transmitting tower dissipates at the inverse square law and thus would have a minimal amount of power by the time it reaches the ionosphere. But if there is no threshold to the cause of TSI which could lead to all kinds of instabilities and the radio frequency is able to bounce with enough power to make it to our receivers, might it just be enough? If not on a localized scale like that which could have cause the short circuit in the electromagnetic balance in March 25, 1940 taking out massive amounts of telephone line and fusing parts of the power grid together, then perhaps on a global scale? A rise in temperature perhaps?
The WHO did a survey of the possible effects of the environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies and they say that broadcast transmitters represent the strongest sources of environmental radio frequencies (RF) energy. That a multitude of RF energy sources exist and all developed countries are blanketed with RF energy at highly variable levels over wide frequency ranges. Although they say they there is no basis to anticipate any environmental impacts of such fields that also say that if any exist they will be very widespread in view of the wide dissemination of the technology.
Don’t you think that the global rise in temperature might be the very basis for more studies on the widespread environmental impact of RF fields?
So I propose we as a planet do an experiment
Shutdown as much RF as we can without compromising security
for
one day
even if its only FM and VHF television broadcast
Give the sun one full rotation around the planet allowing the solar radiation to recharge the ionosphere and see if it gains altitude
In the few times in our history that broadcast transmission of RF has been hindered the temperature dropped rather quickly
I am not educated in these matters, but when all the studies done here say we don’t know enough about the instabilities in our ionosphere and we begin to see a pattern arise it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that maybe this could be happening?
Besides if it is…it would only take one day to find out
And it could save our planet
Thoughts and comments encouraged as I continue my efforts to understand the plausibility of this
Let’s put our heads together and think outside the box
QUOTE (Ethan Clark+Mar 5 2007, 02:39 PM)
Is Broadcast Theory Plausible?
No.
You have taken two unrelated pieces of information and assumed a corelation.
No.
You have taken two unrelated pieces of information and assumed a corelation.
SOMEBODY GIVE ME AN ENVELOPE, PLEASE!
Consider a ten kilowatt radio station and we assume some efficiency of radiation pattern placing most of the beaming "near the equator" or sideways from the antenna. At a distance of one kilometer a full sphere has area 4pi km^2, so ballpark the radiation belt at 5 km^2. The radiation intensity is 0.002 watts per square meter. At a distance of ten kilometers this is reduced by three magnitudes.
Consider a ten kilowatt radio station and we assume some efficiency of radiation pattern placing most of the beaming "near the equator" or sideways from the antenna. At a distance of one kilometer a full sphere has area 4pi km^2, so ballpark the radiation belt at 5 km^2. The radiation intensity is 0.002 watts per square meter. At a distance of ten kilometers this is reduced by three magnitudes.
Sorry, I made a mistake thinking of volume when I should think of the expanding area. Thus there are two magnitudes of difference at ten times the distance.
How do I post a picture? DO I have to pay somebody or what?
QUOTE (Ethan Clark+Mar 6 2007, 03:18 PM)
How do I post a picture? DO I have to pay somebody or what?
You have been a member for a couple of weeks now, so it's probably just the number of posts you have. Once your profile stops showing you as a n00b, you should be able to post pictures and links.
You have been a member for a couple of weeks now, so it's probably just the number of posts you have. Once your profile stops showing you as a n00b, you should be able to post pictures and links.
It's called Relativistic Electron Precipitation. They discovered that radio waves can stimulate this known ozone depletion mechanism nearly 30 years ago!
QUOTE (Ethan Clark+Mar 5 2007, 01:39 AM)
Is Broadcast Theory Plausible?
I have been researching global warming and noticed rather acute correlations in the historic broadcast of radio frequencies and the global rise in temperature. So this leads me to question if it is plausible to cause changes in the ionosphere that could result in temperature increase. I have been focusing my research on the properties of radio frequencies and their propagation through and refraction off the D, E, and F layers of the ionosphere. In reading studies done by the government involving beaming high powered microwaves through the ionosphere for the Solar powered Satellite (SPS) I may have gleaned insight into what could cause this. The studies show that there is no absolute threshold in terms of wattage or frequency that can cause Thermal self-focusing instability (TSI) which would cause an increase the collision of electrons and ions. In the SPS and MINIX experiments cyclotron wave instabilities were also found.
Could it be that the RF is increasing the particle collisions through a cyclotron wave instability causing the D layer of the ionosphere to have difficulty in maintaining the electron – ion balance that allows it to form water cluster ions, thus reducing its ability to filter solar radiation?
Could it be that the extra water vapor makes up the NLC’s because the increase in atomic activity doesn’t allow production of enough water cluster ions to block enough solar radiation to keep the planets temperature in check?
Without the water ion clusters is solar radiation less likely to deflect from its path toward earth?
These are the questions I think we need to ask.
The studies for the SPS system conclude that the ionosphere is highly unpredictable and can cause instabilities independent of amplitude or frequency which can result in frequency scattering and power amplification of up to 10 times. On a normal “good” day under typical ionospheric conditions with an electron density at 1012m-3 , the power flux threshold of Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) is only 0.000016. Wouldn’t it be safe to guess that on a bad day it could be 10 times as sensitive?
The ionosphere has dropped 4.8 miles in the past 38 years, NLC’s are forming in the upper mesosphere and there is lightning 10 times as strong as what we have down here which increase the instability factor by 400 according to the SPS report. Do you really think the ionosphere has had a “good day” in a really long time?
I am aware that the frequency of broadcast from a transmitting tower dissipates at the inverse square law and thus would have a minimal amount of power by the time it reaches the ionosphere. But if there is no threshold to the cause of TSI which could lead to all kinds of instabilities and the radio frequency is able to bounce with enough power to make it to our receivers, might it just be enough? If not on a localized scale like that which could have cause the short circuit in the electromagnetic balance in March 25, 1940 taking out massive amounts of telephone line and fusing parts of the power grid together, then perhaps on a global scale? A rise in temperature perhaps?
The WHO did a survey of the possible effects of the environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies and they say that broadcast transmitters represent the strongest sources of environmental radio frequencies (RF) energy. That a multitude of RF energy sources exist and all developed countries are blanketed with RF energy at highly variable levels over wide frequency ranges. Although they say they there is no basis to anticipate any environmental impacts of such fields that also say that if any exist they will be very widespread in view of the wide dissemination of the technology.
Don’t you think that the global rise in temperature might be the very basis for more studies on the widespread environmental impact of RF fields?
So I propose we as a planet do an experiment
Shutdown as much RF as we can without compromising security
for
one day
even if its only FM and VHF television broadcast
Give the sun one full rotation around the planet allowing the solar radiation to recharge the ionosphere and see if it gains altitude
In the few times in our history that broadcast transmission of RF has been hindered the temperature dropped rather quickly
I am not educated in these matters, but when all the studies done here say we don’t know enough about the instabilities in our ionosphere and we begin to see a pattern arise it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that maybe this could be happening?
Besides if it is…it would only take one day to find out
And it could save our planet
Thoughts and comments encouraged as I continue my efforts to understand the plausibility of this
Let’s put our heads together and think outside the box
Can you tell us about yourself Ethan? Also, what effect would draining the lower atmosphere of negative ions have? I'm talking about the fair weather field. Or the upper atmosphere. I'm asking since I have a weather modification project in mind and also an electricty generation scheme.
I have been researching global warming and noticed rather acute correlations in the historic broadcast of radio frequencies and the global rise in temperature. So this leads me to question if it is plausible to cause changes in the ionosphere that could result in temperature increase. I have been focusing my research on the properties of radio frequencies and their propagation through and refraction off the D, E, and F layers of the ionosphere. In reading studies done by the government involving beaming high powered microwaves through the ionosphere for the Solar powered Satellite (SPS) I may have gleaned insight into what could cause this. The studies show that there is no absolute threshold in terms of wattage or frequency that can cause Thermal self-focusing instability (TSI) which would cause an increase the collision of electrons and ions. In the SPS and MINIX experiments cyclotron wave instabilities were also found.
Could it be that the RF is increasing the particle collisions through a cyclotron wave instability causing the D layer of the ionosphere to have difficulty in maintaining the electron – ion balance that allows it to form water cluster ions, thus reducing its ability to filter solar radiation?
Could it be that the extra water vapor makes up the NLC’s because the increase in atomic activity doesn’t allow production of enough water cluster ions to block enough solar radiation to keep the planets temperature in check?
Without the water ion clusters is solar radiation less likely to deflect from its path toward earth?
These are the questions I think we need to ask.
The studies for the SPS system conclude that the ionosphere is highly unpredictable and can cause instabilities independent of amplitude or frequency which can result in frequency scattering and power amplification of up to 10 times. On a normal “good” day under typical ionospheric conditions with an electron density at 1012m-3 , the power flux threshold of Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) is only 0.000016. Wouldn’t it be safe to guess that on a bad day it could be 10 times as sensitive?
The ionosphere has dropped 4.8 miles in the past 38 years, NLC’s are forming in the upper mesosphere and there is lightning 10 times as strong as what we have down here which increase the instability factor by 400 according to the SPS report. Do you really think the ionosphere has had a “good day” in a really long time?
I am aware that the frequency of broadcast from a transmitting tower dissipates at the inverse square law and thus would have a minimal amount of power by the time it reaches the ionosphere. But if there is no threshold to the cause of TSI which could lead to all kinds of instabilities and the radio frequency is able to bounce with enough power to make it to our receivers, might it just be enough? If not on a localized scale like that which could have cause the short circuit in the electromagnetic balance in March 25, 1940 taking out massive amounts of telephone line and fusing parts of the power grid together, then perhaps on a global scale? A rise in temperature perhaps?
The WHO did a survey of the possible effects of the environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies and they say that broadcast transmitters represent the strongest sources of environmental radio frequencies (RF) energy. That a multitude of RF energy sources exist and all developed countries are blanketed with RF energy at highly variable levels over wide frequency ranges. Although they say they there is no basis to anticipate any environmental impacts of such fields that also say that if any exist they will be very widespread in view of the wide dissemination of the technology.
Don’t you think that the global rise in temperature might be the very basis for more studies on the widespread environmental impact of RF fields?
So I propose we as a planet do an experiment
Shutdown as much RF as we can without compromising security
for
one day
even if its only FM and VHF television broadcast
Give the sun one full rotation around the planet allowing the solar radiation to recharge the ionosphere and see if it gains altitude
In the few times in our history that broadcast transmission of RF has been hindered the temperature dropped rather quickly
I am not educated in these matters, but when all the studies done here say we don’t know enough about the instabilities in our ionosphere and we begin to see a pattern arise it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that maybe this could be happening?
Besides if it is…it would only take one day to find out
And it could save our planet
Thoughts and comments encouraged as I continue my efforts to understand the plausibility of this
Let’s put our heads together and think outside the box
Can you tell us about yourself Ethan? Also, what effect would draining the lower atmosphere of negative ions have? I'm talking about the fair weather field. Or the upper atmosphere. I'm asking since I have a weather modification project in mind and also an electricty generation scheme.
QUOTE (Ethan Clark+Mar 6 2007, 02:18 AM)
How do I post a picture? DO I have to pay somebody or what?
I could help you post a picture.
I could help you post a picture.
This is the last time I will attempt to respond to this. Three times, I have responded with a reply, and it was deleted. Unless you want a formal journalistic complaint, stop playing with me. My comments were open source (not classified), and polite) I don't have a sense of humor, not any more!
Good stuff on God Ethan, it seems that you understand him, just a little?
Im sorry on controlling the background.
Where this is emanating from, is from control devices, at the center of the galaxy.
Im sorry on controlling the background.
Where this is emanating from, is from control devices, at the center of the galaxy.
05.15.07
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingat...c-20070515.html
"
A team of NASA and university scientists has found clear evidence that extensive areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures. This was the first widespread Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA's QuikScat satellite and the most significant melt observed using satellites during the past three decades. Combined, the affected regions encompassed an area as big as California.
Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Konrad Steffen, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, led the team. Using data from QuikScat, they measured snowfall accumulation and melt in Antarctica and Greenland from July 1999 through July 2005. "
"Nghiem said while no further melting had been detected through March 2007, more monitoring is needed. "Satellite scatterometry is like an X-ray that sees through snow and finds ice layers beneath as early as possible," he said. "It is vital we continue monitoring this region to determine if a long-term trend may be developing." "
And also.
" The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia. Arctic Study Researchers haul a buoy across the Arctic sea ice in August, led by two Coast Guard crew whose job was to ward off polar bears or rescue anyone who slipped into the sea. Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates. "
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html
So yeah, i think it will melt :) but the real danger will come from those underground tunnels that undermine the stability of the ice above. If the ice on land fractures and start to glide :) it will accelerate above any calculations made yet.
And if you're seriously interested you could read this too :)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-19-06.asp
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingat...c-20070515.html
"
A team of NASA and university scientists has found clear evidence that extensive areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures. This was the first widespread Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA's QuikScat satellite and the most significant melt observed using satellites during the past three decades. Combined, the affected regions encompassed an area as big as California.
Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Konrad Steffen, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, led the team. Using data from QuikScat, they measured snowfall accumulation and melt in Antarctica and Greenland from July 1999 through July 2005. "
"Nghiem said while no further melting had been detected through March 2007, more monitoring is needed. "Satellite scatterometry is like an X-ray that sees through snow and finds ice layers beneath as early as possible," he said. "It is vital we continue monitoring this region to determine if a long-term trend may be developing." "
And also.
" The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia. Arctic Study Researchers haul a buoy across the Arctic sea ice in August, led by two Coast Guard crew whose job was to ward off polar bears or rescue anyone who slipped into the sea. Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates. "
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html
So yeah, i think it will melt :) but the real danger will come from those underground tunnels that undermine the stability of the ice above. If the ice on land fractures and start to glide :) it will accelerate above any calculations made yet.
And if you're seriously interested you could read this too :)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-19-06.asp
QUOTE (philip347+Oct 9 2007, 10:40 AM)
Where this is emanating from, is from control devices, at the center of the galaxy.
We are doing OK controlling you with subliminal messages 
We are doing OK controlling you with subliminal messages
Ethan' you there...? I was not making fun, by devices, I mean how the galaxy works.
QUOTE
We're gonna need a bigger supply of TIN FOIL HATS.
ROFL!
And in answer to your question, the other lunatics.
Don't fully understand all this by way so my post only relates to that which I quoted no reflection on the true topic discussion.
[QUOTE] Ethan Clarc -I think I solved Global warming from up but there is another ideThe chronology of [changes] on a planet which includes phases three phases
- I –warming up began from the centre of a planet, in process of increase in diameter of magma up to size 10-11 thousands km the nucleus of a planet began to cool down ,
- diameter of magma continued to increase and over 11 thousand km there was break Ms ( the firm shell of a planet) and divergence of continents –so there were conditions for the beginning processes of III natural phenomenon;
- II—on the background of the further reduction of thickness Ms have processes 10 cycles of III natural phenomenon , when diameter of magma has achieved size over 12 thousand km that after processes (a-
and (b-b’) Ms could not return to stationary position of period Zp’—and processes of III natural phenomenon have stopped;
- III—for time (b’-c) mountain tops have again become covered by glaciers and the level of Ocean has down on ~20 m ,the further increase in diameter of magma has caused time stabilization of weight an ice dome of Antarctica and level of Ocean in a point –the further course of events on continents depends on amount of fragments which provide the increase in diameter of magma and here not examined
- The brief resume of changes in three phases –
- II—on a site www.mammoths.narod.ru are proved [changes] on continents with which processes of natural phenomenon were accompanied during a full cycle ,Dynamic model-the software allowing demonstration of these changes on continents during a full cycle; time parameters of processes allow to determined real time when was break Ms and divergence of continents (withing the limits of 400-500 thousand years)and consequently speed of change of diameter of magma for 10 cycles
- I—in general to restore a geographical kind of a planet(to join continents) when mountains from Black sea up to Pacific ocean were absent, that is a consequences of various position Ms concerning an axis of rotation of nucleus the Earth and magma during 10 cycles
- III—the civilization of period Z has an opportunity to simulate processes (thermal, mechanical)in system of mass: the firm nucleus of planet/magma/Ms-taking into account changes of a aggregate status of these components in time –restoration of a real events of the past during II phase will allow to predict the further events of the future taking into account changes of parameters Ms; site Dynamic model necessary for considering in context of the three phases-
a warming from the inside-
- I –warming up began from the centre of a planet, in process of increase in diameter of magma up to size 10-11 thousands km the nucleus of a planet began to cool down ,
- diameter of magma continued to increase and over 11 thousand km there was break Ms ( the firm shell of a planet) and divergence of continents –so there were conditions for the beginning processes of III natural phenomenon;
- II—on the background of the further reduction of thickness Ms have processes 10 cycles of III natural phenomenon , when diameter of magma has achieved size over 12 thousand km that after processes (a-
and (b-b’) Ms could not return to stationary position of period Zp’—and processes of III natural phenomenon have stopped;- III—for time (b’-c) mountain tops have again become covered by glaciers and the level of Ocean has down on ~20 m ,the further increase in diameter of magma has caused time stabilization of weight an ice dome of Antarctica and level of Ocean in a point –the further course of events on continents depends on amount of fragments which provide the increase in diameter of magma and here not examined
- The brief resume of changes in three phases –
- II—on a site www.mammoths.narod.ru are proved [changes] on continents with which processes of natural phenomenon were accompanied during a full cycle ,Dynamic model-the software allowing demonstration of these changes on continents during a full cycle; time parameters of processes allow to determined real time when was break Ms and divergence of continents (withing the limits of 400-500 thousand years)and consequently speed of change of diameter of magma for 10 cycles
- I—in general to restore a geographical kind of a planet(to join continents) when mountains from Black sea up to Pacific ocean were absent, that is a consequences of various position Ms concerning an axis of rotation of nucleus the Earth and magma during 10 cycles
- III—the civilization of period Z has an opportunity to simulate processes (thermal, mechanical)in system of mass: the firm nucleus of planet/magma/Ms-taking into account changes of a aggregate status of these components in time –restoration of a real events of the past during II phase will allow to predict the further events of the future taking into account changes of parameters Ms; site Dynamic model necessary for considering in context of the three phases-
a warming from the inside-
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.