Re: Another (unexpected) result of Global Warming.
- From: BradGuth <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:02:05 -0800 (PST)
On Oct 31, 3:51 pm, blacklight <i...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I came across this notice in New Scientist Aug.22/2009:
-if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were to double by 2100, the
expansion of the warmer oceans would shift the Earth’s spin axis by
roughly 1.5cm per year (taken from Geographical Research Letters, DOI:
10.1029/2009GL039692)-
At present Earth’s axis nods 23.4° towards the plane at which we spin
around the sun. An increase of this angle would increase the seasonal
differences on Earth - hotter summers, colder winters. A decrease
would have the opposite effect.
Klaus and Rusty (the dog)http://www.oz-greetings.com.au
Nature Wilderness Science
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf
Planet orbit, seasonal tilt and solar variances of +/- 0.1% are not
what’s making us hotter by those amounts required, nor do these
factors individually or combined remotely match up to any 100,000
year, 41,000 year and then 25,000 year ice age cycles as we take this
“oriel36” mainstream perpetrated hoax analogy back in time.
On Oct 31, 10:45 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Look, Brad, another kosher Republican.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf
If we're currently missing out on 3 w/m2, then where exactly are those
hidden new volumes of slow ice?
If on average we’re getting colder, then why's the atmosphere holding
a greater saturation of water? (shouldn't it be the other way around?)
Earth absorbs roughly 65% because it supposedly reflects roughly 35%.
(obviously it has to reflect or expel 100%, as otherwise Earth would
have melted long ago)
5.1e14 m2 x 3 w/m2 /2 = 7.65e14 watts x .65 = 497 TW of solar energy
that our environment is supposedly missing. (??? really, honest to
God ???)
So, where's this Republican and otherwise kosher approved cache of
terrestrial cold build up, of all 497 TW/hr worth of that nifty slow
ice? (perhaps it’s hidden along with all those Muslim WMD and OBL?)
On other words, how much slow ice can even 1% of 497 TW/hr (5 TW/hr)
create? (especially if it’s supposedly only getting colder to start
with)
How much of this solar (+/- 0.1%) energy on the long haul actually
sticks with Earth? (how about none), because doesn't that pesky law of
(energy in) always have to equal (energy out), or else?
Is this solar energy otherwise creating/contributing invisible mass
(more than Earth has been losing)?
Other than our sun and its +/- 0.1% flux, what else has been
contributing or extracting energy to/from our environment? (our Selene/
moon comes to mind, and Sirius isn’t exactly out of the loop)
If we could manage to convert <0.0000001% of Earth into energy each
and every year (5,974e9 tonnes, or 885 tonnes/yr per person), doesn't
that ongoing rate of human consumption/conversion ever count for
anything?
http://tinyurl.com/n92dlp
And those previous 41,000 year cycles are somehow explained as well as
those previous 25,000 year ice-age cycles, as somehow covered by this
supposed 100,000 year elliptical distorted trek that has us associated
with our passive (+/- 0.1%) sun?
If we're currently 0.2% down from the peak of solar irradiance, then
why on average is the entire globe and our artificially polluted
environment getting wetter and otherwise still thawing out from the
last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see?
If your kosher republican GC(global cooling) science was even 50%
correct, then shouldn’t we already have been measurably well into the
next ice age?
With global energy reserves nearing an all time minimum per human, and
otherwise getting downright spendy and/or bloody as hell; how exactly
is the vast bulk of humanity and most other aspects of our global
biodiversity going to survive this supposed next deep-freeze ice age
cycle that you kosher republicans claim is unavoidably under way?
Are you also suggesting the commercial, industrial and public mass
consumption of fresh water also has nothing whatsoever to do with
having modified our environment or the affordable availability of
humanly safe fresh water? (it seems many previously reliable sources
of fresh water are either gone entirely, badly depleted and/or
polluted)
Are you folks also into suggesting that acidic and toxic saturated
fresh water, as well as the 250,000 km2 of ocean dead zones is
perfectly natural?
Can you list what cycles of whatever’s on Earth that are unnatural, or
otherwise merely neutral if not actually good for the environment?
Are any of you Republicans and kosher faith-based approved freaks
further suggesting, that if we should manage to lose 90% of Earth’s
biodiversity, that somehow this outcome would be another good thing?
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
.
- References:
- Another (unexpected) result of Global Warming.
- From: blacklight
- Another (unexpected) result of Global Warming.
- Prev by Date: Some urgency is needed
- Next by Date: Re: What makes the U.S. so unique? (Not a political post)
- Previous by thread: Re: Another (unexpected) result of Global Warming.
- Next by thread: Some urgency is needed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
