Earth will manage to get hotter

Isn't denial such a wonderful faith-based thing. I think such denial
and otherwise evidence exclusion was also a little pesky problem of
Hitler's, as well as being one of the problems with our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush).
-
Brad Guth

Hagar wrote:

Astronomers just discovered that Mars and even remote Neptune are warming
at about the same rate as god ole mother Earth.

Why do you idiots keep repeating canards like this? It's been thoroughly
debunked.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Hagar wrote:

Astronomers just discovered that Mars and even remote Neptune are warming
at about the same rate as god ole mother Earth.

Why do you idiots keep repeating canards like this? It's been thoroughly
debunked.

Paul

Because other idiots, claiming scientific evidence, are posting it all over
the news, idiot.

T Wake wrote:

["..."] Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of
variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical
significance. [..."]

In other words, 'the mathematics says we can't draw this
conclusion, but we will anyway'.

Yes :-)

Hey look, it's an honest kook!

Changes in the solar constant can be ruled out as a cause
of the recently observed warming, btw.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Hagar wrote:

Astronomers just discovered that Mars and even remote Neptune are
warming at about the same rate as god ole mother Earth.

Why do you idiots keep repeating canards like this? It's been thoroughly
debunked.

Because other idiots, claiming scientific evidence, are posting it all
over the news, idiot.

The site you linked to was hardly what could be called a "news" site and it
is interesting that most of the commenters there (and you) seem to have
picked up on one aspect of the study while nicely ignoring the rest.

Ironic really, isn't it... You may want to look over
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/ as well. The science is
reasonably easy for most people to get a handle on.

On May 16, 11:01 am, BradGuth wrote:
The future of *what if* is actually right here and now, as mostly
happening below our two left feet and otherwise in front of our
dumbfounded eyes.

Using our moon as the ultimate shade of our salvation, over sufficient
time and without the human footprint of soot and many other nasty/
toxic contributions, -22.5 w/m2 should by rights bring on one of those
ice ages. However, along with our human soot and thereby of our
continued global dimming (by perhaps yet another percentage point)
that's worth 6.85 w/m2, plus tossing in the added 100 teraWatts of
artificially produced energy should further offset the onset of cold
by another .1956 w/m2, making our new and improved future along with
our (6.85 + 0.1956) = 7.0456 w/m2 as based upon our nifty contribution
of having expanded our oceans, plus much other atmospheric soot and
having introduced those 100 teraWatts into creating a the improved
global thermal budget end result of accomplishing -15.454 w/m2, which
should be just a few watts/m2 short of bringing on that full-blown ice
age.

In other words, with that moon parked at Earth's L1 we'd have
ourselves shade to burn (sort of speak), along with no future shortage
of those winter Olympic locations, as well as we'd have much fewer of
those lethal storms, fewer and less extensive forest fires, and lots
of those badly GW traumatised polar bares and other polar realm
dependent species that should very much thank us.

Of course once again, this perfectly deductive analogy of "what if" is
yet another ideal computer simulation of 3D worthy animation, that
which any supercomputer worth its parallel CPU salt can give us most
all of those matter of fact answers, of whatever these "what ifs" have
to contribute to our future of somehow getting us by as is w/o
relocating our moon, or that of the new and improved results as
artificially created by way of having relocated that moon of ours out
to Earth's L1.

Naturally, those future moon expedition missions for obtaining the
likes of He3 and many other raw elements will end up taking us four
times as long for the to/from commute, but that's a small price to pay
for the salvation of Earth, wouldn't you say!

BTW; a mostly robotic established moon observatory, or simply
utilized as the secondary S-band signal reflector, or whatever radar
image receiving aperture, on behalf of an Earth based or even the
moon--L1--Earth radar imaging alternative, should by rights get
rather impressive, as we'd have the total solar isolation of the
moon's L1 that's facing Earth to accommodate my LSE-CM/ISS w/tether
dipole element reaching to within 2r of Earth (a bit closer if you'd
dare), as well as having the combined *(Earth+moon L2)-- sol L1* for
accomplishing a whole lot better solar related science. Again, all of
that being within the existing supercomputer expertise of telling us
exactly those sorts of "what if" matter of hard facts.
-BradGuth

Relocating our moon from its existing orbit, out to being parked
within the orbit of Earth's L1 is an all around win-win for everything
and everyone on Earth, although at least half the moon is going to
become a little worse off (sorry about that).

At accomplishing this tidal moderation, of what should become worth
slightly more than half of our existing tidal forced situation, as
such is going to extensively moderate the amount of this orbiting
mascon energy that's unavoidably converting into various forms of
terrestrial friction, and thus into creating heat, not to mention the
little reduction in reflected and secondary IR/FIR that's derived from
our moon that will obviously no longer exist.

The amount of shade or solar isolation created by way of having our
moon at Earth's L1 is of course the primary benefit, whereas of my
best swag thus far suggesting that it'll essentially cause a global
insolation reduction of -22.5 watts/m2. According to many other forms
and expertise of global warming research, that's offering us a
compensation worth of better than three times the amount estimated as
the surplus or excess of energy that's being supposedly responsible
for having created our environment's recent past, existing and
continually warming situation, that's not looking good if you happen
to be made of ice or otherwise manage to survive because of snow and
ice.
-
Brad Guth

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:iG_2i.58095$n_.52008@attbi_s21...
Hagar wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Hagar wrote:

Astronomers just discovered that Mars and even remote Neptune are
warming at about the same rate as god ole mother Earth.
Why do you idiots keep repeating canards like this? It's been
thoroughly
debunked.

Paul

Because other idiots, claiming scientific evidence, are posting it all
over the news, idiot.

Please cite evidence for "at about the same rate"!

If you squint a bit then ignore inconsistencies and differences, the data
from the Neptune study could be loosely described as "about" the same rate.
The fact is though, it isn't.

"kT" wrote in message
...
T Wake wrote:

["..."] Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns
of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal
statistical significance. [..."]

In other words, 'the mathematics says we can't draw this
conclusion, but we will anyway'.

Yes :-)

Hey look, it's an honest kook!

Thank you.

Hagar wrote:

Because other idiots, claiming scientific evidence, are posting it all over
the news, idiot.

I really hope you show more sense running your own life than you
do with this subject. You're a very gullible and stupid person.

Paul

PS: Ok, I lied about the 'really hope' part.

Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)

Relocating our moon from its existing orbit, that's simply cruising a
little too close for our confort zone, out to being parked within the
orbit of Earth's L1, is an all around win-win for everything and
everyone on Earth, although at least half the moon is going to become
a little worse off (sorry about that, it can't be helped).

This is not an overnight or even a decade worthy consideration, but
more than likely a century worth of applied physics on behalf of
migrating 7.35e22 kg away from it's existing orbit. Trust me, it's
going to be so much easier said than done.

Accomplishing this environmental salvaging task on behalf of achieving
tidal moderation, of what should become worth slightly more than half
of our existing tidal forced situation, as such is going to
extensively moderate the amount of this orbiting mascon energy that's
unavoidably converted into various forms of terrestrial friction, and
thus into creating internal and surface heat, and that's not to
mention our accomplishing the little further reduction in reflected
and secondary IR/FIR energy that's currently derived from our
physically dark moon, will obviously no longer exist once that moon is
situated at Earth's L1.

The amount of shade or solar isolation created by way of having our
moon at Earth's L1 is of course the primary goal and direct benefit,
whereas of my best swag thus far is suggesting that it'll essentially
cause a global insolation reduction of -22.5 watts/m2. According to
many others and the expertise of their global warming research, that
-22.5 w/m2 is capable of offering us a thermal offest of global
warming compensation worth better than three times the amount
estimated as in surplus or excess of energy that's supposedly
responsible for having created our environment's recent past, existing
and continually warming situation, and that's not looking good if you
happen to be made of ice or otherwise manage to survive best because
of snow and ice.
-
Brad Guth