Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Dec 15, 11:15*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:45 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:28 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

* *The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
* *precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
* *formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
* *crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation..

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. *Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...ePainting.html

http://www.ephemeris.com/history/prehistoric.html

Finding these descriptions of cave paintings of the Moon took two minutes
in Google

YES, as in up to 12000 BP, but apparently not before. *What part of
reading comperhension-101 didn't you get a passing grade in?

Are you suggesting that humans earlier than 12500 BP were simply too
dumbfounded to notice our moon?

So, the 15,000 BCE (17,000 BP) glacial maximum was a part of an
extended era of 100% cloud cover, with only dumbfounded idiots as ape
like humans hunkered into deep caves?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

The tidal record in rhythmites goes back 30 gigayears showing that the Moon
has been there that long.

That should be 3.0 gigayears (typo on small phone)

As long as we've had a sun and Earth rotated, we've had tides having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any moon.

BTW, at half the distance and presumably moving along at near 2 km/
sec, those tidal forces would have been nearly ripping those thin
crustal plates up like throw rugs, and otherwise with ocean tides
perhaps 8 to 16 fold greater than what we see today.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

Both the period if the tides and the day length can be calculated. They
were lunar not solar.
Latest work shows that the Moon was never more than 20% closer than it is
now.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted. In other words,
outside of those mainstream status-quo approved simulations, you've
got nothing that goes back much past 12,500 BP, if that much.

What happens to our early planet if a few near misses by a 7.5e22 kg
icy planetoid took place within 10r?

Can you run a few simulations for us, using various NEO distances?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:15 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:45 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:28 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...ePainting.html

http://www.ephemeris.com/history/prehistoric.html

Finding these descriptions of cave paintings of the Moon took two minutes
in Google

YES, as in up to 12000 BP, but apparently not before. What part of
reading comperhension-101 didn't you get a passing grade in?

Are you suggesting that humans earlier than 12500 BP were simply too
dumbfounded to notice our moon?

So, the 15,000 BCE (17,000 BP) glacial maximum was a part of an
extended era of 100% cloud cover, with only dumbfounded idiots as ape
like humans hunkered into deep caves?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

The tidal record in rhythmites goes back 30 gigayears showing that the Moon
has been there that long.

That should be 3.0 gigayears (typo on small phone)

As long as we've had a sun and Earth rotated, we've had tides having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any moon.

BTW, at half the distance and presumably moving along at near 2 km/
sec, those tidal forces would have been nearly ripping those thin
crustal plates up like throw rugs, and otherwise with ocean tides
perhaps 8 to 16 fold greater than what we see today.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

Both the period if the tides and the day length can be calculated. They
were lunar not solar.
Latest work shows that the Moon was never more than 20% closer than it is
now.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted. In other words,
outside of those mainstream status-quo approved simulations, you've
got nothing that goes back much past 12,500 BP, if that much.

What happens to our early planet if a few near misses by a 7.5e22 kg
icy planetoid took place within 10r?

Can you run a few simulations for us, using various NEO distances?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

Pretend-atheist Brad Guth who supports religious nutter Ed Conrad is
incapable of understanding that science is a matter of fact not fancy.
The reason mainstream science is mainstream is that generally it is right.
Your personal religion of Sirius and Venus worship is ludicrous but more
ludicrous than any of your other views.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
the Clown.
Carl Sagan

On 12/6/2011 9:46 AM, wrote:
In ,
says...

"Paul wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:52:43 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
[snip]
I don't suppose you know how the frequency of "extreme weather
events" is calculated, do you?

That's easy too: choose a time interval, count the number of severe
weather events and divide by the time interval. A hypothetical example:
suppose you count 72 tornadoes or other extreme weather events during 3
years, then the frequency of severe weather events would be 72/3 = 24
severe weather events per year during this three year period.

So I pick one day back in April, when there were 9 tornado touchdowns
in this county in one day. This gives 9 severe weather events per day
for this county, or 3287.26 per year. I haven't heard of very large
numbers of people planning to move out of the county due to this.

Maybe those of you interested in climate would like to have your
computers attached to a BOINC project aimed at calculations for
modelling the climate, in order to check if any of the possible
models give reasonable predictions for the next century:

http://climateprediction.net/

Note - each workunit takes months to run. However, it's intended
to run in the background on your computer, with little disturbance to
other uses of your computer.

Robert Miles

I don't suppose you know how the frequency of "extreme weather
events" is calculated, do you?

That's easy too: choose a time interval, count the number of severe
weather events


What is a severe weather event? How is it defined?


and divide by the time interval. A hypothetical example:
suppose you count 72 tornadoes or other extreme weather events during 3
years, then the frequency of severe weather events would be 72/3 = 24
severe weather events per year during this three year period.



"or other extreme weather events" ?

What are they?


I have heard that this is going to increase as well, if
somebody here knows I would be interested. And if you don't actually
know,
I'm not asking anybody to look it up for me or anything like that, its
just
if you happen to know.



--
Paul Schlyter
Grev Turegatan 40, SE-11438 Stockholm
Email:
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se

On 1/7/12 7:42 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
What is a severe weather event? How is it defined?
What are they?

Background about extreme weather for Peter.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/.../extremes.html

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/7/12 7:42 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
What is a severe weather event? How is it defined?
What are they?

Background about extreme weather for Peter.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/.../extremes.html

So this site doesn't bother defining what it is talking about either.

Do you know what a "severe weather event" is? Is it the same thing as an
"extreme weather event" ?

If so, can you define an "extreme weather event" for us?

(You use the term; presumably you know what it means.)

On Jan 8, 5:59*am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
snip the usual repetitive drivel

I have discovered a new green lifestyle choice. One which eschews even
the usual recommendation of "low energy" bulbs. I leave the curtains
undrawn and rely on available light from my neighbours' exterior light
leakage. None of whom lives within 100 yards. Are all young people so
afraid of the rural dark? So much so that they need to leave their
outside lights on all day? Do they fear their woodpiles will suffer
similarly to themselves? ;-)

On Dec 10 2011, 2:38*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/10/11 4:32 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 10, 12:39 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 12/10/11 1:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 7, 4:14 pm, Sam * *wrote:

* * *I don't ever remember reading about any solar wind effects on
* * *Mercury's orbit.

That solar wind isn't making our moon go around us faster and faster,
is it?

Do halo CMEs on average make the moon orbit faster?

* * Calculate the effect of a direct CME on the orbit of the Moon, Brad!

Since you didn't answer, you parrots obviously don't know.

* *Essentially none!

Is "essentially none" a qualified scientific term?

Doesn't it kind of depend where the moon is when encountering the
added mass and velocity from a given nasty halo CME?

On Dec 15 2011, 3:28*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:28 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

* *The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
* *precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
* *formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
* *crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. *Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...ePainting.html

http://www.ephemeris.com/history/prehistoric.html

Finding these descriptions of cave paintings of the Moon took two minutes
in Google

YES, as in up to 12000 BP, but apparently not before. *What part of
reading comperhension-101 didn't you get a passing grade in?

Are you suggesting that humans earlier than 12500 BP were simply too
dumbfounded to notice our moon?

So, the 15,000 BCE (17,000 BP) glacial maximum was a part of an
extended era of 100% cloud cover, with only dumbfounded idiots as ape
like humans hunkered into deep caves?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

The tidal record in rhythmites goes back 30 gigayears showing that the Moon
has been there that long.

You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological
dating. Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less
than 12,000 years ago.

On Dec 13 2011, 9:30*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/13/11 11:21 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

Not made the least bit darker according to your NASA/Apollo and their
rad-hard Kodak film era, and supposedly they even utilized a polarized
optical filter in order to further darken surface glare (guess it
didn’t work all 6 times).

* *What's your evidence that a polarizing filter was used. The moon's
* *surface has no need of a polarizing filter.
* * *http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm

It was clearly specified as inventory and as having been utilized by
most of their camera lens combinations.

Are you saying that photons from our sun were not the least bit
polarized?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”