A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Major analysis confirms global warming is real



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old January 9th 12, 03:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On 1/9/12 1:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 13 2011, 9:30 am, Sam 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?


Perhaps Brad does not understand processes that cause polarization
of light. :-o
  #552  
Old January 9th 12, 04:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

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.


A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back
hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal
patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the
length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital
period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past).
  #553  
Old January 10th 12, 02:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
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.


A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back
hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal
patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the
length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital
period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past).


That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking
on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on
your part).

When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you
please)

When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you
please)

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #554  
Old January 10th 12, 03:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Jan 9, 6:37*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/9/12 1:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 13 2011, 9:30 am, Sam *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?


* *Perhaps Brad does not understand processes that cause polarization
* *of light. *:-o


Are you saying the moon doesn't have a sodium atmosphere, among
several other lofty elements?

Where exactly are those NASA/Apollo science records pertaining to
polarized light outside of Earth's atmosphere?

Since when are images from LEO or from other science missions not
having to deal with polarized illumination issues, plus metallicity
colors none the less?

"Shining with light from the central star reflected by dust, the
frigid Boomerang Nebula is believed to be a star or stellar system
evolving toward the planetary nebula phase. This Hubble image was
recorded using polarizing filters (analogous to polaroid sunglasses)
and color coded by the angle associated with the polarized light. The
gorgeous result traces the small dust particles responsible for
polarizing and scattering the light. The Boomerang Nebula spans about
one light year and lies about 5,000 light years away toward the
constellation Centaurus."

"By studying polarized light from the Egg Nebula, scientists can tell
a lot about the physical properties of the material responsible for
the scattering, as well as the precise location of the central
(hidden) star. The fine dust is largely carbon, manufactured by
nuclear fusion in the heart of the star and then ejected into space as
the star sheds material. Such dust grains are essential ingredients
for building dusty disks around future generations of young stars, and
possibly in the formation of planets around those stars."

Need I look any further?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #555  
Old January 10th 12, 03:40 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Jan 9, 5:54*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth


wrote:
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.


A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back
hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal
patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the
length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital
period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past).


That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking
on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on
your part).

When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you
please)

When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you
please)

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


When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it?
(to the exact year if you please)

Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary
rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally
subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these...

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...HT_thesis..pdf

http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract

.... you call these subjective?

Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put
your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion...

\Paul A
  #556  
Old January 10th 12, 05:35 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Jan 9, 6:40*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jan 9, wrote:









On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:


On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST),BradGuth


wrote:
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.


A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back
hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal
patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the
length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital
period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past).


That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking
on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on
your part).


When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you
please)


When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you
please)


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


When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it?
(to the exact year if you please)

Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary
rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally
subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these...

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...sis/tides_CHT_...

http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract

... you call these subjective?

Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put
your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion...

\Paul A


Birds of a feather, two peas in a pod. Get where I'm going with this?

That moon (aka planetoid Selene) was most likely captured.

NASA/Apollo science is either bogus or made to fit your pathetic
closed mindset.

The fact that you can not deal with having been snookered and
dumbfounded past the point of no return is not my problem. Perhaps
you should have been standing in the top floors of those WTC buildings
as of that morning of 9/11, as you trusted your government to have
never lied, obfuscated or having ever done a very bad thing.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #557  
Old January 10th 12, 06:16 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Dec 7 2011, 6:14*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:28 pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 7, 4:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

...
It's about 80 Megatons/day, that is the power transferred to the moon,
cuz the Earth's rotation is slowing ~.0018 secs/century.
I published a calculation on that if you really need it, I could find
it, it's online.
Regards
Ken


Thanks a *bunch, Ken


You're welcome Brad.
Though it sounds anti-intuitive, tidal power induced into the Earth
from
the Moon (& Sun) reduces Earth's rotation rate, thus Angular Momentum
and Angular Energy, but the A.M. needs to conserved so the Moon
receeds
currently at ~ 3.8 cm/year from Earth to conserve A.M.
Here's a brief calculation I found...
================================
I figure 70 Megatons refers to the amount of
TNT energy the moon transfers to the earth in
one day, by tidal action.

Given that the moon is receeding from the
Earth at 3.8 cm/year, as best determined
by laser ranging, and assuming the moon
isn't contracting, or the Earth isn't expanding,
we balanced the Angular Momentum *(A.M.)
and found the Earth's day to be increasing by
0.0018 seconds/century, in order to conserve
Earth-moon system A.M.

* At this rate, we have calculated a net energy
of 26,000 Megatons equivalent of TNT is
placed into the Earth's lithosphere and crust
per year, or about 70 megatons per day.

* Of course, the Angular Energy must be
conserved as well. This amounts to only about
5 milliwatts/meter^2, but it integrates in effect.
((earthquakes etc.))
* *The tidal force from moon's gravity creates
variable torque forces on earth's lithosphere.

* Some interplanetary geological theory....
This in turn creates a *curl field* that causes
tectonic current, something not in evidence in
Venus, but should have been if the circulation
is caused by convection. (ie. radio-isotopes).
* *We conclude the moon is mainly responsible
for tectonic and seismic action in and on Earth.

Reference equations,

Moment of inertial for a sphere with constant density,
* * * I = 2/5 M R^2.
Radians /sec *= w.
Angular Momentum, *AM = I w.
Angular Energy AE = 1/2 I w^2.

Mass (earth) = 6*10^24 kgrams
Mass (moon) = 0.012 Earth's

1 kgram TNT = 4.2 Mjoules

I'm wondering if 70 megatons is within +/- 10% of
the answer., but it's a bit low if the Sun is figured in.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt11


1 ton of TNT = 4.184e9 J

70e6 * 4.184e9 = 2.93e17 Joules = 81.4e12 watts (sounds about right to
me if it were per hour in order to include the global heating via
modulation)

I believe most of the volumetric ice melt is taking place from the
bottom up.

Considering that our planet receives 4.15e18 watts per day of solar
influx is why the moon even at 1.954e15 watts per day isn’t such a big
deal, although it is always adding this energy rather than cooling us
off.

I've had the moon worth 64e12 watts per hour, but your number is
certainly within the ballpark as long as it's per hour instead of per
day in order to include global heating via tidal forces.

  #558  
Old January 10th 12, 07:26 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Jan 9, 8:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:40*pm, palsing wrote:









On Jan 9, wrote:


On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:


On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST),BradGuth


wrote:
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.


A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back
hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal
patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the
length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital
period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past).


That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking
on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on
your part).


When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you
please)


When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you
please)


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


When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it?
(to the exact year if you please)


Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary
rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally
subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these...


http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm


http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...sis/tides_CHT_...


http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract


... you call these subjective?


Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put
your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion...


\Paul A


Birds of a feather, two peas in a pod. *Get where I'm going with this?


I doubt that even you know where you are going with this...

That moon (aka planetoid Selene) was most likely captured


I believe that most astronomers today would disagree with you about
this, the capture theory has fallen into disfavor.

NASA/Apollo science is either bogus or made to fit your pathetic
closed mindset.


I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out...

The fact that you can not deal with having been snookered and
dumbfounded past the point of no return is not my problem.


Again, lay off the grass for a while, it's making you paranoid...

Perhaps
you should have been standing in the top floors of those WTC buildings
as of that morning of 9/11, as you trusted your government to have
never lied, obfuscated or having ever done a very bad thing.


WTF is that supposed to mean?
  #559  
Old January 10th 12, 08:41 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Earth Moon tidal power transfer.

On Jan 9, 10:26*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jan 9, 8:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 9, 6:40*pm, palsing wrote:


On Jan 9, wrote:


On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:


On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST),BradGuth


wrote:
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.


A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back
hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal
patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the
length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital
period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past).


That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking
on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on
your part).


When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you
please)


When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you
please)


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


When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it?
(to the exact year if you please)


Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary
rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally
subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these...


http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm


http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...sis/tides_CHT_....


http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract


... you call these subjective?


Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put
your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion...


\Paul A


Birds of a feather, two peas in a pod. *Get where I'm going with this?


I doubt that even you know where you are going with this...

That moon (aka planetoid Selene) was most likely captured


I believe that most astronomers today would disagree with you about
this, the capture theory has fallen into disfavor.

NASA/Apollo science is either bogus or made to fit your pathetic
closed mindset.


I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out...

The fact that you can not deal with having been snookered and
dumbfounded past the point of no return is not my problem.


Again, lay off the grass for a while, it's making you paranoid...

Perhaps
you should have been standing in the top floors of those WTC buildings
as of that morning of 9/11, as you trusted your government to have
never lied, obfuscated or having ever done a very bad thing.


WTF is that supposed to mean?


You obviously trust whatever our government agencies have to say,
about everything. Good luck with that.
  #560  
Old January 20th 12, 12:45 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

From sci space news
Jan. 19, 2012
Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0918


Leslie McCarthy Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York 212-678-5507


RELEASE: 12-020

NASA FINDS 2011 NINTH WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD

WASHINGTON -- The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth
warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a
trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological
record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which
monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an
updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared
to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison
shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several
decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92
degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said
GISS director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward
higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Nina
influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one
of the 10 warmest years on record."

The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record
(2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists
put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large
natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to
rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing
temperature rise over decades.

The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher
temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The
only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is
1998.

Higher temperatures today are largely sustained by increased atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. These gases
absorb infrared radiation emitted by Earth and release that energy into the
atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space. As their atmospheric
concentration has increased, the amount of energy "trapped" by these gases
has led to higher temperatures.

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million
in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the
average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it
exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating
pace.

The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data
from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite
observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station
measurements. A publicly available computer program is used to calculate
the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average
temperature for the same place during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade
period functions as a baseline for the analysis.

The resulting temperature record is very close to analyses by the Met
Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville,
N.C.

Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the
next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the
next El Nino will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years
on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.

"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Nino, but it's safe to
say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a
very strong El Nino to push temperatures above 2010."

For more information on the GISS temperature analysis, visit:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

-end-
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 2 February 27th 10 04:27 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan Policy 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan History 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 AM
NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets(Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 March 9th 06 04:10 PM
Global warming v. Solar warming Roger Steer UK Astronomy 1 October 18th 05 10:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.