Remember me
▼ Content

The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age



Page 1 of 212>
The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age04-02-2018 14:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Nearly 13,000 years ago, Earth may have plunged suddenly into an apocalyptic scene; a barrage of fireballs lit up the sky, followed by powerful shock waves and fires that blazed across 10 percent of the planet's land surface.

The sky turned black as dust blocked out the sunlight, and temperatures rapidly plummeted, causing plants to die out and glaciers to advance, in what soon became a near ice age state.

And, humans were there to witness it all – with grave consequences.

This is according to new research, which suggests fragments of a 62-mile-wide disintegrating comet struck Earth 12,800 years ago and spurred burning events larger than those caused by the 'dinosaur killers.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5346517/Ancient-humans-witnessed-fireballs-Ice-Age.html#ixzz569B3eKch
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5346517/Ancient-humans-witnessed-fireballs-Ice-Age.html
04-02-2018 18:40
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
The Daily Mail strikes again.

Sensationalizing something pretty ordinary, or trying to anyway.

looks like the "new research" that the Mail refers to is legitimate enough, though they don't say where the research as done or published, Think they refer to something recently published in the Journal of Geology, see http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/695704?journalCode=jg&

Thing is, this piece of research is part of an ongoing kind of "discussion," not something entirely new. (Some would call it a controversy, but that might be extreme) Quoting a line found in the link above "we continue to test the hypothesis that an impact event at the Younger Dryas boundary (YD
."

Maybe try the Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
Over 50 references at the end of the wikipedia article to other publications, so not a new subject.
Edited on 04-02-2018 18:43
04-02-2018 22:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
still learning wrote:
The Daily Mail strikes again.

Sensationalizing something pretty ordinary, or trying to anyway.

looks like the "new research" that the Mail refers to is legitimate enough, though they don't say where the research as done or published, Think they refer to something recently published in the Journal of Geology, see http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/695704?journalCode=jg&

Thing is, this piece of research is part of an ongoing kind of "discussion," not something entirely new. (Some would call it a controversy, but that might be extreme) Quoting a line found in the link above "we continue to test the hypothesis that an impact event at the Younger Dryas boundary (YD
."

Maybe try the Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
Over 50 references at the end of the wikipedia article to other publications, so not a new subject.


Still Learning,
Thanks for the link. I did enjoy reading it. That might help explain how some animals from different environments have been found frozen together. I think that's something people need to be mindful of. It could happen again.

I did find this but will take more searching for what I posted.
https://www.sott.net/article/357709-Of-Flash-Frozen-Mammoths-and-Cosmic-Catastrophes
Edited on 04-02-2018 22:32
05-02-2018 18:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22137-two-separate-extinctions-brought-end-to-dinosaur-era/

The extinction events are nothing new. This article was from 2012 but the hypothesis is from 1991.
24-02-2018 18:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.
24-02-2018 21:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?
25-02-2018 05:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?



Wake,
You are illustrating a problem in America. During the last presidential election it is said that Russians told Americans who to vote for and they did.
How Russians tricked Americans was that they did not say that they were Russians.
Informed people make decisions based on their own considerations.
25-02-2018 08:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Ozone neither warms or cools the planet.

The formation of ozone by oxygen's absorption of UV-B light is an endothermic reaction. The air is cooled. This takes place mostly near the bottom of the stratosphere, making the tropopause the coldest part of our atmosphere.

Ozone is also destroyed by sunlight, specifically UV-C light. When this light is absorbed by ozone, it reverts back to oxygen. This takes place near the top of the stratosphere. It is an exothermic reaction making the top of the stratosphere warmer than the bottom.

By ozone absorbing the UV-C, it gets no deeper into the atmosphere than the upper stratosphere.

By oxygen absorbing UC-B, it is severely reduced as it enters the atmosphere. A small amount does reach the surface.

UV-A is also absorbed some, with most of it reaching the surface. A fair amount is also reflected away before it reaches the surface.

Most visible light is not absorbed much at all, but is reflected and scattered...blue most of all. What is absorbed generally causes chemical reactions, not thermal heating.

Infrared light is the bulk of light arriving from the Sun. It causes most of the thermal heating on Earth. It is also the color the Earth emits due to it's own range of temperatures.

Earth has only one way of losing energy: by radiance.

Neither oxygen nor ozone even absorb infrared light much at all.
CO2 and water does, but they are just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. They too radiate, helping to disperse energy into space.

It is the surface itself that emits most of the energy by radiance. It is the hottest, and it is the densest material. The atmosphere mostly acts as a radiating aid, emitting the energy it gained from the surface on into space after spreading it over a larger area.

Not even CO2 nor water have the capability of warming or cooling the Earth. They are just part of the mass of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-02-2018 08:46
25-02-2018 08:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?



Wake,
You are illustrating a problem in America. During the last presidential election it is said that Russians told Americans who to vote for and they did.
How Russians tricked Americans was that they did not say that they were Russians.
Informed people make decisions based on their own considerations.


Why would the Russians want Trump or any other conservative in office??

I would think they would want Hillary or Bernie Sanders.

Let's just think about this for a moment.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2018 17:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?



Wake,
You are illustrating a problem in America. During the last presidential election it is said that Russians told Americans who to vote for and they did.
How Russians tricked Americans was that they did not say that they were Russians.
Informed people make decisions based on their own considerations.


Again you go off the deep side instead of actually giving us any references.

Do you even know the difference between theory and fact?
25-02-2018 20:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?



Wake,
You are illustrating a problem in America. During the last presidential election it is said that Russians told Americans who to vote for and they did.
How Russians tricked Americans was that they did not say that they were Russians.
Informed people make decisions based on their own considerations.


Again you go off the deep side instead of actually giving us any references.

Do you even know the difference between theory and fact?


Wake,
You're a waste of time. I'm surprised that you didn't accuse me of abusing drugs again. All you have are B.S. attacks and little else.
25-02-2018 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?



Wake,
You are illustrating a problem in America. During the last presidential election it is said that Russians told Americans who to vote for and they did.
How Russians tricked Americans was that they did not say that they were Russians.
Informed people make decisions based on their own considerations.

...deleted Mantras 4...16...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2018 23:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
These links shows that increased ash cooled our planet. The peak of the event lasted for about 100 years. This is where with my experiment I would be wondering if increased levels of atmospheric forcing could have a similar effect. Most scientists agree that the occurrence of ozone in the stratosphere has a cooling effect on our planet.


Who are these "most scientists"?



Wake,
You are illustrating a problem in America. During the last presidential election it is said that Russians told Americans who to vote for and they did.
How Russians tricked Americans was that they did not say that they were Russians.
Informed people make decisions based on their own considerations.


Again you go off the deep side instead of actually giving us any references.

Do you even know the difference between theory and fact?


Wake,
You're a waste of time. I'm surprised that you didn't accuse me of abusing drugs again. All you have are B.S. attacks and little else.


You offer a theory of ashes having caused massive global cooling but you don't even have the slightest idea that theories are not facts. You comment continuously in this same sort of manner.

And then for weeks at a time you are logical and thoughtful only to go off on one of these rants again. Tell me James - am I to think that there isn't something wrong with you, possibly medication caused, when you've just suffered through major surgery?
25-02-2018 23:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote: No argument presented.


Was was said, stupid?
26-02-2018 18:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:...deleted Mantra 1 ...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2018 19:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantras 21...16...lie...paradox...13...13...13...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2018 21:08
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:

Tell me James - am I to think that there isn't something wrong with you, possibly medication caused, when you've just suffered through major surgery?


I was kind of wondering when you would accuse me of abusing prescription medication again. Gosh, I mean really ? You've shown you can do searches on the internet for what you want such as contradicting accepted research on Arctic sea ice extent. Yet for something simpler you can only attack me personally ?
Attached image:


Edited on 26-02-2018 21:18
26-02-2018 21:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Tell me James - am I to think that there isn't something wrong with you, possibly medication caused, when you've just suffered through major surgery?


I was kind of wondering when you would accuse me of abusing prescription medication again. is there something that prevented you from doing a search to find out if volcanic or other ash in the atmosphere is known to cool it ? You didn't.
Yet you did do a search to find a research paper that contradicted sea ice extent.
Here's research that disagrees with the source that you referenced.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/690/Paleoceanographic-Perspectives-on-Arctic-Ocean-Change


I should have known that rather than wondering about your own medication you would exclaim that I was accusing you of "drug abuse". James - The NORMAL amount of medication I take leaves me with a very poor sense of balance. Since the extend of the medication is right on the upper limit additional drugs would simply kill me. But your drugs are totally safe and have no side effects. Right.

The cooling we have witnessed from airborne ash from volcanic eruptions has been EXTREMELY short lived - one to two years. This has led some scientists to HYPOTHESIZED that a large enough meteor strike or large amount of volcanic activity COULD cause long term cooling. There is NO WAY to test these hypothesis and they are stuck saying "We have geologically dated high volcanic activity to about the time something else occurred and this substantiates the hypothesis." In fact it does nothing of the kind since something could have caused both events.

Another hypothesis could be that we were already in an ice age 12,800 years ago when the meteor strike occurred in central Mexico and the dust cloud could have last for several years and killed off the vegetation and thereby causing the extinction of the large mammals such as the Mammoth.

Rather than taking everything as a personal insult you might try thinking about the discussion instead of reading something somewhere and accepting it as the law of the universe.
27-02-2018 02:08
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Tell me James - am I to think that there isn't something wrong with you, possibly medication caused, when you've just suffered through major surgery?


I was kind of wondering when you would accuse me of abusing prescription medication again. is there something that prevented you from doing a search to find out if volcanic or other ash in the atmosphere is known to cool it ? You didn't.
Yet you did do a search to find a research paper that contradicted sea ice extent.
Here's research that disagrees with the source that you referenced.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/690/Paleoceanographic-Perspectives-on-Arctic-Ocean-Change


I should have known that rather than wondering about your own medication you would exclaim that I was accusing you of "drug abuse". James - The NORMAL amount of medication I take leaves me with a very poor sense of balance. Since the extend of the medication is right on the upper limit additional drugs would simply kill me. But your drugs are totally safe and have no side effects. Right.

The cooling we have witnessed from airborne ash from volcanic eruptions has been EXTREMELY short lived - one to two years. This has led some scientists to HYPOTHESIZED that a large enough meteor strike or large amount of volcanic activity COULD cause long term cooling. There is NO WAY to test these hypothesis and they are stuck saying "We have geologically dated high volcanic activity to about the time something else occurred and this substantiates the hypothesis." In fact it does nothing of the kind since something could have caused both events.

Another hypothesis could be that we were already in an ice age 12,800 years ago when the meteor strike occurred in central Mexico and the dust cloud could have last for several years and killed off the vegetation and thereby causing the extinction of the large mammals such as the Mammoth.

Rather than taking everything as a personal insult you might try thinking about the discussion instead of reading something somewhere and accepting it as the law of the universe.



Wake,
You're a cyber bully. I don't answer to bullying. If I did then you would be in control of me. That is what you want. After all you don't know as much as I do so you have to resort to aggressive tactics.
Besides, you along with everyone in here has missed something that I posted. It has to do with the argument for climate change before scientists started saying 95% likely it's AGW.
Can't discuss anything because you want me to agree with you. That won't happen. You've been shown wrong so many times yet attack me for what reason ? Probably because you're tired of being shown wrong.
You said chemicals released by industrialization can't effect the atmosphere. Chlorine and bromide gases and depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica showed you wrong.
You showed flawed scientific research using the Chukchi Sea as representative of the Arctic Ocean as far as sea ice extent goes after the last ice age. You started talking about the last true ice age over 1 million years ago. You changed the subject completely.
Yet all you can do is attack me because I am willing to take the time to study research and to consider how it influences other research. Nothing drug influenced there.
And Wake, remember ? I have my own theory. If I am right then it might help fill in some of the missing pieces. But instead you say the work so far that scientists have done isn't good enough for you. Why don't you show them what you can do if you think you can do it better ? With me, just trying to add to the information we have on how our atmosphere works. Trying to help develop a better understanding. People can always say they can do better but haven't seen anyone show it. kind of why the best science is usually what is pursued. then if a better understanding comes along then that could change things. But to expect to have all answers now and that we know everything is just people being unrealistic.
Besides, if my experiment works it could lead to a lot of new research and improved research (more money for it) with ocean warming. You could call my experiment Pandora's Box if you want to.
27-02-2018 02:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote: You're a cyber bully. I don't answer to bullying.


Fine then that leaves you and litebrain as soulmates.
27-02-2018 18:04
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote: You're a cyber bully. I don't answer to bullying.


Fine then that leaves you and litebrain as soulmates.



Wake,
I didn't know that you had a sense of humor ! You think myself and litesong are sole mates like running shoes that you can tread on ?
Gosh, not sure what he'll think of that.
I will let you know what everyone has missed, okay ? This is all pre-2013. This is when the IPCC came out with 2 reports of which one showed an atmospheric warming pause.
With the link, notice how it shows a rise in co2 ? The 2nd rise coincides with the asteroid strike 12,800 years ago. This makes the first increase interesting.
Scientists have also stated recently that the increase in co2 levels followed 800 years AFTER the last ice age started ending https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/ .

It is possible that volcanism was responsible for the initial release of co2. The northern hemisphere would've been depressed pushing magma under the Earth's crust south. This would increase the strain on other areas where the magma is pushed towards.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17611404

And I like this graph https://photos.app.goo.gl/LOm4GFbXvjMUKMKF2. It shows from 1950 to 2010 that global warming and world population paralleled each other. This could be a coincidence or industrialization and urbanization might have an impact on atmospheric conditions.

p.s., Wake, notice how I did not insult anyone or make any claims in which I did not offer an explanation or show the source of information that I have considered ? And because I am willing to consider information does not mean that I have accepted it, it only means that I have considered it.
Edited on 27-02-2018 18:09
27-02-2018 22:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Tell me James - am I to think that there isn't something wrong with you, possibly medication caused, when you've just suffered through major surgery?


I was kind of wondering when you would accuse me of abusing prescription medication again. is there something that prevented you from doing a search to find out if volcanic or other ash in the atmosphere is known to cool it ? You didn't.
Yet you did do a search to find a research paper that contradicted sea ice extent.
Here's research that disagrees with the source that you referenced.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/690/Paleoceanographic-Perspectives-on-Arctic-Ocean-Change


I should have known that rather than wondering about your own medication you would exclaim that I was accusing you of "drug abuse". James - The NORMAL amount of medication I take leaves me with a very poor sense of balance. Since the extend of the medication is right on the upper limit additional drugs would simply kill me. But your drugs are totally safe and have no side effects. Right.

The cooling we have witnessed from airborne ash from volcanic eruptions has been EXTREMELY short lived - one to two years. This has led some scientists to HYPOTHESIZED that a large enough meteor strike or large amount of volcanic activity COULD cause long term cooling. There is NO WAY to test these hypothesis and they are stuck saying "We have geologically dated high volcanic activity to about the time something else occurred and this substantiates the hypothesis." In fact it does nothing of the kind since something could have caused both events.

Another hypothesis could be that we were already in an ice age 12,800 years ago when the meteor strike occurred in central Mexico and the dust cloud could have last for several years and killed off the vegetation and thereby causing the extinction of the large mammals such as the Mammoth.

Rather than taking everything as a personal insult you might try thinking about the discussion instead of reading something somewhere and accepting it as the law of the universe.



Wake,
You're a cyber bully. I don't answer to bullying. If I did then you would be in control of me. That is what you want. After all you don't know as much as I do so you have to resort to aggressive tactics.
Besides, you along with everyone in here has missed something that I posted. It has to do with the argument for climate change before scientists started saying 95% likely it's AGW.
Can't discuss anything because you want me to agree with you. That won't happen. You've been shown wrong so many times yet attack me for what reason ? Probably because you're tired of being shown wrong.
You said chemicals released by industrialization can't effect the atmosphere. Chlorine and bromide gases and depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica showed you wrong.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. Both chlorine and bromine react with something else long before they get anywhere near 30000 ft.
James___ wrote:
You showed flawed scientific research using the Chukchi Sea as representative of the Arctic Ocean as far as sea ice extent goes after the last ice age. You started talking about the last true ice age over 1 million years ago. You changed the subject completely.
Yet all you can do is attack me because I am willing to take the time to study research and to consider how it influences other research. Nothing drug influenced there.

Considering how one theory relates to another theory is not a problem. You might consider accepting the current theories of science as a starting point though.
James___ wrote:
And Wake, remember ? I have my own theory. If I am right then it might help fill in some of the missing pieces. But instead you say the work so far that scientists have done isn't good enough for you. Why don't you show them what you can do if you think you can do it better ? With me, just trying to add to the information we have on how our atmosphere works. Trying to help develop a better understanding. People can always say they can do better but haven't seen anyone show it. kind of why the best science is usually what is pursued. then if a better understanding comes along then that could change things. But to expect to have all answers now and that we know everything is just people being unrealistic.
Besides, if my experiment works it could lead to a lot of new research and improved research (more money for it) with ocean warming. You could call my experiment Pandora's Box if you want to.

You keep talking about this mysterious experiment. When are you going to actually conduct it and stop boasting about it? You haven't even described what the experiment is testing.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2018 00:01
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Tell me James - am I to think that there isn't something wrong with you, possibly medication caused, when you've just suffered through major surgery?


I was kind of wondering when you would accuse me of abusing prescription medication again. is there something that prevented you from doing a search to find out if volcanic or other ash in the atmosphere is known to cool it ? You didn't.
Yet you did do a search to find a research paper that contradicted sea ice extent.
Here's research that disagrees with the source that you referenced.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/690/Paleoceanographic-Perspectives-on-Arctic-Ocean-Change


I should have known that rather than wondering about your own medication you would exclaim that I was accusing you of "drug abuse". James - The NORMAL amount of medication I take leaves me with a very poor sense of balance. Since the extend of the medication is right on the upper limit additional drugs would simply kill me. But your drugs are totally safe and have no side effects. Right.

The cooling we have witnessed from airborne ash from volcanic eruptions has been EXTREMELY short lived - one to two years. This has led some scientists to HYPOTHESIZED that a large enough meteor strike or large amount of volcanic activity COULD cause long term cooling. There is NO WAY to test these hypothesis and they are stuck saying "We have geologically dated high volcanic activity to about the time something else occurred and this substantiates the hypothesis." In fact it does nothing of the kind since something could have caused both events.

Another hypothesis could be that we were already in an ice age 12,800 years ago when the meteor strike occurred in central Mexico and the dust cloud could have last for several years and killed off the vegetation and thereby causing the extinction of the large mammals such as the Mammoth.

Rather than taking everything as a personal insult you might try thinking about the discussion instead of reading something somewhere and accepting it as the law of the universe.



Wake,
You're a cyber bully. I don't answer to bullying. If I did then you would be in control of me. That is what you want. After all you don't know as much as I do so you have to resort to aggressive tactics.
Besides, you along with everyone in here has missed something that I posted. It has to do with the argument for climate change before scientists started saying 95% likely it's AGW.
Can't discuss anything because you want me to agree with you. That won't happen. You've been shown wrong so many times yet attack me for what reason ? Probably because you're tired of being shown wrong.
You said chemicals released by industrialization can't effect the atmosphere. Chlorine and bromide gases and depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica showed you wrong.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. Both chlorine and bromine react with something else long before they get anywhere near 30000 ft.
James___ wrote:
You showed flawed scientific research using the Chukchi Sea as representative of the Arctic Ocean as far as sea ice extent goes after the last ice age. You started talking about the last true ice age over 1 million years ago. You changed the subject completely.
Yet all you can do is attack me because I am willing to take the time to study research and to consider how it influences other research. Nothing drug influenced there.

Considering how one theory relates to another theory is not a problem. You might consider accepting the current theories of science as a starting point though.
James___ wrote:
And Wake, remember ? I have my own theory. If I am right then it might help fill in some of the missing pieces. But instead you say the work so far that scientists have done isn't good enough for you. Why don't you show them what you can do if you think you can do it better ? With me, just trying to add to the information we have on how our atmosphere works. Trying to help develop a better understanding. People can always say they can do better but haven't seen anyone show it. kind of why the best science is usually what is pursued. then if a better understanding comes along then that could change things. But to expect to have all answers now and that we know everything is just people being unrealistic.
Besides, if my experiment works it could lead to a lot of new research and improved research (more money for it) with ocean warming. You could call my experiment Pandora's Box if you want to.

You keep talking about this mysterious experiment. When are you going to actually conduct it and stop boasting about it? You haven't even described what the experiment is testing.



ITN,
Those things which grown ups pursue will always be mysterious to children. Maybe one day when you grow up you might take the time to learn some science ? It's not for everyone and even if you read it that does not mean you will learn. Sometimes it takes studying something for a number of years and is not about looking on Wikipedia for an explanation or a definition.
An example of this is when you say we do not know the Earth's emissivity when it has been known. Or how many official thermometers are there on Earth ? The comments that you make are inane to say the least.
You never cite references but only give your opinion as fact. At what point did your word become the Gospel that all forum members are expected to adhere to ? This way of yours is simply a literary oxymoron.
28-02-2018 03:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
litesong wrote:
James___ wrote:ITN,
Maybe one day when you grow up you might take the time to learn some science ?
james......Why would you think someone named "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight", who has no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, learn science at its late date?



litesong,
It is admirable that you would want to defend Wake and ITN. I think the real issue is why they continue to challenge me when I left a thread open where either one could've said it's d@mming evidence against co2 being the cause of global warming.
At the same time they would claim to understand the science that I am basing my experiment on. Since this is a claim they both boast, then at some point they need to demonstrate some understanding of physics. I have shown they have no understanding of the debate over AGW.
I do have other things I am involved with and I do want to take things a little slower.

@still learning,
The rise in co2 during the last ice age is probably from volcanism. Check out mesa or mesas in New Mexico and Texas and even in the Grand Canyon. These landmarks have to do with geology. Maybe you can search geology and mesa. With volcanism just a much greater force at work.
28-02-2018 05:30
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
James___ wrote:

@still learning,
The rise in co2 during the last ice age is probably from volcanism. Check out mesa or mesas in New Mexico and Texas and even in the Grand Canyon. These landmarks have to do with geology. Maybe you can search geology and mesa. With volcanism just a much greater force at work.



I'm not sure what you are attempting to say. I am usually not sure.

Volcanism and mesas rarely have anything to do with one another. Devil's Tower in Wyoming is an exception. Are you are misusing the word "mesa" perhaps?

Little volcanism is associated with the Grand Canyon and none is associated with the word "mesa." That I know of. None of the New Mexico volcanic features that I know about are associated with the word "mesa." Texas I know less about.

Name a particular mesa that you think has anything to do with volcanism.

But yes, increases in volcanism are thought to have significantly increased atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past, as with the Deccan Traps volcanism of about 65 million years ago. Other times in the past too. Last Ice age? Better be more specific. Different people mean different things when they use the term "ice age." If you are referring to the ending of the last glacial period of about 12,000 years ago, I don't think anybody knowledgeable has claimed unusual volcanism was involved. Could be wrong though.
01-03-2018 00:04
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

@still learning,
The rise in co2 during the last ice age is probably from volcanism. Check out mesa or mesas in New Mexico and Texas and even in the Grand Canyon. These landmarks have to do with geology. Maybe you can search geology and mesa. With volcanism just a much greater force at work.



I'm not sure what you are attempting to say. I am usually not sure.

Volcanism and mesas rarely have anything to do with one another. Devil's Tower in Wyoming is an exception. Are you are misusing the word "mesa" perhaps?

Little volcanism is associated with the Grand Canyon and none is associated with the word "mesa." That I know of. None of the New Mexico volcanic features that I know about are associated with the word "mesa." Texas I know less about.

Name a particular mesa that you think has anything to do with volcanism.

But yes, increases in volcanism are thought to have significantly increased atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past, as with the Deccan Traps volcanism of about 65 million years ago. Other times in the past too. Last Ice age? Better be more specific. Different people mean different things when they use the term "ice age." If you are referring to the ending of the last glacial period of about 12,000 years ago, I don't think anybody knowledgeable has claimed unusual volcanism was involved. Could be wrong though.


Sorry, I meant plateau.
National Geographic wrote:
FORMATION FROM UNDER THE EARTH'S SURFACE
Many plateaus form as magma deep inside the Earth pushes toward the surface but fails to break through the crust.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/plateaus/


Just a stupid question here, what if it has sufficient force to eject magma ? Would it seem like a crater from an asteroid that broke apart ?

@litesong,
ITN is supposed to have a degree in electronics. Kind of why he would have math in his background. But as you said, he doesn't have math in his background.
Edited on 01-03-2018 00:06
01-03-2018 01:21
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
James___ wrote:

......"Many plateaus form as magma deep inside the Earth pushes toward the surface but fails to break through the crust......"

Just a stupid question here, what if it has sufficient force to eject magma ? Would it seem like a crater from an asteroid that broke apart ?



Eject magma? Then there is volcanism. Maybe a little, maybe a lot.

Would a crater or caldera be left behind after the volcanism subsides? Not necessarily. In the case of some of the large flood basalt episodes the source sometimes hasn't been found yet. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_basalt

Impact craters are different from volcanic craters and calderas. The mineral and rock types are different as are structural details. See [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater/url]
01-03-2018 01:38
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

......"Many plateaus form as magma deep inside the Earth pushes toward the surface but fails to break through the crust......"

Just a stupid question here, what if it has sufficient force to eject magma ? Would it seem like a crater from an asteroid that broke apart ?



Eject magma? Then there is volcanism. Maybe a little, maybe a lot.

Would a crater or caldera be left behind after the volcanism subsides? Not necessarily. In the case of some of the large flood basalt episodes the source sometimes hasn't been found yet. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_basalt

Impact craters are different from volcanic craters and calderas. The mineral and rock types are different as are structural details. See [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater/url]


I think with the possibility of an asteroid I think it was an increase in platinum in the Arctic. From my original link;
The new study on geochemical and isotopic markers, which involved two dozen researchers, argues that a cosmic impact thousands of years ago left behind high concentrations of platinum across the Northern Hemisphere

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5346517/Ancient-humans-witnessed-fireballs-Ice-Age.html#ixzz58S7JKkCK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

it can get complicated such as this;
The formation of platinum-group minerals (PGM) during magma differentiation has been suggested to be an important process in primitive magma evolution, but decisive textural evidence is difficult to obtain because PGM tend to be very small and very rare.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/43/10/903/131731/crystallization-of-platinum-group-minerals-from

With an unusual event like an ice age causing a deep magma flow and increased pressures, who knows for sure ?
01-03-2018 05:08
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
James___ wrote:

...... With an unusual event like an ice age causing a deep magma flow and increased pressures, who knows for sure ?


Who knows for sure what?

I can't tell what your question or comment or speculation is.

That there was a platinum content spike (to about 80 parts per trillion) in ice cores from about 12,000 years ago has been shown
(see http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/12917) and likely it was from some sort of meteorite/asteroid/comet.

The volcanism stuff you referred to is much older than the Younger Dryas event.

As far as increased pressures causing deep magma flow, never heard of that.
Should be the opposite in that increased pressure tends to increase the melting temperature of most materials, so solid mantle material is less likely to melt to magma.
01-03-2018 16:03
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

...... With an unusual event like an ice age causing a deep magma flow and increased pressures, who knows for sure ?


Who knows for sure what?

I can't tell what your question or comment or speculation is.

That there was a platinum content spike (to about 80 parts per trillion) in ice cores from about 12,000 years ago has been shown
(see http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/12917) and likely it was from some sort of meteorite/asteroid/comet.

The volcanism stuff you referred to is much older than the Younger Dryas event.

As far as increased pressures causing deep magma flow, never heard of that.
Should be the opposite in that increased pressure tends to increase the melting temperature of most materials, so solid mantle material is less likely to melt to magma.


As you mentioned, the platinum spike was found in ice core samples and not in an impact crater. It was an airborne pollutant. I think what you are not considering is that when magma is moved below the upper mantle, what happens ?
The increased co2 levels during the last ice age started about 17,750 years ago and lasted until about 15,000 years ago. Then the 2nd increase is what the articles are related to with the burning of the Earth's biomass.
While the initial increase in co2 took almost 3,000 years, the 2nd increase took only about 1,000 years. And they say this helped to keep the ice age going. With what we are dscussing, the 2nd rise in co2 levels took 1/3rd the time. This means that there might have been a more violent release of magma. I wish I could just show textbook answers then I'd always be right, right ?
And I think that's what goes over better. It's funny but no matter how many times new discoveries have been made people still think we have nothing to learn. And myself, I have no need to preach. I could ask you what is the difference between a "primal" magma ejection and a "modern" one. And it might be that difference that determines whether or not there are traces of platinum in a volcanic eruption or not. Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.
The graph is from;
[url] https://www.livescience.com/19481-ice-age-carbon-dioxide-orbit.html[/url]

can't attach graph so will provide a link. it's about co2 levels during the last ice age. https://photos.app.goo.gl/9c19TYM88slC9EzA2
Edited on 01-03-2018 16:13
01-03-2018 19:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

......"Many plateaus form as magma deep inside the Earth pushes toward the surface but fails to break through the crust......"

Just a stupid question here, what if it has sufficient force to eject magma ? Would it seem like a crater from an asteroid that broke apart ?



Eject magma? Then there is volcanism. Maybe a little, maybe a lot.

Would a crater or caldera be left behind after the volcanism subsides? Not necessarily. In the case of some of the large flood basalt episodes the source sometimes hasn't been found yet. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_basalt

Impact craters are different from volcanic craters and calderas. The mineral and rock types are different as are structural details. See [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater/url]


I would agree with everything you said. My point is that knowing something did occur does not give you either the reason nor the effects. Geological interfaces are not sharply divided and you can't tell is a meteor strike happened before or during an ice age. And actually it is more likely during an ice age since sea levels are so much lower and land area so comparatively larger.
02-03-2018 01:26
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.
02-03-2018 16:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


Unfortunately James reads one thing and it becomes his latest reason for God, the Universe and Everything. He doesn't have the slightest feeling for the extend of science and continues to try to reduce it to one thing. Don't bother, next month it will be another thing.

On the other hand, nightmare always pins his hopes on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation despite the fact that he doesn't actually know what it means. He has actually argued that "heat" isn't "light" as if you couldn't define any electromagnetic radiation as light. He will talk about statistical analysis as if he knew something about it and PhD mathematicians are ignorant of them. He doesn't even understand what Mean Global Temperature is and how it is derived. We have had weather satellites measuring the exact temperature of the entire Earth for 40 years and he will say over and over in his mantra of ignorance - "you can't tell the temperature of the Earth from a distance." He doesn't even know what "climate" means and continues to make foolish statements about how "you can't define climate without a circular argument" without the slightest idea that this is exactly the point.

So while many of us are still learning a great many posting here are not.
02-03-2018 16:52
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


still learning,
The only real issue that I have with textbooks is that many people stop at that point. When I worked for the Boeing Airplane Co. a person could have a degree in engineering and that would get them a job there. After that they would have to learn how airplanes were made and how Boeing's own codes were used to build them. Boeing also offered Off Hour Training so it's employees could better learn what Boeing knew. This is something many college students learn upon graduation, their degree is a starting point.
With textbooks, they are IMO meant to be a basis where many people can learn the same basic information. The link you shared shows how an understanding of geology can be expanded. I found it quite interesting.
With discussing volcanism from about 18,000 years ago to about 12,000 years ago this could become a consideration. I think the link was a good find on your part.
02-03-2018 18:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


Unfortunately James reads one thing and it becomes his latest reason for God, the Universe and Everything. He doesn't have the slightest feeling for the extend of science and continues to try to reduce it to one thing. Don't bother, next month it will be another thing.

On the other hand, nightmare always pins his hopes on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation despite the fact that he doesn't actually know what it means.

I do know what it means. YOU keep trying to change it. Inversion fallacy coupled with an argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
He has actually argued that "heat" isn't "light"

It isn't. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. Light is electromagnetic energy. Heat may occur by radiance (through the medium of light), but light itself is not heat.
Wake wrote:
as if you couldn't define any electromagnetic radiation as light.

ALL electromagnetic energy is light. It is YOU that is trying to define otherwise. Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
He will talk about statistical analysis as if he knew something about it

I do.
Wake wrote:
and PhD mathematicians are ignorant of them.
A lot of them are.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't even understand what Mean Global Temperature is and how it is derived.

It is not possible to derive it. You are ignoring the math again.
Wake wrote:
We have had weather satellites measuring the exact temperature of the entire Earth for 40 years

Satellites do not measure heat. They measure light. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
and he will say over and over in his mantra of ignorance - "you can't tell the temperature of the Earth from a distance."

Since it is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth, that is exactly right.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't even know what "climate" means

Climate is the prevailing weather in a region over a long time.
Wake wrote:
and continues to make foolish statements about how "you can't define climate without a circular argument"

I just did. What you can't define is 'climate change' without using a circular argument. Pay attention, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
without the slightest idea that this is exactly the point.

?? Then WHY are you arguing against it???
Wake wrote:
So while many of us are still learning a great many posting here are not.

Considering the mistakes you continue to make, you are not learning a damn thing.

To calculate a statistical summary, you MUST choose elements from the raw data. You can only choose an element ONCE. You cannot choose it twice, 1.5 times, 0.6 times, etc. Only ONCE.

Elements must be selected independent of influencing factors. For temperature, that means the factors of location grouping, and time. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spread across the Earth. They MUST be read at the same time.

Now...answer the question you keep evading, dumbass. How many official thermometers are in the world?

You say you know the science behind spectroscopy, yet you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and even Plank's law. You deny how emissivity of a surface is measured and why it's a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You even try to CHANGE the Stefan-Boltzmann law to suit your weird arguments. You have done the same to Wien's displacement law. You change it around to suit your weird arguments.

Your Holy satellites do not measure the temperature of the Earth or any part of it. They make assumptions about the emissivity of Earth to perform their measurements. They are useful for locating storms and monitoring ocean currents, but that's about it. Those applications are about RELATIVE readings, not ABSOLUTE readings.

You don't know anything about spectroscopy or math.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2018 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


still learning,
The only real issue that I have with textbooks is that many people stop at that point.

I have to agree with that one. Even worse, most textbooks are quite wrong about many things. They are horrible these days. They are filled with propaganda and just plain bad mistakes.
James___ wrote:
When I worked for the Boeing Airplane Co. a person could have a degree in engineering and that would get them a job there.

There are plenty there that do not need a degree in engineering. They often wind up teaching the engineers a few things!
James___ wrote:
After that they would have to learn how airplanes were made and how Boeing's own codes were used to build them.

I believe you are referring to their various procedures and documentation concerning the design and certification process. That's actually not just Boeing's stuff. The FAA and Boeing hashed out this stuff together.

It is usually a learning process for the newly hired engineer to learn how airplanes are actually built.

James___ wrote:
Boeing also offered Off Hour Training so it's employees could better learn what Boeing knew.

A wonderful program. I recommend it.
James___ wrote:
This is something many college students learn upon graduation, their degree is a starting point.

Absolutely right. Learning never stops. It's not just Boeing either. Any job will teach you a lot of experience that you can't get in school.
James___ wrote:
With textbooks, they are IMO meant to be a basis where many people can learn the same basic information.

Unfortunately, much of the training by employers these days is to correct the crap that was in their textbooks.

When it comes to training engineers and scientists, most any of the schools really suck at it.

I constantly see electronics engineering graduates that don't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. Many can't even design a reliable oscillator or to choose the correct wire size and insulation for it. I know. I find this stuff when hiring these people.

I see computer science graduates that don't even know what a pointer is or how to safely use them. They don't know the difference between a compiler, a condenser, and an interpreter. I know. I find this stuff when hiring these people.

I see mechanical engineers that have no idea how to run a lathe, operate a drill press, or why and how a taper is used. I've seen them have difficulty with a simple micrometer. I've seen them have difficulty with friction fit designs. I've seen quite a few that couldn't calculate the volume of a cylinder without looking it up. I know. I find this stuff when hiring these people.

I see aerospace engineers that don't know what a strake is for or how to correctly place stall strips or vortex generators. Many have difficulty calculating the aerodynamic centers, even on a straight wing aircraft. I've seen many that don't understand the effects of wind on a fire suppression system. Corrosion control designs seem to be a real problem with most of them. I also find most do not know the differences between different kinds of composite construction in use today or how to maintain them. Most of them have never flown or understand what the needs of the pilot are. I know. I work with these people. Fortunately, some of them are humble enough to be willing to learn from the guy on an assembly line or from an aircraft mechanic or a pilot.

No, an engineering degree does not grant you all knowledge or even expertise. Under the best of conditions, they are a starting point of learning. Under fairly common conditions, they aren't even that. Companies have to do a lot of remedial effort to get one of these people productive. Only the larger ones with lots of money to burn are going to bother.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2018 20:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


Unfortunately James reads one thing and it becomes his latest reason for God, the Universe and Everything. He doesn't have the slightest feeling for the extend of science and continues to try to reduce it to one thing. Don't bother, next month it will be another thing.

On the other hand, nightmare always pins his hopes on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation despite the fact that he doesn't actually know what it means.

I do know what it means. YOU keep trying to change it. Inversion fallacy coupled with an argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
He has actually argued that "heat" isn't "light"

It isn't. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. Light is electromagnetic energy. Heat may occur by radiance (through the medium of light), but light itself is not heat.
Wake wrote:
as if you couldn't define any electromagnetic radiation as light.

ALL electromagnetic energy is light. It is YOU that is trying to define otherwise. Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
He will talk about statistical analysis as if he knew something about it

I do.
Wake wrote:
and PhD mathematicians are ignorant of them.
A lot of them are.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't even understand what Mean Global Temperature is and how it is derived.

It is not possible to derive it. You are ignoring the math again.
Wake wrote:
We have had weather satellites measuring the exact temperature of the entire Earth for 40 years

Satellites do not measure heat. They measure light. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
and he will say over and over in his mantra of ignorance - "you can't tell the temperature of the Earth from a distance."

Since it is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth, that is exactly right.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't even know what "climate" means

Climate is the prevailing weather in a region over a long time.
Wake wrote:
and continues to make foolish statements about how "you can't define climate without a circular argument"

I just did. What you can't define is 'climate change' without using a circular argument. Pay attention, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
without the slightest idea that this is exactly the point.

?? Then WHY are you arguing against it???
Wake wrote:
So while many of us are still learning a great many posting here are not.

Considering the mistakes you continue to make, you are not learning a damn thing.

To calculate a statistical summary, you MUST choose elements from the raw data. You can only choose an element ONCE. You cannot choose it twice, 1.5 times, 0.6 times, etc. Only ONCE.

Elements must be selected independent of influencing factors. For temperature, that means the factors of location grouping, and time. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spread across the Earth. They MUST be read at the same time.

Now...answer the question you keep evading, dumbass. How many official thermometers are in the world?

You say you know the science behind spectroscopy, yet you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and even Plank's law. You deny how emissivity of a surface is measured and why it's a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You even try to CHANGE the Stefan-Boltzmann law to suit your weird arguments. You have done the same to Wien's displacement law. You change it around to suit your weird arguments.

Your Holy satellites do not measure the temperature of the Earth or any part of it. They make assumptions about the emissivity of Earth to perform their measurements. They are useful for locating storms and monitoring ocean currents, but that's about it. Those applications are about RELATIVE readings, not ABSOLUTE readings.

You don't know anything about spectroscopy or math.


Then let's cover it yet again - you are an ass that doesn't even know the phrase is in latin: "Argumentum ad lapidem". And this isn't a logical fallacy since you consider a grey body to be one that you must know the emissivity of when in fact a grey body is one that doesn't ABSORB all the applied wavelengths for any number of reasons. That a grey body EMITS 100% of it's absorbed energy dependent upon the surrounding temperature or if the energy levels are at the radiation point. But YOU don't know that.

Now you simply lie about your previous argument that radio frequencies, UV or IR were not light. It ain't going to work. While "light" is defined specifically as a range of electromagnetic frequencies it can be used as a definition of all electromagnetic energy for slow people as yourself.

We have asked you dozens of time to explain what you think statistical analysis is to have you claim that you explained it before. You still haven't explained your idea of it because you don't know what it is. And your moronic claims that mathematicians do not understand it makes you even more bizarre. You claim that you cannot derive MGT is so loony that it is a laughing matter. Apparently your knowledge of statistical analysis has more than a few holes in it.

You continue to compound you proof of ignorance by claiming 1. Climate is the weather over a long period of time and 2. that is a "circular argument". The actual term is "circulus in probando" and it means to START with the answer rather than the reasoning. This is not the case with people who understand English and don't try to impress people by using Latin phrases they are not familiar with in some sort of attempt to impress people. You are not impressing anyone and making yourself look like a fool.

Ahh, now you attempt to explain your understanding of statistical analysis and of course it is entirely wrong. NO ONE is attempting to use any raw data multiply. You DO NOT require any sort of equal spacing of raw data points. You only require enough points placed in wide enough locations. Since temperature lag can be predicted with weather patterns there is absolutely no need to measure these temperatures at the same time.

We do not need to use surface thermometers since the readings have shown themselves to be completely spurious since the large growth in urban heat island effects or even worse - official US weather service temperature measuring station placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner. Rural thermometers have sharply differing temperatures from plowed and fallow land.

In fact surface temperature readings have demonstrated wild inaccuracies over the last 100 years. Even the wind strength changes surface thermometer readings with the urban heat island effect totally disappearing with wind speeds above 27 knots. I could refer you to papers but since they disagree with you you called them "holy links" and discount them. That's because you are brilliant and the entire scientific community is composed of idiots in your book.

Again you show that you do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law and you are getting to the comical point there as well.

Satellite temperature measuring is far more accurate that surface thermometers since it measures the temperature of the entire Troposphere. Using this data they can accurately measure the energy both reflective and radiated and since they can also measure the applied energy from the Sun the math works out correctly. This has been checked ad absurdum in so many papers that only YOU could deny them. The satellite sensors can measure points to square meters virtually eliminating the need for statistical analysis and instead using nothing more than averaging to get MGT. But according to you, mathematicians do not understand math. Only you do. But of course you don't understand math and when trying to explain it you sound a fool.

Isn't it time for you to try to tell me about electronics engineering and programming again? Tell me how much you know about RF or robotics and how I don't know anything about them despite having mechanisms all over the world now. Even in orbit. You know calling yourself an "operating engineer" doesn't make you an engineer. Operating heavy equipment or maintaining power supplies hardly qualifies you to be making the stupid claims you've been making.

Oh wait, its time for you to claim that I believe in AGW because I don't agree with you.
02-03-2018 20:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


still learning,
The only real issue that I have with textbooks is that many people stop at that point. When I worked for the Boeing Airplane Co. a person could have a degree in engineering and that would get them a job there. After that they would have to learn how airplanes were made and how Boeing's own codes were used to build them. Boeing also offered Off Hour Training so it's employees could better learn what Boeing knew. This is something many college students learn upon graduation, their degree is a starting point.
With textbooks, they are IMO meant to be a basis where many people can learn the same basic information. The link you shared shows how an understanding of geology can be expanded. I found it quite interesting.
With discussing volcanism from about 18,000 years ago to about 12,000 years ago this could become a consideration. I think the link was a good find on your part.


You might remember that I was up in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. Seeing some relatives after talking to people at The Boeing Company. The only place I've ever seen it described as "The Boeing Airplane Company" is in lawsuits. I guess to distinguish it from The Boeing Pajama Company or The Boeing Skateboard Company.

Mt. Etna has been in almost continuous eruption for centuries. If this doesn't effect the local weather why would you believe that it and the other 199 active volcanoes that are known would have your dramatic global weather events? These sometimes extremely dramatic eruptions have had no measurable effects in the upper atmosphere. The geological evidence for very large long term dust clouds is sketchy at best and appear to be related to meteor strikes and not volcanism.

These particles are not small and tend to settle out of the atmosphere very rapidly At best they can cause serious weather events for a year or two.

Most of the ice age animals died out not from hunger or from competition but from HEAT. The last known population of Mammoths lived on a Syberian Island until 1650 BCE - that is less than 4000 years ago and was at the time of the Minoan Warm Period. The Egyptians Great Pyramid was 1,000 years old.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
02-03-2018 21:32
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
still learning wrote:
James___ wrote:

....Of course, as with plateaus no volcano is needed, just a flow of magma.....



Looks like you got that bit from the National Geographic site that you linked to earlier. Can find it elsewhere on the web too. Not considered accurate. Some writer equated magma with mantle.

Try this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427131812.htm

You derided textbooks. Fair enough, they're always incomplete. I don't think you'll find an explanation of the Colorado Plateau uplift in textbooks except in the most general sense. It's basically been unknown. The explanation put forth in the article referred to in the sciencedaily link above will be too recent for most textbooks, and it's still somewhat speculative.

Deride textbooks all you like, but to be consistent you should be even more wary of websites.


still learning,
The only real issue that I have with textbooks is that many people stop at that point. When I worked for the Boeing Airplane Co. a person could have a degree in engineering and that would get them a job there. After that they would have to learn how airplanes were made and how Boeing's own codes were used to build them. Boeing also offered Off Hour Training so it's employees could better learn what Boeing knew. This is something many college students learn upon graduation, their degree is a starting point.
With textbooks, they are IMO meant to be a basis where many people can learn the same basic information. The link you shared shows how an understanding of geology can be expanded. I found it quite interesting.
With discussing volcanism from about 18,000 years ago to about 12,000 years ago this could become a consideration. I think the link was a good find on your part.


You might remember that I was up in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. Seeing some relatives after talking to people at The Boeing Company. The only place I've ever seen it described as "The Boeing Airplane Company" is in lawsuits. I guess to distinguish it from The Boeing Pajama Company or The Boeing Skateboard Company.

Mt. Etna has been in almost continuous eruption for centuries. If this doesn't effect the local weather why would you believe that it and the other 199 active volcanoes that are known would have your dramatic global weather events? These sometimes extremely dramatic eruptions have had no measurable effects in the upper atmosphere. The geological evidence for very large long term dust clouds is sketchy at best and appear to be related to meteor strikes and not volcanism.

These particles are not small and tend to settle out of the atmosphere very rapidly At best they can cause serious weather events for a year or two.

Most of the ice age animals died out not from hunger or from competition but from HEAT. The last known population of Mammoths lived on a Syberian Island until 1650 BCE - that is less than 4000 years ago and was at the time of the Minoan Warm Period. The Egyptians Great Pyramid was 1,000 years old.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


Boeing Marine Systems (BMS), Renton, Wash.

https://magazines.marinelink.com/Magazines/MaritimeReporter/197711/content/million-missile-firing-210883
02-03-2018 22:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Boeing Marine Systems (BMS), Renton, Wash.

https://magazines.marinelink.com/Magazines/MaritimeReporter/197711/content/million-missile-firing-210883


Thanks for the reference. I didn't know that Boeing was ever in the patrol boat business.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future12408-10-2018 21:50
Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record1105-10-2018 20:22
Ice sat 2 launches2228-09-2018 01:17
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3218-06-2018 20:14
Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump - Michael Mann127-05-2018 07:29
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact