Arctic Ice Rotten to the Core

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
OH and btw Phage, remember that claim of yours that magnetism does not affect humans, or the Earth, despite me giving about a dozen or more research which contradicts your "BELIEF"?...

Now even medicine has proven that magnetism can be used to kill cancer cells... Another of your "BELIEFS" has been proven yet again to be wrong...


By Christine Hsu | Oct 08, 2012 03:59 PM EDT

Researchers in South Korea have developed a method that uses a magnetic field to flip a "self-destruct" switch in tumors in both living fish and laboratory cancer cells. Researchers from the latest study, published in the journal Nature Materials, plan on testing the new technique on a variety of other cancers to see if it can destroy other tumors.
...

www.medicaldaily.com...

Now, of couse like always you will try to push your BELIEFS, without a shred of real proof to corroborate such BELIEFS, and even imply that you know better than any other scientist about these topics when in reality you are no scientist...


edit on 11-10-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are using the data that Wilson proved to be wrong
How could Wilson prove that current data is wrong in a paper he wrote in 2003? Why don't you use current data and research? Why do you ignore the PMOD reconstruction? www.agu.org...



I even showed that Solar Magnetic storms had been increasing until about 2005-2006 or so, this constant increase also supports Wilson's research, because when Solar magnetic storms are on the increase, and stronger, it means the overall activity of the Sun has been increasing.
No. You linked data which shows that there were a few years with a few more days with strong geomagnetic activity since 1980. That data is derived from only two observatories. The source says this:

Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and/or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
If instead of the AA index, the Ap index (which is more representative of global activity) is used, the results are somewhat different.


But of course you are aware that geomagnetic activity is not a direct measure of total solar activity since it depends on whether or not a CME encounters Earth's magnetosphere. Geogmagnetic activity is not really the best way to gauge TSI. Sunspot numbers seems to follow TSI values more closely.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


OH and btw Phage, remember that claim of yours that magnetism does not affect humans, or the Earth, despite me giving about a dozen or more research which contradicts your "BELIEF"?...

Now even medicine has proven that magnetism can be used to kill cancer cells... Another of your "BELIEFS" has been proven yet again to be wrong...
Pretty far off topic but I don't think I said that magnetism does not affect humans (or MRIs wouldn't be much good) but do you even read your own sources?

Researchers explain that these iron nanoparticles bind to the molecules on tumor cells, and when the magnetic field is activated, the molecules bunch together, which automatically triggers the death signal, leading the cancer to elf-destruct.
www.medicaldaily.com...

It isn't magnetism killing cancer cells, it's iron oxide particles which trigger an autoimmune response. Very interesting research.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

...
It isn't magnetism killing cancer cells, it's iron oxide particles which trigger an autoimmune response. Very interesting research.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Which need a magnetic field to turn off their switch so the cancerous cell can auto-destroy.

Don't try to change your tune now, I just wish I had my old computer's links so I could remind you of the claims you have made in the past to show how wrong you are in such claims.

BTW, you still haven't been able to prove Wilson's research is wrong. More so when he happens to be NASA's main researcher on the ACRIM experiments...



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
According to resent posts in Climate Depot, Antarctic ice is at the level it was in 1957, I cannot remember the square mile count, and I don't relish ploughing through my archives, but its a huge amount.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Which need a magnetic field to turn off their switch so the cancerous cell can auto-destroy.

What? Please read the article again. The iron oxide particles are attached to antibodies. Do you know what antibodies are? The magnetic field causes the iron particles to aggregate (and the antibodies attached to them). It is the antibodies which trigger the response. The magnetic field is not affecting the cells, it is affecting the iron particles.


BTW, you still haven't been able to prove Wilson's research is wrong. More so when he happens to be NASA's main researcher on the ACRIM experiments...
You haven't been able to prove his research correct or that his results would account for the warming seen since 1980.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


You are using the data that Wilson proved to be wrong
How could Wilson prove that current data is wrong in a paper he wrote in 2003? Why don't you use current data and research? Why do you ignore the PMOD reconstruction? www.agu.org...


Funny that you mention new data, shall we look at the REAL new data?...




Historical Total Solar Irradiance

This historical TSI reconstruction is based on Wang, Lean, and Sheeley ("Modeling the Sun's Magnetic Field and Irradiance Since 1713", ApJ 625:522-538, 2005 May 20), which was used for solar forcings in the 2007 IPCC estimates. These data are updated through 2007 by Judith Lean (NRL) and then modified by:
1. offsetting to the SORCE/TIM TSI absolute values using years 2003-2007 of overlap;
2. replacing years 2003-2007 and extending to more recent times using annual averages of SORCE/TIM data.

Also see: Kopp, G. and Lean, J. L., "A New, Lower Value of Total Solar Irradiance: Evidence and Climate Significance," Geophys. Res. Letters Frontier article, Vol. 38, L01706, doi:10.1029/2010GL045777, 2011.
Kopp, G., Lawrence, G., and Rottman, G., "The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM): Science Results," Solar Physics, 230, 1, Aug. 2005, pp. 129-140.

lasp.colorado.edu...

In the link above there is a graph that goes up to 2006.5, and it shows the Sun's activity shows an overall increase.

A close up of the ACRIM data which shows the Sun's activity has been increasing.



Now, like always you are going to try to twist to what the data actually says, which CLEARLY shows the Sun's activity had been increasing even during the years you claimed it didn't, and it shows the Sun's activity had been pretty high until about 2006, just like I said...

Not to mention that the Solar cycle also has to be taken under consideration, because it shows part of the Sun's activity during the 10 year cycle, for example from 1996-2006.



Not to mention the fact that during warming cycles, as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor which will warm the atmosphere more, and affect which ahs been attributed to CO2 when in fact water vapor is molecule per molecule 10 times worse than CO2, and it is by far more abundant accounting for 1%-4% of atmospheric gases meanwhile CO2 is only a trace gas at 0.039% by volume...


Yet despite the fact that water vapor is more potent than CO2, and it is more abundant, the AGW religious fanatics claim that it is CO2 the cause of the warming, when it should be obvious that water vapor is the gas to blame.

As it stands water vapor accounts for about 95%-98% (depending on whom you ask) of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, meanwhile CO2 and other trace gases account for about 2%-5% of the greenhouse effect.

Because of this it is not possible for CO2 to be the cause of the "massive warming" claimed by the AGW religious lunatics.







Originally posted by Phage
But of course you are aware that geomagnetic activity is not a direct measure of total solar activity since it depends on whether or not a CME encounters Earth's magnetosphere. Geogmagnetic activity is not really the best way to gauge TSI. Sunspot numbers seems to follow TSI values more closely.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


The geomagnetic activity does not have to hit Earth... It's increase demonstrates that other activity on the Sun has also been increasing.

edit on 11-10-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
www.cbsnews.com...

No cars 55 million years ago. Cycles within cycles within cycles.... The polar region was once tropical. All of this "climate change" BS is ALL political. The sun produces more energy then we ever could by burning all of the oil in the world. We dont use it because its hard to tax and control free energy.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by redtic


“Now we are getting there in tens of years, not tens of thousands of years,” he says. “And we don’t know how the Earth is going to respond because we have never seen such a rapid change before.”

“The scientific community realizes that we have a planetary emergency,” said Hansen. “It’s hard for the public to recognize this because they stick their head out the window and don’t see that much.



This is what scares me - things are happening so fast and we have no idea what to expect. I keep saying, you want doom, you got doom - this is our doom - everyone talks about 2012, wwIII, asteroids, solar flares, etc, etc, but this is really happening - it's happening now and it's happening fast, and yet largely ignored by the general public..


maybe it's ignored by the public because there is not a damn thing we can do about it....please enlighten us to what "the public" can do to stop or reverse this.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Funny that you mention new data, shall we look at the REAL new data?...

That graph doesn't show any significant change in the past 50 years but, contrary to Willson's work, it does show a decrease in TSI from 1985 to 1996.


Now, like always you are going to try to twist to what the data actually says, which CLEARLY shows the Sun's activity had been increasing even during the years you claimed it didn't, and it shows the Sun's activity had been pretty high until about 2006, just like I said
Yes, we know that Willson's interpretation of the data showed an increase. From the article where you got the graph. Not everyone agrees with Willson's methods.

Data from these two missions were necessary to fill in some time gaps in the ACRIM record, but it is this splicing that makes the results so controversial.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...



The geomagnetic activity does not have to hit Earth... It's increase demonstrates that other activity on the Sun has also been increasing.

There is no geomagnetic storming unless the CME (or fast solar wind) hits Earth. That's why its called geomagentic activity. As pointed out, the Ap data which is a better global indicator of geomagnetic activity shows no increase.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'm gonna buy up as much dirt now as I can in Greenland... then when it's all melted and the vultures move in to build luxury beach front condos, I make a killing and retire in style.

Seriously though, I'm with the thinking that we are in the tail end of the last ice age. The caps are melting which is a natural progression of the planet. All the fear mongering and junk science meant to goad us into a state of panic just serves to make somebody rich (*cough* GORE)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


We've passed the tail end of the last ice age. Although we're not due a new full ice age for many thousands of years, there has (or had*) nonetheless been a small decline in temps for the past 4,000 years due to reduced axial incline. It's known as the Neoglacial.

* it appears to have come to an unexpected end - hence a shift to increased melting in the Arctic. Some suspect human activity is the reason.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

That graph doesn't show any significant change in the past 50 years but, contrary to Willson's work, it does show a decrease in TSI from 1985 to 1996.


Observation of the Sun's activity corroborates Wilson's research. Not to mention the fact that as cities grew bigger the heat island effect became higher, increasing artificially temperatures worldwide around cities/towns that have grown.




Originally posted by Phage
There is no geomagnetic storming unless the CME (or fast solar wind) hits Earth. That's why its called geomagentic activity. As pointed out, the Ap data which is a better global indicator of geomagnetic activity shows no increase.


Again, there is no need for geomagnetic activity to hit the Earth, but the fact that such activity had been in the increase in the Sun corroborates the fact that the Sun's activity in general had been increasing.

The link i gave clearly states the contrary to your claims...there has been an increase, and geomagnetic storms in the Sun became stronger in subsequent years after 1900 than before that time to the point that and i quote...

...
it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
edit on 11-10-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

We've passed the tail end of the last ice age. Although we're not due a new full ice age for many thousands of years, there has (or had*) nonetheless been a small decline in temps for the past 4,000 years due to reduced axial incline. It's known as the Neoglacial.

* it appears to have come to an unexpected end - hence a shift to increased melting in the Arctic. Some suspect human activity is the reason.


Sorry but that's not true... Neither you, nor anyone else knows exactly when a new ice age could occur...

I find it very naive, and arrogant for you to claim that you know when an ice age should occur...

You have NO CONTROL, OR SAY WHATSOEVER over the climate of Earth...

edit on 11-10-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Assuming that Ice Ages are determined by Milankovitch cycles - as has been the consensus for some time - then it is, in fact, very easy to determine when the next Ice Age should start, based on current scientific knowledge.

Of course, current scientific knowledge is constantly changing (unlike religion) as we discover new things. So our predictions may change tomorrow. But for now, we base our predictions on what we currently know, not what some want us to know, nor what some think we should know in 50 years time.

Obviously a massive asteroid impact would change all this. As would the Sun being eaten by a mutant star goat. But we work on the assumption these will not happen.

Anyway, the neoglacial set in 4,000 year ago and temps have been declining slightly, with increased Arctic ice cover, ever since. Until recently. Whether the decline has truely been reversed remains to be seen.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Observation of the Sun's activity corroborates Wilson's research.

According to Willson maybe. Not according to others.


Again, there is no need for geomagnetic activity to hit the Earth, but the fact that such activity had been in the increase in the Sun corroborates the fact that the Sun's activity in general had been increasing.
Again, unless the CME or fast solar wind encounters the magnetosphere there can be no geomagnetic activity...by definition. Geomagnetic activity is called geomagnetic activity because the Earth's (Geo) magnetic field is affected. Both the AA index and the AP index measure geomagnetic activity on the Earth.


The link i gave clearly states the contrary to your claims...there has been an increase, and geomagnetic storms in the Sun became stronger in subsequent years after 1900 than before that time to the point that and i quote...
What claims? I said that the AA index showed a few more days with strong geomagnetic activity in the past couple of decades. I said that the Ap index shows no such trend. I said that the Ap index provides a better indication of geomagnetic storm activity than does the AA index. The AA index is based on only two observatories
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Interesting though, the annual AA value remained quite steady since 1960.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Assuming that Ice Ages are determined by Milankovitch cycles - as has been the consensus for some time - then it is, in fact, very easy to determine when the next Ice Age should start, based on current scientific knowledge.


You assume too much. The Milankovitch cycles are not the only factor/source that can dramatically change the climate of Earth and other planets and moons with an atmosphere.

Nobody knows how the Sun will react, we also know as a fact, which I have proven, that our Solar System is going to be well within a new region of the Local Fluff which scientists even in 1978 stated would cause dramatic changes in the climate of Earth.

I have also proven that we have encountered sections of this new region of the Local Fluff, which is so different from the one we have been for tens of thousands of years that is mentioned as another interstellar cloud.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

According to Willson maybe. Not according to others.[/quotes]

Wilson is not the only scientist who says this and you know it...


...

The ERBS, ACRIM-III, and VIRGO continue to make observations. Willson [1997] combined the ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II data sets using their overlap with the ERB data, and his analysis suggests a net increase of solar radiation between solar minima in 1986 and 1996. (Note: only two solar minima have actually been observed thus far). The estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles and if the climate system feedbacks reached their full equilibrium response to the forcing.

Instrument Description


For a description of the TIM instrument go to the SORCE TIM overview page.

Scientific Contact


Dr. Greg Kopp (See Biography)
LASP/ CU (303) 735-0934
Email: (use firstname.lastname@lasp.colorado.edu)

References


Kopp, G. and Lean, J.L., A New, Lower Value of Total Solar Irradiance: Evidence and Climate Significance, Geophys. Res. Letters Frontier article, Vol. 38, L01706, doi:10.1029/2010GL045777, 2011.

Kopp, G., Heuerman, K., Harber, D., and Drake, V., The TSI Radiometer Facility - Absolute Calibrations for Total Solar Irradiance Instruments, SPIE Proc. 6677-09, 26-28 Aug. 2007.

Kopp, Greg, George Lawrence, and Gary Rottman. The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM): Science Results. Submitted to Solar Physics 2005.

Kopp, Greg, and George Lawrence. The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM): Instrument Design. Submitted to Solar Physics 2005.

Kopp, Greg, Karl Heurerman, George Lawrence. The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM): Instrument Calibration. Submitted to Solar Physics 2005.

Kopp, G., G. Lawrence, and G. Rottman. Total Irradiance Monitor Design and On-Orbit Functionality, SPIE Proc. 5171-4, 2003.

Lawrence, G.M., G. Kopp, G. Rottman, J. Harder, T. Woods, and H. Loui. Calibration of the Total Irradiance Monitor. Metrologia 40, 2003, S78-S80.

Lawrence, G. M., G. Rottman, G. Kopp, J. Harder, W. McClintock, and T. Woods. The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) for the EOS SORCE Mission. SPIE Proceedings, 4135, 215-224, 2000.

Lawrence, G. M., G. Rottman, J. Harder, and T. Woods. Solar Total Irradiance Monitor: TIM. Metrologia, 37, 407-410, 2000.

Woods, Tom, Gary Rottman, Jerry Harder, George Lawrence, Bill McClintock, Greg Kopp, and Chris Pankratz. Overview of the EOS SORCE Mission. SPIE Proceedings, 4135, 192-203, 2000.

Willson, R.C. and R.S. Helizon. SPIE Proceedings (Earth Observing Systems IV Conference, Denver, CO), 3750, 233-242, 1999.

Fröhlich C., B. N. Anderson, T. Appourchaux, G. Berthomieu, D. A. Crommelynck, V. Domingo, A. Fichot, M. F. Finsterle, M. F. Gómez, D. Gough, A. Jiménez, T. Leifsen, M. Lombaerts, J. M. Pap, J. Provost, T. Roca Cortés, J. Romero, H. Roth, T. Sekii, U. TellJohann, T. Toutain, and C. Wehrli. The First Results from SOHO (Edited by B. Fleck and Z. Svestka), Dordrecht/Boston/London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 267-86, 1997; see also Solar Phys., 170, 175, 1997.

Willson, R. C. Total Solar Irradiance Trend in Solar Cycles 21 and 22. Science, 277, 1963-1965, 1997.

Fröhlich, Claus. First Results from the VIRGO Experiment. Transactions AGU, Spring Meeting, 1996.

Lee, R. B., M. A. Gibson, R. S. Wilson, and S. Thomas. Long-term total solar irradiance variability during sunspot cycle 22. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 1667-1675, 1995.

Fröhlich, Claus. The Sun as a Variable Star. Eds.: J. Pap, C. Fröhlich, H. Hudson, and S. Solanki, Cambridge University Press, New York, 28-36, 1994.

Willson, R. C. Irradiance observations of SMM, Spacelab-1, UARS, and ATLAS Experiments. The Sun as a Variable Star. Eds.: J. Pap, C. Fröhlich, H. Hudson, and S. Solanki, Cambridge University Press, New York, 54-62, 1994.

Kyle, H.L., D.V. Hoyt, J.R. Hickey, R.H. Maschoff, and G.J. Vallette. Nimbus-7 Earth Radiation Budget Calibration History. Part 1: The Solar Channels. NASA Reference Publication 1316, 1993.



Again, there is no need for geomagnetic activity to hit the Earth, but the fact that such activity had been in the increase in the Sun corroborates the fact that the Sun's activity in general had been increasing.
Again, unless the CME or fast solar wind encounters the magnetosphere there can be no geomagnetic activity...by definition. Geomagnetic activity is called geomagnetic activity because the Earth's (Geo) magnetic field is affected. Both the AA index and the AP index measure geomagnetic activity on the Earth.


The link i gave clearly states the contrary to your claims...there has been an increase, and geomagnetic storms in the Sun became stronger in subsequent years after 1900 than before that time to the point that and i quote...
What claims? I said that the AA index showed a few more days with strong geomagnetic activity in the past couple of decades. I said that the Ap index shows no such trend. I said th



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Again, unless the CME or fast solar wind encounters the magnetosphere there can be no geomagnetic activity...by definition. Geomagnetic activity is called geomagnetic activity because the Earth's (Geo) magnetic field is affected. Both the AA index and the AP index measure geomagnetic activity on the Earth.


You sure have a thick head... I am not talking about the magnetic storms from the Sun hitting the Earth... I am talking about the increase in the strength of the magnetic storms on the Sun being a sign that the overall activity of the Sun was increasing... Do you understand it now?



Originally posted by Phage
Interesting though, the annual AA value remained quite steady since 1960.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...


The anual AA value did not remain steady... It increased and kept increasing until about 2006...



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I'm a little late to catch this as it is a few pages back in the thread now but...


Originally posted by Schkeptick
It's called GREENland because it was Green when it was discovered. This has happened before in human history, even just since history started being kept. It's part of earth's cycle.


No.

It was basically just what is today called 'marketing.' Or you could just call it a lie with a purpose.

Greenland was called 'green land' because it was mostly covered in ice and nobody would want to go live there. Iceland was the good island the viking explorers wanted to keep for themselves and so it was given the unattractive name 'ice land.'

I mean maybe that's a "just so" story, but it is a perfect fit, and in any case, Greenland hasn't been 'green' for almost half a million years:
phys.org...
edit on 13-10-2012 by 11andrew34 because: typo





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join