Gibe Home
Annoy.com
Message Forum
Search
Log into your account
Create an Identity
Moments
Terms of Use
|
1 2 3 4 | Next >>
Single Page Format / View all Replies
|
| Author |
Topic: High Latitude Studies Refute Global Warming |
| BaRbArIaN | Posted: 1/10/2002 8:10:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
But you won't hear much about it in the media, no leverage for new laws to destroy an already shaky economy for some treehugger ideal.
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 1/11/2002 9:55:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
I have a better theory for "Golbal Warming".
Human activity tends to warm the surface soil temperatures. Roads, heated houses, abandoned farm fields with new growth on them, etc., are heat sinks that tend to store solar heat and then transfer it to the surrounding soil. While this might be insignificant in local terms, multiply that by billions of people and billions of buildings and billions of abandoned farm fields and areas that are forested now, that weren't one hundred years ago.
Here's the logic: take a city like New York, for example. All that heat bleeding out through the very walls of that building warm the local enviornment. Now multiply that by the the 'megaloplis' running from Boston to Richmond. When snow falls in those areas, most of it melts and the ground becomes clear. Since there isn't much snow to reflect solar enery (infrar red, and ultraviolet) back out into space, the ground instead absorbs it, further warming the ground, and thus preventing more snow cover to reflect solar energy. Henc, all the warming.
The reverse of this phenomenon is called an ice-age. I remember form my side-line studies of geology in college that this was discussed by many scientists concerning the phenomenon of ice-ages.
Since the suns energy imparted to the earth has remained virtually constant for the last 3 billion years or so, and the earth's size and atmospheric makeup have remained the same, as has the earths distance from the sun, as well a geolical core temperatures (the main reason that the Earth's core is hot and presumably liquid is from pressure, which is cause by gravity and therefore stays the same), then it would suffice to say that there is the very good possiblility fo something else causing 'global warming' in the literal (not politically motivated PC theries that abound).
What I driving at is what is called the Earth's 'penumbra', or its ability to reflect solar energy back out into space and not absorb it. A series of small blips in solar output, almost too insignifcant to measure over anything less thant several hundred or even thousands of years were apparently responsible for the Iceages and are probably responsible for any 'global warming' that may be occuring.
Due to solar cycles that insignificanly vary the sun's output become very significant when your 93 million miles away from the sun. A 10x10-90 change in the surface temperature of the sun over a 10 year period can be catastrophic for the earth, and compunded by alterations in the earth's penumbra.
To make a long story even longer, what happened during the last ice-age was that the suns output insignifcantly lessened for about a 10 year period. The fact that the earth's mean temperature may have enen increased at the equator as a result, the extreme northern and souther hemisperes got slightly colder. This means that more snow fell, which held heat in the earth, but lowered the air temperature by reflecting heat back out into space. This accounts for equatorial warming and sub-arctic cooling. Then the snow started to build up and cover more area and reflect more heat back out into space. The increased area of snow cover more than compensated for the sun returning to average or above output. The some built up for about 6,000 years until the heat that the snow reflected back to the earth built up sufficiently to start melting the snow pack, which covered most of the norther hemisphere's land mass.
When the snow melted, global temperatures increased, more forest grew (which held heat in and absorbed solar heat, if they were conniferous forests and not deciduous) and the cycle starts over again when the connifers (evergreens) are gradually and naturally replaced by deciduous trees though climatic and other soil condition changes changes (warming), (deciduous trees lose leaves in the winter and therefore don't insulate the earth from radiational cooling during winter months as connifers do).
So, maybe Algore was correct that if we reduced the number of trees (which he claims are big offenders when it comes to greehous gasses) the planet will then cool down, rapidly. But the greenhouse gasses don't really enter into it. The increase in desertified areas like the Sahara do.
Deserts like the ones we have in the Southwest US, Mexico, etc., are the biggest offenders in planetary heat loss. Lacking any vegitation to hold heat in, or moisture in the air to hold heat in, they tend to reflect 90% or more heat back out into space. That's why it can get so frigging hot in a desert during daylight hours during summer. You get the same heat coming and going. Then at night, the heat is lost by radiational cooling and it can get pretty damn cold pretty damn fast even though it was 120 degrees during the day. Drop the average daily temps a bit and the heat loss snowballs, no pun intended. Go near a major desert city like Las Vagas or Phoenis, and is stays pretty warm at night, due to the increase humidity from all the water consumed and respired by humans. Go a fewe miles out of town and it tends (tends, that is) to change.
Another great example of this is illustrated where I live in North Carolina. During the summer months, the average daily temperature stays within a range of about 5 to 10 degrees fahrenheit. Then when fall comes along and the trees loose their leaves and humidity drops below 20%, all hell breaks loose. Last week we got a foot of snow, yesterday the snow was gone and it was about 70 out. Last night, with low humidiy and no leaves on trees for insulation, the temperature got down to about 25. Up comes the sun, and by 11 in the morning it's 65. You see, during the winter, everything in the way of grass and surface vegitation turns light brown and reflects heat back out into space and it gets really warm because you get the heat coming and going and you get rapid radiational cooling at night because there's no water in the air to keep the heat in and relfect it back down at night. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation of surface water you get, then radiational cooling is diminished, which causes heat buildup and more humidity and then a cold front comes through and makes it rain, or snow if this happens at night, and the cycle begins again.
So, if they want to find a reason for global warming, all they have to do is wait a few years until the pendulum swings the other way. It's a homeostatic system and it will recover all on its own, unless we try to interfere too much and push it that way.
| | Plutonium | Posted: 1/11/2002 11:57:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
For years we've used the earth as a repository for all the electrons we've been generating in our factories too. They all have to go somewhere, so we "Ground" them. This is resulting in a net positive charge on the surface of the earth. Because of the dimples on a golf ball and their polymer coating, they actually tend to be net negative. Thats why today, every time I'd get down to putting, the ball would avoid going into the "Ground" and would veer off to trees and water hazards.
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/12/2002 6:49:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
I think you've got something there, trees being positive charge. Now I finally get it! And Tiger just uses positive charge balls, which I can't buy not being pro. Hmmmm, and I thought I just didn't practice enough.
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 1/12/2002 3:19:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Damn, I brushed up against an electric fence today and my balls got positively charged.
Speaking of 'ground' planes, figure this one out:
A when you recieve a radio signal, you are in effect completing an electrical circuit to a goround plane. This explanation works just fine if the transmitter is on Earth and the reciever is on Earth.
Now, whats the physical ground plane between some distant star some 40,000 lightyears away and the radio telescope recieving RF from that star? Just what is that ground plane? Firgure that one out and you'll get the Nobel Peace Prize for Physics.
| | Linchpin | Posted: 1/12/2002 3:49:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
What is this the "ask Dr. Science thread"?
Tit RF is not a circuit. You need a circuit to transmit and to receive but RF is a wave not a circuit.
| | BaRbArIaN | Posted: 1/12/2002 7:19:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Its all about relative potentials. Satellites need special circuits that do nothing but emulate a "ground" to make the rest of the stuff inside them work.
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/13/2002 7:39:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
As does an airplane - or a cell phone.
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 1/13/2002 8:09:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Actually, Lynch, RF exploits a potential electrical difference, and therefore, needs a ground plane. Perhaps I should have said,"RF needs a 'medium' through which to travel, what is that medium?" all the time remembering that RF goes just fine through absolute vacuums, as far as we know."
What I was driving at was Einstein's unfinished "uniform field theory" and whether not RF (including all forms of 'wave' type radiational energy" was particulate in the sense that electrons are partiuclate.
You can actually measure the electrical potenctial differences of an RF signal and to do so, one must connect a volt meter to a gound plane on one end (earth, literally) and the other to an antenna of sorts. The problem is whether or not the voltaic potential difference is a primary measurement of what's actualy happening or if it's just a secondary effect caused by the FR itself. The same thing is illustrated as by the fact that you cannot directly measure neutrinos, but you can measure the secondary effects like the gamma radiation resulting when a neutrino hits something.
You wave form idea is actually a good one: The RF "wave" may indeed produce a potential difference in an electrical circuit it passes through meaning that the ground plane only needs to be local to the measurement device. This is true to some extend, but there muct be a universal "ground" plane that pervades everything and that is independent of "physical" space.
Lightning is a good example of a capacitance effect. The Earth becomes positively charged, and clouds become negatively charged until the potential difference can on longer be insulated by the intervening air. Then you get ligtning, which incidentally, 99% of the time, actually goes from the ground up. The point of this being that in an EM form of radiation, there must be a potential difference between the source of the signal and where it is ultimately going. If there is no potential difference, then the signal just won't happen.
The problem is that an FR signal, or any EM other signal has to have some sort of 'ground plane' in order to occur. This is what's puzzling. The fact that light, a form of RF will travel literally forever until it hit's, or 'grounds' to something. That means that there is a 'universal' ground plane that exists everywhere, all of the time, even at the absolute source, which, is also puzzling because if it exists at the source too, then the signal should be grounded and no signal should leave the source since there is no potential difference at all.
This means that the universal ground plane must be insulated by something that we cannot even concieve of, and only manifests itself in physical objects and fields like gravity, which no one even uderstand either.
Early RF engineers like Dr. Hazeldine (inventer of the super-heterodine circuit and the first 'Audion Tube'), Marconi and others applied the term 'aether' to this universal ground plane, but could not describe what the 'aether' was or how it worked or whether or not it even existed in the conventional sense of the word.
From what is understood about it, if the universal ground plane can be figured out, it could possibly mean that something like 'sub-space' radio (so touted in Star Trek) is possible adn that 'warp' drive (as touted in Star Trek) may also be possible. Some goofy physicists calim that if we can locate this universal ground, it may not take all that much energy at all to develop a 'warp' field, as it were, because you should be able to overcom the 'insulation' between the physical universe and the universal ground plane.
There's a lot of really arcane math involved that not even the people who areworking on this totally understand. I figure that eventually the problem of trans-light speed travel will be solved along these lines. Faster than light travel objects, fields etc., are believed to happen in certain cases between certain types of sub atomic particles, some of which aren't even really there 'physically' speaking.
| | BaRbArIaN | Posted: 1/13/2002 9:04:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Maybe it has something to do with vacuum energy, the tapping of the difference between the lowest level of electron orbital potentials (the "ground state", which is actually at around 13.6 electron volts) and some theoretical true ground. There is interstellar Hydrogen all over, one proton and one electron at 13.6 eV. The interesting thing is that the electron is repulsed from the oppositely charged protons in the nucleus by the strong nuclear force, which takes over as way larger than electrostatics at that distance, so tapping that potential in atoms may be pretty tough. Do a web search on vacuum energy and the Casimir Effect. You can actually measure evidence of the energy of the vacuum by forcing together well polished metal plates (when certain wavelengths of photon can't enter the gap due to it being smaller than that, there is a net pressure from outside where those photons can roam,but you can't harvest it to produce energy since once the plates are pulled together you have to expend energy to get them apart again).
I'm hoping they figure out a way to use this someday, the potential is unlimited (pun intended).
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/13/2002 10:36:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
An RF wave (and there is no RF particle) is strictly electro/magnetic energy. An electron exists no more in any given place than a sinusoidal waveform exists at one particular point on the 360-degree rotation of its description. It is everywhere in its path of existence or it is just not there. It is at best, a spinning ball of energy. In an atom it encompasses an orbital “skin” surrounding the nucleus but is never exactly at a “point” in some orbit. Shed off the atom, and “on it’s own” it is still much the same. There isn’t a defined “point” where the lone electron is at any given time. It’s still a ball of electro/magnetic energy, and only a particle in the sense of that ball existing in a limited space. An electron is bound by the weak force, thus making it a “wave” form of energy. The strong force allows (or forces) a nucleus particle to exist at a given point. The strong force also makes it hell to have a proton or neutron running around by its lonesome, and even harder the longer it remains wandering around without supervision. The strong force is very far reaching (answer how or why and you get a big cigar) while the weak force doesn’t reach out very far..
An electron can easily wander on it’s own until it comes upon some strong force particle with an imbalance. For some reason, a true particle requires/desires (weakly and only in a proximate location) a wave of energy as company. That’s the weird part of the strong force. It demands, but at a relative distance, the weak force. An electron is energy and thus has mass (if mass has energy then conversely, energy has mass) and is affected by gravity. Strong force particles certainly have mass and are affected big time by gravity. Get a truckload of particles together and their need/desire to have waves nearby grows proportionately, see “Black Hole”. What the “proximate distance” is in that case would be interesting to know.
The weak force comes out described as negative polarity and the strong force described as positive polarity, for our understanding.
To imply a “ground plane” is only to describe the unified field theory that eludes those concerned. Keeps them off the street corners and out of mischief for now.
Thank God there's so many unanswered questions because scientists have to buy groceries too.
| | Linchpin | Posted: 1/13/2002 10:59:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Well now your talking particle physics which is out of my league. To me ground is just a source of free electrons and those are needed to amplify whatever your working with. RF is simply a perturbation created by a pump (transmitter) like ripples in a pond. To me saying you need a universal ground plane is like saying you need a pond to have ripples from a thrown rock or an ocean to have wind waves.
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/13/2002 11:22:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
I was just shitting you. A real ground plane is just one that's not going fast enough to make an airfoil.
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/13/2002 11:35:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Simply put - RF is an energy wave and doesn't need any more of a ground plane between the transmit and the recieve end than does a flashlight beam, a star, x-ray, gamma ray etc etc.
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 1/13/2002 2:22:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
How about a unform field by which all matter is somehow linked together, thus making all matter really chunks of the same thing. In other words, physical matter is just an enery manifestation of one single uniform thing. All we see is what is poking through into what we concieve the whole universe to be.
Sort of like the Hindu concept of Brahman (not the 'diety' entity called Brahman, whci is pronounce differently), i.e.: Einstein's Unifor Field.
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/13/2002 4:53:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Truth is - the entire universe and everything in it, including time, is a dream of a madman in an actual and real universe. Eat, drink and be merry because when his night is over and the orderly wakes the poor slob up -- poof -- we're gone.
| | BaRbArIaN | Posted: 1/13/2002 7:21:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Nah, we have dreams of our own, we'll be ok.
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 1/14/2002 12:55:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Yes, but the funny things about dreams is that in dreams we are bot subject and object, simutaneously. We are both observer and observed because it is our own minds that create what we observe in a dream. What we observe in dreams is, well, ourselves.
When that madman awakes from his dream, we shall discover that that madman is......us!
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/15/2002 8:34:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
We have to wake to figure that one? :p)
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 1/15/2002 5:11:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
You and I don't have to. Most people, yes.
Been reading your Joseph Campbell, eh?
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 1/22/2002 10:04:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Ah gravity, that elusive but mostly unprovable force. Someone figured a way to see it in action.
| | BaRbArIaN | Posted: 1/22/2002 3:01:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Excellent news. A quantum gravity understanding could get very close to a unified field theory.
| | BaRbArIaN | Posted: 9/11/2002 12:30:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Hey, its colder over the south pole than the climate models have been predicting. Hmmmm, maybe some of their other predictions are also as useful?
| | TheInfamousThey | Posted: 9/11/2002 2:43:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
I'll just bet it's those damned penguins and their coal burning electric plants!
| | UncleBob | Posted: 9/11/2002 5:36:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Get over it... you might as well debate wether or not cigarettes are bad for you.
Science has moved on, so should you
|
|
Back ~ Post New Topic ~ Post a Reply
Black and White Version
Full color Version
Copyright © 2006 Innoventions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Gibe and Gibe.com are trademarks of Innoventions, Inc.
|
