superball

The Casimir force is attractive. It is not inverse-square; IIRC it varies as a larger exponent, but that may not be the same in all distance regimes. You will have to do work to separate the plates, so this does not represent energy you can draw from the vacuum.

wiki "When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force, either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates."

This is my confusion, virtual photon constitutes the field.

I know The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, without any external electromagnetic field.

If I had arranged the plates properly, it said there is also a repellent force.

I have placed my plates, or spheres in the electric field, arranged them so they repel, and accelerate them together.

My question, is there an increase in flux in the field or density of the charge if they get very close?

Can you point me in the right direction please.

Were should I be looking to find induction of two bodies in outer space like I have described?

Is there a change of flux between two given objects accelerating together, leading to energy increasing on both spheres?

Thanks so much for your help. sincerely super-ball

What does one have to do with the other? Neutrinos have spin; they are uncharged and do not interact electromagnetically. Plenty of particles with the same spin but have different energy.

Hmm, I was talking about only 2 particles at the time, you introduced a variable.

One particle the Higgs Boson, the other the mysterious gravitational energy particle if one did exist.

I have more questions about neutrino, and I could not elaborate on the reason why they are uncharged, although they do have spin, so we have that. Perhaps they are a perfect insulated particle.

Honestly, I don't have a clue why.

mass=energy, anti particles = energy, neutrinos = energy, all of these particles are spinning is the common denominator. all exist within the medium, or electric field.

I am happy I found the classical physics forum, or else i would really be in trouble.

cheers Respectfully super-ball.

As you may have noticed, asthma is on the increase. There appear to be two forms - allergic and non-allergic. Moreover, there are an estimated 150 million people worldwide with asthma. I think the dominant form is allergic asthma. However, what are the causes?

Are they genetic, because I doubt that the genetic profile would have changed that much? Or are the changes environmental, or social? Any ideas?

Asthma Article

Greetings, I have been looking into the same problems you have.

Sorry if I do not stick with conventional wisdom on this, its good to know your own body, and relate these changes to a possible cause.

Asthma is one thing, allergy is another. for better definition assume respiratory conditions are increasing.

For me, I have noticed the atmosphere is producing copious amounts of ozone, several less well know causes can be accounted for.

Lets face it, the nuclear disaster in japan is a main contributor. Radioactive material drifting around the entire world.

What does radio active mean? It means it is releasing energy.

The interaction in our atmosphere, causes a response.

water vapor in the form of cloud cover gets heated, heat causes it to evaporate quickly, leading to less cloud cover were the heating is very high.

Perhaps the drought in Texas is related to that, the radiation transforms the atmosphere leading to a huge spike in low level ozone, you may not like this answer, but it is scientifically sound.

Other causes an increase in natural gas, and methane bubbling up from pockets under ground that have reached the surface. an earth quake, or drilling in search of fuel may release the trapped pockets of gas.

This gets even more dangerous, as it is also exposed to solar rays, and even the radiation coming from nuclear plants that fail, nuclear testing, under ground testing etc.

This is not per-say the (only factors) to respiratory problems on a global scale, but is becoming evident, a main contributor. Independent study, and sampling of the air you breathe and the drinking water being consumed

Is necessary for determining cause. The amount of tolerances a body can handle is determined not by the individual, but by the quantity a species can safely tolerate.

If the quantity of these very dangerous by products find its way hovering above your home, you can be sure the clean breathable oxygen is reduced. It may even lead to brain damage, or permanent damage to the respiratory system.

My own researches verify that.

Sincerely , super-ball.

I always quite like the climate change deniers who think that we know what we know only as a result of Al Gore. Refute Gore, and climate science falls apart!

 

I think the natural processes out weight the man made processes.

Should i say why? or will i violate Al Gore global warming model with hard facts?

 

 

 

lol that is very funny ....

drinks are on me cheers.

my response"How did they do that? with smoke and mirrors, flashy cards, and lots, and lots of assertion."

Cheers, its time for tea..

In the course of one year how many earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or greater are there in any one ten day period?

This is difficult to determine if we used the year 2011.

If we go back to 2010, 6,7 or greater quakes are increasing in frequency.

If we go back to 2009 we have a somewhat stable environment.

When dealing with 2010, prediction was very intuitive, and there was found to be a cause.

In 2011, predictions may be determined on a time sensitive base if we look at 2010.

Earthquakes are generally not time sensitive. random quakes are a result of stress on plates that are in motion, assuming the earth is in a stable condition.

In 2011 the earth is quickly becoming destabilized, and an outcome for future predictions based on the time frame given for 2010 will lead to a higher degree of accuracy.

The progression of the destabilizing crustal shifts for 2011 will clearly show an increase of frequency, and more powerful quakes, leading to the next great earthquake expected within the next 4 months. closer to the end of march is my prediction, although it may be sooner December 2011 to February 2012.

January 2011 will have a high probability for 7.0 to 8.0 earthquakes.

If you had thought earthquake prediction is unlikely, then by looking at a graph of 2010, you may prove with accuracy time sensitive relations for 2011, and also 2012.

People claiming to be able to use astronomical charts in the past found it most difficult.

today we have reason to state otherwise.

Volcanic eruptions are no different for 2011, and 2012 many will be erupting by mid January, and continue for a few months there after. You may find a chart for 2010, and determine these eruptions most accurately for the next 2 to 3 years.

Nothing is left by chance in this case, so its time to be prepared.

The progression will accelerate more so after destabilization. So yea, its not looking good.

sorry I had no answer for your question on quantity of quakes in a 10 day period, but i hope your concern may lead to a better understanding of the process of torque induced precession.

It has been found to be a progression of axial shift. Over a 3 to 5 year period starting in early months of 2010.

The magician does not tell his secrets, but in this case science does. I am a scientist, not a magician.

respectfully superball cheers

Theoretically, there could be a particle which "gives gravity" to other masses. I believe it is referred to as the Higgs Boson if I am not mistaken. Also, enlighten a moron: What signifigance does spin have on a particle?

 

 

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand, because I am just starting on this stuff, but isn't the anthropic principle basically saying that the universe is the way it is because we couldn't live if it wasn't the way it is?

 

 

Greetings, I have not done to much study in this field, so I had some questions also. I had assumed it to be spinning, in wiki the description of the boson said this.

"the Higgs boson is expected to be in a class of particles known as scalar bosons. (Bosons are particles with integer spin, and scalar bosons have spin)"

So yea something is spinning. I asked a few questions related to induction to aid in my understanding. Is there a particle boson? Not yet according to wiki. best ask the experts on that one.

Spin dictates energy IMO, because there needs to be a changing magnetic field in order for a changing electric field.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61077-the-higgs-and-a-gravitational-field-assumption/

Greetings all I have a few questions on the subject please.

from wiki "In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field.

The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, like capacitors placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.

My question is does this effect demonstrate a force that may be consider as energy from the quantized field or vacuum energy that is not observed based on mass, and distance relating to energy by principle of the inverse square law? Assuming these bodies are in outer space, and the electric field is changing due to movement of the bodies cutting the local flux lines of space. They have a charge, and it is increasing as they come closer together.

I hope I did not complicate its meaning, I am looking for energy derived from inductive forces.

When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force, either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates.

Question, if I assumed a repulsion force, based on the inverse square law. Does the mass of two bodies pressing closer together induce a charge on the other body, or are both bodies equally increasing in energy?

I am not sure I am using the terminology correctly, but could we say gravity depends on mass, and the locality of any two objects dictate the value of energy relating to this force?

Is it a inductive force of gravity, or is it the energy in the medium that is always present?

electric field

sincerely super-ball

Was it this model that has taken for granted self evident processes, and delimit the realm of analysis, or has main stream confounded the situation, because they lost there way by not following self evident principles, and observation?

This is a question for the reader, it is used to test current models. It is used to determine related factors. It is thought to be polluted with irrelevant information. It is thought to have dismissed natural self evident factors. It is thought to have been confusing. It is thought to have not answered to a high degree all factors related to the present day.

How was it determined by what came before, and what came after. By assuming the model was functional in the first place, and by determining the model has been in a evolving manner polluted with irrelevant amendments.

By the continued use of amendments, leading to confusion.. Another axiom of course.

Does global warming models list these factors in a cause, and effect chain?

From an observable point of view are current models functional?

Do they explain to a high degree all of the main causes in order of importance?

What is assumed to be self evident?

A Cause and effect chain answers, or explain questions related to specific change.

Keep in mind the model is not related to a global warming process. Instead it is used to determine the outcome of cause and effects related.

The foundation of change in a system is categorized in a cause and effect chain.

Observable, testable, factual. Open for amendments.

I have no idea what you are trying to say or how that sentence relates to what went before and what came after. I appreciate it is difficult when working in a foregin language - perhaps you could try writing shorter sentences.

 

I remain willing to discuss your ideas and will be happy to do so once I know what they are.

I thank you for your willingness to help.

I agree more is needed, I really did not think about the Q. & A.

My wording, and ideas of methodology may have not been clear. First It is a simple model. Second cause and effect chain is used for all determining factors. Third Tested for truth and functionality.

Perhaps, because of my Questioning process others find it aloof.

Q: When we describe a system effected by change, how do you determine, and go about explaining these changes in a scientific manner?

Include, and determine the state of changes occurring in the system leading to a functional physical working model.

My question was used to determine these factors.

The methodology, I had used the axiom assuming all is true.

I had tested for a high degree of accuracy.

All statements used for explaining changes by categorizing the fundamental laws of nature.

Change was determined by cause, and effect including only what is not assumed, but instead what is widely known.

Factor that are less widely known are also included, and gives answers to questions current models lack.

by use of axiom assuming all statements are true, and then by testing it for truth.

by using well known principles, explaining a cause for a given effect.

by keeping it very simple, including self evident or well known principles.

by explaining other less known causes for a given effect.

A trend can be used to determine a cause. True, or false?

Every thing in nature, everything included in a system has a generating effect on another system.

You might say mainstream global warming scientist look at a completely closed system, ignoring self evident principles, and observation.

I hope this is sufficient although it seems to be very repetitive.

Thank you for your help, respectfully super-ball.

Take methane for instance, natural gas, or crude oil. you better believe it does exactly what you had said.

swimming in it kills life, drinking it kills life, and breathing it causes brain damage.

I am very sad because of these fact, considering its going to get much worse in the next couple years.

Testing water, and air independently, or 3rd party is the only solution to the problem.

Best of regards, super-ball.

well you gave me a possible solution I had been looking for.

Cause of red shift in this case it may be something other than expansion of universe.

I aim my scope over there, as it passes by a high gravitational mass, even Jupiter it may result in a red shift.

Some one may have assumed there must be a cause leading to dark matter, but the gravitation lensing may occur even when dealing with a small body or mass. the returning echo can be absorbed.

Not good enough, try this instead. when light is reflected ,or even direct light from a source it travels a small given distance,and it spreads out in all directions. the farther you go the more spread. So yea there is light spreading away from the observer from any source in all directions. The return trip, or echo did the same exact thing spherical waves spreading in both directions. Radar works exactly in the same way. The shift can be accounted for with simple tests.

You may need 20 miles to do that, taking a reading by aiming at a concrete wall, and waiting for the return, same test on an iron wall. Metal absorbs that type of wave, (iron nickle) so now you have a decrease in energy on the return, the energy wave is also spreading in both directions a red shift.

This is what gravitational lensing really looks like. Observe the smoking gun, not one inbound object, see at least 2 objects. I wonder why the energy bands are facing the wrong direction.. Torque induced Precession. Take a look how gravity waves over lapp another gravity wave causing a monstrous hill. Induction causes expansion.

Holy cow, cheers.. Push the green button now you have one. Time to break out the tinfoil hats.

There are 8 people (Father, Mother, Thief, Policeman, 2 Sons, 2 Daughters) trying to cross a river by using a raft. Only the adults (excluding the thief) know how to operate the raft. A total of only 2 people are allowed on the raft at any given moment. The raft must travel back and forth across the river in order to pick up all of the people.

 

Rules:

You have the following people trying to cross a river:

 

Father

The father cannot stay with any of the daughters, without their Mother's presence.

Mother

The Mother cannot stay with any of the sons, without their Father's presence.

Thief

The thief cannot stay with any family member, if the policeman is not there.

Policeman

Allowed to travel with everyone.

2 Sons, 2 Daughters

Not allowed to travel without an adult, or be in the presence of the thief without the policeman's supervision. The sons are not allowed to be in the presence of their mother without the supervision of their father. The daughters are not allowed to be in the presence of their father without the supervision of their mother. Both the sons and daughters are allowed to be unsupervised (so long as all other rules are still satisfied).

 

In what sequence must everyone travel in order to get everyone to the other side of the river safely? (Keep in mind that the rules apply at ALL times, and not just on the raft.)

LOL some body needs to swim was my first thought but, now I see the possibility.

going= P and T, hallway there the thief jumps off, and drowns leading to a solution LOL no that's not it.

Police man tied Thief by a rope to the raft lol, nope.

LOL tie a rope to the raft and pull the boat back empty heheh maybe?

M + D first trip.

D goes back

D still in raft

Bonkers...

I have one more trick if you like math, my sister taught this to me when i was like 12 years old.

Card trick, take a deck of cards, ask a person to take out 3 cards that equal 10.

aces are one, ten jack queen king is not allowed. you need the whole deck to pull it off.

they don't show there cards, and they do not go back in the deck.

When done you will tell the numbers on the cards only.

1. You need to master this, because it depends on speed of flipping, so you can not look like your counting cards.

2. Take the remaining pile in your hand, and flip the first card. if its a 10 flip another card on top quickly, 10 jack queen king is ten.

3. If not a ten, flip a new pile. you may end up with a bunch of piles by the end of the trick.

4. every time a ten comes up flip a card on top, every time 2 piles of cards equals ten, flip a card on both piles.

5. If you end up with only one card left at the end, make a new pile.

6. now you have a bunch of piles at the end, remove 2 piles that add up to 10. there should be 3 piles left that don't add up to ten.

If one of the last 3 piles is a 3 add 7 and get 10, remove the pile this means he has a seven in is hand, the remaining 2 piles will be an 8 and a 9.

therefore he has a 2, and a ace in his hand the power of 10. enjoy.

remove all the piles before you tell what cards he is holding.

cheers.

 

Billy.

 

 

 

I've done this one with four lines before, but never three. I'll be interested to see the answer.

lol oh yea its 4 thanks..

been a long time since i did that one.

I forgot to test it.

 

Googling skills not ingenuity.

 

Googling skills not ingenuity.

No it was not goggled, if you had used 4 lines it kind of looks like a kite.

that definitely works also, should have been 4 lines my bad.

11/20/11 Prediction for 6.7 or better, earthquake location ring of fire. estimated delay up to 9 days. 11/29/11

I have one to pull on your friends, ask them this question, you need a visual aid to do it.

If Billys mom has three sons, and one is named Penney, hold a penny in palm, and one is named quarter, show quarter, then what is the third sons name?

You get four straight lines, you must connect all the dots without lifting your pencil.

. . .

. . .

. . .

We know that the 1st dimension is length (a line), the 2nd dimension is length + width (a polygon), the 3rd dimension is length + width + hieght (a cube), and the fourth dimension is length + width + hienght + time (a moving cube). Does anyone know what is the 5th dimension? Is it heat, colour, chemical properties or something like that? This is a serious matter to discuss.

I Had read something Maxwell described as adding another dimension, I think he called it the Z axis, in laymen terms everything can cast a shadow.

I don't know what the 5th dimension would look like, hypothetically gravity or some kind of spin energy, or a doughnut.. just make mine jelly.

Cheers.

Hey whats up, thanks for your time, I was thinking it could happen, because if we continue to ingest silicon through solution, life would eventually find a way.

Food, and drink should never be packaged in plastic containers, especially due to the leaching factor you had suggested.

Do you think arsenic, and silicon can combine? I am not a chemist, but I think nature may have already shared this secret?

How about carbon based crystalized life?

Any way time will tell, just don't have the time to wait.

cheers.

Hi All,

 

I recently received the following e-mail(Via a friend) from a professor at a local university. I am looking for a broader sense of feedback from the community who are involved in the field. The paper is 44 pages long according to the PDF and has a lot of formulae etc. that I do not understand.

" The Green House Effect

 

You will recall that Ireferred you to a paper by Joseph Postma that challenges current theory abouthow the GHE is supposed to work. Download from

 

www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

This has triggered a furiousdebate among the climate change community which is quite remarkable in itsintensity, reinforcing the notion that there is still a lot that is notunderstood about how the atmospere is supposed to work, and how carbon dioxideand other green house gases can cause global warming.

 

One of the more objectiveclimate blog sites has featured no less than 1 277 comments since a threadabout Postma's paper was opened. Many commentators have said that Postma iswrong, but he has himself participated in the exchanges and defended his casewith remarkable patience and good humour.

 

I recommend this blog to youfor an insight about the doubts that still exist around the very basis ofclimate change theory – the Green House Effect. And this at a time when South Africa isgearing up to host CoP17, and Al Gore is arriving here soon to tell us aboutthe terrible things that will happen if we don't stop emitting carbon dioxide.Coincidentally, I heard on the radio this morning that the seventh billionhuman being will soon be born!

 

 

http://judithcurry.c...eenhouse-effect

 

Best wishes

 

John"

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Sha

I think it was very refreshing. Only a physicist could have done it, I like it, in fact I love it.

It gives quantity, gives formula, the number of supporters is irrelevant. It cover so much information..

I have an experiment for you, if you had balance, or scale, and added some gaseous material on both sided so that it was in perfect balance.

On one side we have earth, man and co2, and plane air the closed system analogy. on the other side we insert the same material and call that nature the open system analogy.

On the open side i suggest energizing the material with laser light, blue, red, green spectrum. If the balance remains the same on both sides then the experiment is a failure.

if the energy introduced tips the scale it would suggest nature is the most powerful factor. cheers.

It would take thousand, and thousands of dollars worth of precision equipment. I think it could work in theory, but you always have the drawing board to fall back on.

If all fails you will still end up with a big pile of o3 so you can get your money back.

cheers.

"How did they do that? with smoke and mirrors, flashy cards, and lots, and lots of assertion."

Cheers, its time for tea...

So, other than a bunch of hand waving and wild assertions, you've got nothing. Bye.

Perhaps the red queen can explain it for you.

The Red Queen's Hypothesis

In reference to an evolutionary system, continuing adaptation is needed in order for a species to maintain its relative fitness amongst the systems being co-evolved with

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gravitational+Lensing+effect+on+flux&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

cheers..

Greetings again.

I will clear up these discrepancy's for you.

I had never said in any of my posts that human involvement was not a contributing factor. Now we agree.

I have not said the precession was the cause of expansion Solar energy interacting with the system, it must be moved higher on the list of cause and effect. Expansion is an effect of induction. You really don't want me to go there. How does a climatologist have any clue outside of there closed system analogy. Induction is explained by physics.

co2 is a factor, I never said it wasn't. the only problem is the exclusion of well known principles, and the way you have gone about providing detailed information.

I ask for a quantity of material entering from both sides nature and man made. provide that and we are getting somewhere. Hence the invention of a new field of study, and the new terminology related to global warming.

( The anthropogenic view point.) I will stand on the opposite side of that view point, because I will learn more from nature than man can ever explain.

A valid interjection, because they have a category for there carbon tax agenda, and that is unscientific.

There are other ways to include the solar factor without saying the sun is expanding. I already had said there is definite change on earth leading to increased radiation reaching the surface. In this case the sun did not need to change, solar rays have become more penetrating.

If you really need an explanation for a trend, I suggest you play the stock market.

Material goes up, it interacts, it expands, it contracts, it converts to other more dangerous gaseous material bla bla bla.

If you need some type of proof of precession, then i will give you one, and only one proving once, and for all it is occurring.

There will be a third great quake, the only way that is possible is for something to cause it. The date will be between mid January, and mid April 2012.

If that is not a fact I will bow down, and say the co2 did it. Closest possible dates. Jan 17, Feb 16, March 23 April 17. Let see how a co2 chart can explain that.

Maybe they can pull it out of there hat?

Respectfully, seriously, jokingly.

My attacks are on the model, and not the person stating them. cheers.

I bring your attention to the chart, climate change attribution you had posted.

Looking at the lines on the graph, and its relation to model forcing.

1. The chart is for 2007, and is out dated, but ill say its a valid chart showing something, but what?

The answer may not surprise you. The anthropogenic is a funny word, defined it means caused by humans: why not say human impact, not important.

you may find it interesting.

Back to the chart. A decline in volcanic eruptions in the last 30 years. what? You know as well as I do it has been increasing.

The funny thing is it does not show a quantity, it is used as smoke, and mirrors.

2. Carbon dioxide is also one of the main volcanic contributors. The chart is not giving a quantity invalid. It also separates green house gasses from volcanoes rather then merging them. Again no quantity is given I cant say this enough.

the production of gaseous material in the atmosphere begins to change under certain condition, that is due to the solar rays interaction, and it produces ozone.

With that said, they simply include ozone in the chart with out providing a source for ozone production. If you say cars and human involvement I think I am going to shoot myself, and you can save your bullet.

You may want to research how gaseous material interacts with sunlight, and what by product is produced. I stand by my previous statements, solar radiation it a main contributor to the effect you see, and the changes that are occurring. you simply cant hold back the damns any longer it will accelerate, ( therefore the human or anthropogenic) is negated..

http://quercus.igpp....etal_nat_00.pdf This PDF on co2.

Let not argue about it any longer, if all the facts are not included, then all global warming models invalidate themselves, because of exclusion of certain well known principles.

cheers.

I am done editing, sorry.

The problem we have is not disrespect, or ignorance it is related to methodology. Defined:

Methodology is generally a guideline for solving a problem, with specific components such as phases, tasks, methods, techniques and tools. It can be defined as follows:

1. "the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline"
2. "the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline"
3. the study or description of methods

It is a scientific discipline, it is systematic, and is descriptive. If all information is not included for the reader, the reader finds there own valid Q. A.

Nobody said it's negligible. The point is that it's not able to explain what we see.

In order for that statement to be true, we must assume something. Some one had said in a response science looks for superior theory.

It's one thing to say, "It's nature, and natural causes are the reason why it's warming." However, we know that there has been no significant change in solar output or irradiance, we know there has been no significant uptick in volcanic activity, and we know that pretty much every natural explanation we've encountered is insufficient to explain the speed and amount of warming we're seeing.

That is nonsense, the sun also expands just like planets do. Today we have evidence it is in expansion mode. You may say what proof do you have? because we have a cause, The precession related to earths axis, and the external force that must cause it. Einstein described the three requirements for his premise. I will locate that document for your shortly.

Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html

This may not serve my point well, but my objections are relative to the observer. cheers.

So, it's fine if you want to say "it's natural," but you must also explain what natural mechanism accounts for the change, as those we already study simply do not.

To answer this question you have assumed it has already been studied? Because any specific study in not included does not say it is less of a factor, and has already proposed. It may have been ignored.

But, it is included. It simply cannot explain the trend. It has been looked at. It has been reviewed. I recognize you dislike the answer, but we do have an answer, and it's not the natural forcing agents like solar or volcanism. Why are you so reluctant to accept what is so clear, and that human behavior is changing our climate, due primarily to our release of greenhouse gases such as CO2 into our atmosphere? It's supported by basic physics. It's supported by basic chemistry. It's supported by observation, and accepted by nearly everyone who studies this field professionally. Why do you choose to ignore what has been studied for over a century and understood for several decades?

This goes back to the last response, Because a study in not included does not say it is less of a factor, and has already proposed.

No, not really. Sorry, but your mindset appears based on an ignorance of the data and based on what you'd like to believe instead of what the evidence shows. That's not a good thing, nor are our positions in any way equivalent or equally supported.

scientific methods, do not assume ignorance.

No, I don't wonder that. Most people do accept global warming as valid, especially those who are most expert in the subject... People who have spent their entire lives devoted to studying and who grasp the complexities and interdependencies recognize almost without fail the truth of the matter... on the order of 98% of them agree with the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of the trends we're seeing.

That may be so, but 98% of 100 men does not mean even 10% of the world population accept it.

http://www.logicalsc...s/consensus.htm

Sorry, no offense, but I'm pretty bored with you already. I've addressed your questions and supported my points. You're ignoring what I've shared in favor of what you wish were true. Have fun with that. I'm walking away from this discussion now because you do not appear to be approaching it in good faith.

No offense taken, i have not ignored your points at all, my approach was as an observer. I have weighed the information, and I simply interject that all the facts are included.

Respectfully super-ball cheers.

I bring your attention to the chart, climate change attribution you had posted.

Looking at the lines on the graph, and its relation to model forcing.

1. The chart is for 2007, and is out dated, but ill say its a valid chart showing something, but what?

The answer may not surprise you. The anthropogenic is a funny word, defined it means caused by humans: why not say human impact, not important.

you may find it interesting.

Back to the chart. A decline in volcanic eruptions in the last 30 years. what? You know as well as I do it has been increasing.

The funny thing is it does not show a quantity, it is used as smoke, and mirrors.

2. Carbon dioxide is also one of the main volcanic contributors. The chart is not giving a quantity, invalid. It also separates green house gasses from volcanoes rather then merging them. Again no quantity is given I cant say this enough.

The production of gaseous material in the atmosphere begins to change under certain conditions, that is due to the solar rays interaction, and it produces ozone, but that is only one byproduct, there are many others that are just as harmful.

With that said, they simply include ozone in the chart with out providing a source for ozone production. If you say cars and human involvement I think I am going to shoot myself, and you can save your bullet.

You may want to research how gaseous material interacts with sunlight, and what by products are produced. I stand by my previous statements, solar radiation is a (main) contributor to the effects you see, and the changes that are occurring. Must be included. You simply cant hold back the damns any longer it will accelerate, ( therefore the human or anthropogenic) is negated..

http://quercus.igpp....etal_nat_00.pdf This PDF on co2.

Lets not argue about it any longer, if all the facts are not included, then all global warming models invalidate themselves, because of exclusion of certain well known principles.

Refer to previous post.

cheers.

Greetings folks, this is an opportunity for you to include your observations, and possible outcomes for the near future.

Predictions should follow the geologic, and climate change effects.

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, whatever. If you predict an earth quake include the magnitude it should be at least a 6.0 or better. Location will be difficult to predict.

If you predict a volcanic eruption, give the name of the volcano. this is not easy to do, you may say a major eruption will occur, and give a date or estimate.

Serious predictions is best, not Michel Jackson ghost will come back and haunt the globe theater, Pull a rabbit out of your hat for science.

The magician does not tell his secrets, but in this case science does. Add predictions, because science loves to be right.

Every thing in nature, everything included in a system has a generating effect on another system.

You might say mainstream global warming scientist look at a completely empty system, with no regard for all the facts, only including there axioms that blame The human race for any changes in that system.

Radioactive material, and the inability to contain it is there fault not mine. They have destroyed vast quantity of land mass, leaving it uninhabitable for generations, leaving piles of spent fuel rods in land fills, leaving that material in a delicate system such as earth enters the atmosphere, ground water, and destroys all life.

Every change leads to other changes. Simple these changes are accumulative, and the main cause of change in the system is not co2.

That is all I have to say about that. You may wonder why most people call global warming BS, because they include what there feeble minds allow them to.

They may have a theory fine, but it needs structure and not simple assertion.

you know what i am saying, not the scientists fault they are only there to cover up what is implied by these changes.

Cheers.