superball

Greetings, I have been working on a theory for some time that could be considered speculative.

I would like to find the correct forum to post the model, can you point me in the right direction thank you.

Greeting all.

New to your thread, not to add fuel to the fire, err pun intended.

I found some useful information that may give more insight?

The PDF gives some good information for you to consider.

The ozone hole anomaly I also included. Some research on the role ozone, or lack there of plays in our global system.

http://www.theozonehole.com/2011.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...nic-2009-09.pdf

Penetrating radiation from the sun does effect the system to a great degree. Food for thought.

http://www.wyndham.c...eather/main.wnt

A lack of upper level ozone effects the system, but The major determining factor leading to global climate change will never be agreed upon by all the scientists.

Investigation, and observation will continue to increase. Eventually this will lead to a better understanding in the future.

have a good day..

Greetings.

I found this link wile doing a search for spectrum of hydrogen.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

I located some information on the co2 spectrum energies also. I hope this will be helpful in your study.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Take care.

Greetings science geeks.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-071

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-080

I have included the 2010 results, and also the 2011 results for Earth axial shift from a reliable source.

This is another touchy subject, and I don't want to convince you as to the cause, only that it has happened as described.

We can add more information that is scientifically sound, and elaborate on it further.

A good starting point would be to add information related by other philosophers of the past. Einstein, and Galileo Galilei comes to mind.

As students of life, and science I believe we could from our observation, and special study convey our teachings in a respectful knowledgeable manner.

Not an easy task alone, but with help from others adding we could meet the required data needed to form a conclusive answer.

The question torque induced, or torque free Precession?

Another goal of this thread is to swing the vote either way, and use factual evidence, and science to do that.

Please add your concerns, together we can increase knowledge that supports a solution most likely to occur during Earth precession period.

peace.

Thanks for the link.

It is nice to meet you.

Scientific study may suggest an increase in co2 levels is due to deforestation of rain forests.

We have been chopping trees down at a fast rate in the last 100 years to allow for growth, agriculture, and homesteading.

A valid observation, the use of fossil fuel alone is not the cause for the higher co2 levels observed today. That is an alarming graph.

Plants, and trees should thrive under these conditions in the future, allowing for higher o2 levels as a result.

What other factor may relate to a rise in co2 levels?

My first question was, does a rise in co2 levels correlate to an ice age, or mini ice age according to the graphs?

Nice to meet you.

Thank you for showing me that I had posted a loaded question.

This is a touchy subject, and I will do my best not to post assumptions in the future.

Thanks again.

I will elaborate.

The first post showed graphs that depicted co2 levels, all the graphs in fact.

It was also stated, Possibly the best attempt I've ever seen at this sort of thing:

The title also misleading.

Climate "skeptics" vs climate scientists in a nutshell

A valid response, the scientist in this case only show co2 levels. That is why I had asked the question.

who said co2 levels were the only determining factor.

Perhaps I can find the data required to include, adding other factors that are just as relevant.

Thank you for clearing up the wife beating, perhaps beating a dead horse is less insulting..

What is your source for these graphs?

Graph two is speculative, because it says reconstructed.

Graph one covers 311 years.

Record keeping only started about 1895. Link http://www.masterresource.org/2011/07/2011-us-temp-update/

It should be determined first, what graph is most accurate.

Both graphs do not follow an accurate start date?

Yes, but not here.

 

 

I'm sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Then you have reviewed the forum rules?

I am new to the forum, and I am attempting to get a feel for the type of people that post here.

That is not a nice way to greet new members.

You are in violation of rule one.

You should ask for your money back given your level of understanding on this topic.

are you a moderator?

that comment is very disrespectful.

sorry i made a mistake, thanks for catching that.

man made processes, vs. natural is what is should read.

I have a degree in earth science, I am not the greatest speller.

hello, i think this would be a reasonable assumption, and is a factual way to express your premise.

1. The Earths climate has warmed over the last 30 years.

I do not agree that a 30 year trend can do justice to your premise considering the earth is much, much older.

perhaps the most accurate way to state this is by going back as far as possible, and use that as the start point on the graph.

example we have been keeping records for 100 years or more. if the trend is in a uptick, it still does not prove the earth has been warming for more than 100 years.

the only thing you can say is that since we been keeping records the Earth is in a warming trend.

A trend in this case has no boundary, it only shows direction of the trend. Like the stock market.

any thoughts?

Question, who said global warming only depends on co2 levels?

should we all agree that co2 level is the only determining factor?

should we be allowed to include other factors that would explain global warming, such as volcanic eruptions, and solar activity, etc?

I would like to add more factors to dispute co2 as the main cause for global warming if i am allowed to do so..

One more question, does a rise in co2 levels mean that an ice age is coming?

Is it possible to determine the man made process of Global warming is effecting earth more so, than the natural processes?

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?

if you allow me, i will elaborate in my next post.

Hi all.

New to forum, my first goal is to follow the rules, and act in a respectful manor.

My question is related to a torque induced precession vs. a Torque-free precession.

It is said that earth is precessing as we speak. my valid reasoning is the earth axis has shifted two time in two years. This is verified by Nasa, and also an Italian research team.

This statement is true, or false?

My second question is if this is a fact, then does the precession follow the tourque induced precession, or the Torque-free precession?

When you comment, and i hope you will, include what precession model you support.