Simultaneous Global Warming on Neptune which has been measurably warming since 1980, is more evidenc

On Wed, 9 May 2007 14:12:13 -0600, <Joseph> wrote:

>
><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>news:6tu343pf9kqe4uiq1ksrn5chd9u386pko3@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:55:29 -0600, <Joseph> wrote:
>>
>>>Man's so called contribution is so small and insignificant in most studies
>>>that it barely registers. Past higher CO2 concentrations than the present
>>>on
>>>Earth, produced large amounts of carbonic acids that combined with other
>>>compounds that formed Lime Stones and Marbles, and even some of the salts
>>>that are in our Oceans, and all gases that produce acid rain also end up
>>>eventually producing stones of some sort or sea salts. The CO2 and all
>>>gases that produce acid rains are all also naturally produced by Volcanoes
>>>and Wildfires in a much greater abundance than man could ever dream of
>>>doing. Nature itself consentrates some acids or some bases in such high
>>>consentration that it kills life. The Salt Flats are an example, as well
>>>as
>>>different acidity in soil that is good for some crops but not others, and
>>>good for some life forms but not others. It is a totally natural phenomena
>>>that has been going on since the Atmosphere and and Earth and Oceans
>>>began.
>>>In service of God and Country
>>>
>>>Joseph

>>
>> Imagine a natural balance that is so fragile that any little nudge can
>> throw everything out of whack. This has happened throughout the
>> earth's history as it naturally warmed and cooled in natural and/or
>> cataclysmic cycles. Now throw the only species into the mix who is
>> capable of changing its environment for both the better or worse. It's
>> man who has made both the water undrinkable and the air virtually
>> unbreatheable in many spots. What makes you think that man isn't
>> capable of wrecking the planet for every other species thru his
>> reckless use of fuels that change the environment?
>>
>> WB Yeats
>>
>> Nobody should equate the end of man and the end of the world.

>
>The natural balance of Earth is not fragile, but is dynamically resilient.
>Mount Saint Helen blew her top, and devastated the land and Forrest all
>about her, and what these scientific people said would have taken nature
>millions of years to do, happened in a blink of an eye, both in the
>devastation about her, and her resilience in reproducing entire forests that
>now are thriving and growing anew.


The natural balance is fragile - just look around. The balance is
micro as well as macro. As for St Helens - have you looked at Spirit
Lake lately? Otoh the eruptioin was a natiural occurrence and has
nothing to do with man-induced global warming.

>Indonesia the same way, the Ocean depth about her broke up, and part sank
>and volcanic magma began gushing our upon the Oceans floor, and billions of
>gallons of water shifted position, and rose up across the land, and though
>salt water kill plants, and what these scientific people said would have
>taken nature millions of years to do, the salt drains from the land with
>every rain, and new plant life grows everywhere there.
>
>A mountain blew her top and Pompeii was instantly buried, and later when the
>ground shook another city called Venice sank filling the streets with water
>that could not recede, which both things that were done these scientific
>people said would have taken nature millions of years to do, but it only
>took a blink of an eye to do, as Pompeii bury a slave girl holding her
>master's child, and held them in that position until they were recently
>found.
>
>Less than seven thousands of years ago, in the blink of an eye,
>continentally with the ocean floors, they all rose up out of the waters, and
>came crashing back down upon all plant and animal life, flattening them and
>driveing all the plant and animal and manlike below sea level, where without
>atmosphere many of the plants and animals and manlike formed Oil Fields, and
>new plants not related to the former were brought forth, and new animals not
>related to the former were brought forth, and new man not related to the was
>brought forth, all in six days, less than seven thousands of years ago, and
>as these scientific people stand next to sea shells among the highest layers
>of the mountains looking for missing links to the life that once was but
>perished, they drill for Oil made from their remains, and they claim it
>would have taken nature millions of years to do that. But these greedy fools
>don't realize it is recorded history, but they refuse to accept that, just
>because of where it is recorded.


7 thousand years ago all life went underground? Sheer idiocy. The
Bible is not fact, sonny, but a mix of 'history' and mythology -
mostly the latter.

> "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
>walking after their own lusts,And saying, Where is the promise of his
>coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were
>from the beginning of the creation.For this they willingly are ignorant of,
>that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out
>of the water and in the water:Whereby the world that then was, being
>overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are
>now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day
>of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of
>this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
>thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
>some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that
>any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of
>the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall
>pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,
>the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing
>then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought
>ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting
>unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall
>be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless
>we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein
>dwelleth righteousness."
>
>2 Peter 3:3-13
>
>In service of God and Country
>
>Joseph


Are you demented or delusional? Here's a thought - Revelations just
might mean global warming and the rapture - oh boy, oh boy.

WB Yeats
 
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:3p9643pubb06to84gj7nronci8k6opfju4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 May 2007 14:12:13 -0600, <Joseph> wrote:
>
>>
>><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>>news:6tu343pf9kqe4uiq1ksrn5chd9u386pko3@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:55:29 -0600, <Joseph> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Man's so called contribution is so small and insignificant in most
>>>>studies
>>>>that it barely registers. Past higher CO2 concentrations than the
>>>>present
>>>>on
>>>>Earth, produced large amounts of carbonic acids that combined with other
>>>>compounds that formed Lime Stones and Marbles, and even some of the
>>>>salts
>>>>that are in our Oceans, and all gases that produce acid rain also end up
>>>>eventually producing stones of some sort or sea salts. The CO2 and all
>>>>gases that produce acid rains are all also naturally produced by
>>>>Volcanoes
>>>>and Wildfires in a much greater abundance than man could ever dream of
>>>>doing. Nature itself consentrates some acids or some bases in such high
>>>>consentration that it kills life. The Salt Flats are an example, as well
>>>>as
>>>>different acidity in soil that is good for some crops but not others,
>>>>and
>>>>good for some life forms but not others. It is a totally natural
>>>>phenomena
>>>>that has been going on since the Atmosphere and and Earth and Oceans
>>>>began.
>>>>In service of God and Country
>>>>
>>>>Joseph
>>>
>>> Imagine a natural balance that is so fragile that any little nudge can
>>> throw everything out of whack. This has happened throughout the
>>> earth's history as it naturally warmed and cooled in natural and/or
>>> cataclysmic cycles. Now throw the only species into the mix who is
>>> capable of changing its environment for both the better or worse. It's
>>> man who has made both the water undrinkable and the air virtually
>>> unbreatheable in many spots. What makes you think that man isn't
>>> capable of wrecking the planet for every other species thru his
>>> reckless use of fuels that change the environment?
>>>
>>> WB Yeats
>>>
>>> Nobody should equate the end of man and the end of the world.

>>
>>The natural balance of Earth is not fragile, but is dynamically resilient.
>>Mount Saint Helen blew her top, and devastated the land and Forrest all
>>about her, and what these scientific people said would have taken nature
>>millions of years to do, happened in a blink of an eye, both in the
>>devastation about her, and her resilience in reproducing entire forests
>>that
>>now are thriving and growing anew.

>
> The natural balance is fragile - just look around. The balance is
> micro as well as macro. As for St Helens - have you looked at Spirit
> Lake lately? Otoh the eruptioin was a natiural occurrence and has
> nothing to do with man-induced global warming.
>
>>Indonesia the same way, the Ocean depth about her broke up, and part sank
>>and volcanic magma began gushing our upon the Oceans floor, and billions
>>of
>>gallons of water shifted position, and rose up across the land, and though
>>salt water kill plants, and what these scientific people said would have
>>taken nature millions of years to do, the salt drains from the land with
>>every rain, and new plant life grows everywhere there.
>>
>>A mountain blew her top and Pompeii was instantly buried, and later when
>>the
>>ground shook another city called Venice sank filling the streets with
>>water
>>that could not recede, which both things that were done these scientific
>>people said would have taken nature millions of years to do, but it only
>>took a blink of an eye to do, as Pompeii bury a slave girl holding her
>>master's child, and held them in that position until they were recently
>>found.
>>
>>Less than seven thousands of years ago, in the blink of an eye,
>>continentally with the ocean floors, they all rose up out of the waters,
>>and
>>came crashing back down upon all plant and animal life, flattening them
>>and
>>driveing all the plant and animal and manlike below sea level, where
>>without
>>atmosphere many of the plants and animals and manlike formed Oil Fields,
>>and
>>new plants not related to the former were brought forth, and new animals
>>not
>>related to the former were brought forth, and new man not related to the
>>was
>>brought forth, all in six days, less than seven thousands of years ago,
>>and
>>as these scientific people stand next to sea shells among the highest
>>layers
>>of the mountains looking for missing links to the life that once was but
>>perished, they drill for Oil made from their remains, and they claim it
>>would have taken nature millions of years to do that. But these greedy
>>fools
>>don't realize it is recorded history, but they refuse to accept that, just
>>because of where it is recorded.

>
> 7 thousand years ago all life went underground? Sheer idiocy. The
> Bible is not fact, sonny, but a mix of 'history' and mythology -
> mostly the latter.
>


What? There is no Fossils or Oil underground because the plants and animals
were never buried? Well, it only takes seven years to form a fossil when
buried with that pressure without atmosphere, and less than that to make
Oil. Why don't they study how Nature made the Oil and duplicate the process?
Well, a prejudice Atheist who would not accept a logical answer as to how
and when they were buried and turned into Oil, took and formed a
sophisticated so called age determination procedure, that gets two pieces of
the same rock as being formed hundreds of millions of years apart, so that
he can say his precise scientific theory disproves anything the scripture
says, and then they make their theory the law in court, just so that they
can persecute somehow anyone who believes the logic of truth, so that they
can hide the truth of how we got Oil Fields, because it people knew how,
they would realize the scriptures are telling the truth, and then they would
believe in God.

In service of God and Country

Joseph

>> "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
>>walking after their own lusts,And saying, Where is the promise of his
>>coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they
>>were
>>from the beginning of the creation.For this they willingly are ignorant
>>of,
>>that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
>>out
>>of the water and in the water:Whereby the world that then was, being
>>overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are
>>now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the
>>day
>>of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of
>>this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
>>thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,
>>as
>>some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
>>that
>>any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of
>>the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall
>>pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
>>heat,
>>the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing
>>then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons
>>ought
>>ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting
>>unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall
>>be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless
>>we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,
>>wherein
>>dwelleth righteousness."
>>
>>2 Peter 3:3-13
>>
>>In service of God and Country
>>
>>Joseph

>
> Are you demented or delusional? Here's a thought - Revelations just
> might mean global warming and the rapture - oh boy, oh boy.
>
> WB Yeats


Are you another so called logical Atheist?
 
On May 8, 5:21 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 4:15 pm, "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> > <Joseph> wrote in message
> >news:raadnXr71aW_Rd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > Simultaneous Global Warming on Neptune which has been measurably warming
> > > since 1980, is more evidence that shows Earth's Global Warming is also not
> > > manmade,

>
> > Nope, sorry.

>
> Any reason we should take your word (both of them) over published
> research from Geophysical Research Letters?


Well, because Neptune is 30 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is,
and therefore receives 1/900 as much warmth from the sun, so if we are
seeing measurable warming on Neptune from the Sun, we have already
been roasted to a fine gray ash here on earth.

Then there's the problem of making long term climate predictions on
data accumulated "since 1980" on a planet whose year is 165 times
longer than ours. So, you've got the equivalent of less than two
months of data. Wouldn't cover one season, on earth.

We have over a hundred solar orbits worth of direct measurement of
temperatures on earth and you guys claim it's not definite that the
earth is warming, but you're ready to claim that Neptune is warming,
from less than 1/6 of one orbit worth of measurements made from 3
billion miles away. And all the while sitting underneath a moon only
1/4 million miles away that sees the same sun as we do and hasn't
warmed up at all.

That's why.
 
On May 9, 12:59 pm, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:
>
> Imagine a natural balance that is so fragile that any little nudge can
> throw everything out of whack. This has happened throughout the
> earth's history as it naturally warmed and cooled in natural and/or
> cataclysmic cycles. Now throw the only species into the mix who is
> capable of changing its environment for both the better or worse. It's
> man who has made both the water undrinkable and the air virtually
> unbreatheable in many spots. What makes you think that man isn't
> capable of wrecking the planet for every other species thru his
> reckless use of fuels that change the environment?


Gotta love the logic involved though.

"Man change the climate? Ha, we don't have that much power. Anyway,
even if it happened, we will be able to fix it."
 
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1178826528.100731.147110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 8, 5:21 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 8, 4:15 pm, "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <Joseph> wrote in message
>> >news:raadnXr71aW_Rd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> > > Simultaneous Global Warming on Neptune which has been measurably
>> > > warming
>> > > since 1980, is more evidence that shows Earth's Global Warming is
>> > > also not
>> > > manmade,

>>
>> > Nope, sorry.

>>
>> Any reason we should take your word (both of them) over published
>> research from Geophysical Research Letters?

>
> Well, because Neptune is 30 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is,
> and therefore receives 1/900 as much warmth from the sun, so if we are
> seeing measurable warming on Neptune from the Sun, we have already
> been roasted to a fine gray ash here on earth.
>
> Then there's the problem of making long term climate predictions on
> data accumulated "since 1980" on a planet whose year is 165 times
> longer than ours. So, you've got the equivalent of less than two
> months of data. Wouldn't cover one season, on earth.
>
> We have over a hundred solar orbits worth of direct measurement of
> temperatures on earth and you guys claim it's not definite that the
> earth is warming, but you're ready to claim that Neptune is warming,
> from less than 1/6 of one orbit worth of measurements made from 3
> billion miles away. And all the while sitting underneath a moon only
> 1/4 million miles away that sees the same sun as we do and hasn't
> warmed up at all.
>
> That's why.
>

Unfortunately your theory don't hold up. All the planets and asteroids are
warming at the same rate, and that is because within an hour a cosmic ray
from the sun is way outside the Solar system. The planets closer to the sun
get hotter than the planets further away, but the rate of increase is the
same because it is the sun causing it. As an exaggerated example for showing
an easy calculation, lets say a closer planet gets enough cosmic rays to be
100 degrees, and at that time a further planet out only gets enough cosmic
rays to be 10 degrees, and then the sun's cosmic rays increase because of
sun spots, increasing in intensity making the closer planet 110 degrees, and
the further planet out 11 degrees, the rate of increase on both planets is
10% from the cosmic rays, and that is what we are talking about.

In service of God and Country

Joseph
 
On May 10, 4:31 pm, <Joseph> wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1178826528.100731.147110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 5:21 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 8, 4:15 pm, "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote:

>
> >> > <Joseph> wrote in message
> >> >news:raadnXr71aW_Rd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > > Simultaneous Global Warming on Neptune which has been measurably
> >> > > warming
> >> > > since 1980, is more evidence that shows Earth's Global Warming is
> >> > > also not
> >> > > manmade,

>
> >> > Nope, sorry.

>
> >> Any reason we should take your word (both of them) over published
> >> research from Geophysical Research Letters?

>
> > Well, because Neptune is 30 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is,
> > and therefore receives 1/900 as much warmth from the sun, so if we are
> > seeing measurable warming on Neptune from the Sun, we have already
> > been roasted to a fine gray ash here on earth.

>
> > Then there's the problem of making long term climate predictions on
> > data accumulated "since 1980" on a planet whose year is 165 times
> > longer than ours. So, you've got the equivalent of less than two
> > months of data. Wouldn't cover one season, on earth.

>
> > We have over a hundred solar orbits worth of direct measurement of
> > temperatures on earth and you guys claim it's not definite that the
> > earth is warming, but you're ready to claim that Neptune is warming,
> > from less than 1/6 of one orbit worth of measurements made from 3
> > billion miles away. And all the while sitting underneath a moon only
> > 1/4 million miles away that sees the same sun as we do and hasn't
> > warmed up at all.

>
> > That's why.

>
> Unfortunately your theory don't hold up. All the planets and asteroids are
> warming at the same rate, and that is because within an hour a cosmic ray
> from the sun is way outside the Solar system.


You're just making this up, right?

> The planets closer to the sun
> get hotter than the planets further away, but the rate of increase is the
> same because it is the sun causing it. As an exaggerated example for showing
> an easy calculation, lets say a closer planet gets enough cosmic rays to be
> 100 degrees, and at that time a further planet out only gets enough cosmic
> rays to be 10 degrees, and then the sun's cosmic rays increase because of
> sun spots, increasing in intensity making the closer planet 110 degrees, and
> the further planet out 11 degrees, the rate of increase on both planets is
> 10% from the cosmic rays, and that is what we are talking about.


Now, if it were only actually happening, boy wouldn't that be great.
 
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1179167565.913427.110020@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 4:31 pm, <Joseph> wrote:
>> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1178826528.100731.147110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 8, 5:21 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 8, 4:15 pm, "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote:

>>
>> >> > <Joseph> wrote in message
>> >> >news:raadnXr71aW_Rd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> > > Simultaneous Global Warming on Neptune which has been measurably
>> >> > > warming
>> >> > > since 1980, is more evidence that shows Earth's Global Warming is
>> >> > > also not
>> >> > > manmade,

>>
>> >> > Nope, sorry.

>>
>> >> Any reason we should take your word (both of them) over published
>> >> research from Geophysical Research Letters?

>>
>> > Well, because Neptune is 30 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is,
>> > and therefore receives 1/900 as much warmth from the sun, so if we are
>> > seeing measurable warming on Neptune from the Sun, we have already
>> > been roasted to a fine gray ash here on earth.

>>
>> > Then there's the problem of making long term climate predictions on
>> > data accumulated "since 1980" on a planet whose year is 165 times
>> > longer than ours. So, you've got the equivalent of less than two
>> > months of data. Wouldn't cover one season, on earth.

>>
>> > We have over a hundred solar orbits worth of direct measurement of
>> > temperatures on earth and you guys claim it's not definite that the
>> > earth is warming, but you're ready to claim that Neptune is warming,
>> > from less than 1/6 of one orbit worth of measurements made from 3
>> > billion miles away. And all the while sitting underneath a moon only
>> > 1/4 million miles away that sees the same sun as we do and hasn't
>> > warmed up at all.

>>
>> > That's why.

>>
>> Unfortunately your theory don't hold up. All the planets and asteroids
>> are
>> warming at the same rate, and that is because within an hour a cosmic ray
>> from the sun is way outside the Solar system.

>
> You're just making this up, right?
>
>> The planets closer to the sun
>> get hotter than the planets further away, but the rate of increase is the
>> same because it is the sun causing it. As an exaggerated example for
>> showing
>> an easy calculation, lets say a closer planet gets enough cosmic rays to
>> be
>> 100 degrees, and at that time a further planet out only gets enough
>> cosmic
>> rays to be 10 degrees, and then the sun's cosmic rays increase because of
>> sun spots, increasing in intensity making the closer planet 110 degrees,
>> and
>> the further planet out 11 degrees, the rate of increase on both planets
>> is
>> 10% from the cosmic rays, and that is what we are talking about.

>
> Now, if it were only actually happening, boy wouldn't that be great.
>


Here is some of the science behind it, though the solar flares are causing a
small degree of warming on everything orbiting the sun, the planets that
have a molten core and Volcanic activity are affected more, because some of
the waves of ionized protons hit the planets with such an impact force, that
they cause the normal wobble on their axis to wobble more. Even if it is
only one inch more, that is enough to cause a displacement in the molten
core and cause an increase in Volcanic Activity. Not all the planets have a
magnetic field like earth does, so these waves of ionized protons that hit
earth get caught by the magnetic field lines and spiral around the magnetic
field lines to the Poles, of course opposites split off towards opposite
Poles. On earth the ionized protons react with the O3 and O2 to form new
water in the dry stratosphere where water cannot rise to, because of
gravity. Then the following reactions occur all over the Globe areas hit by
sunlight, to form new acids that cool off and sink during the night. But at
the Poles the earth's tilt on it's axis causes this same process to causes
holes in the ozone layers, and this process at the Poles increases when
earth is hit by extra ionized protons from the sun, because the Poles are
where many of the ionized particles head to because of the magnetic pull.
See the following.



"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179147355.695203.150030@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 14, 1:29 am, <Joseph> wrote:
> The black smoke you see when you burn coal is mostly sulfur dioxide and
> carbon monoxide, carbon monoxide is deadly, just light up some coal in a
> closed garage, and watch how long it takes before you begin throwing your
> guts out from carbon monoxide poisoning.
>
> All fossil fuel actually produces a less amount of CO
 
Back
Top