| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
5733 |
|
|
Date: January 14, 2015 at 15:08:40
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: the electric sun |
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kin9zqPMPaI |
|
can't post the video...
The electric sun
Don Scott
Can any ‘standard model' , nuclear fusion advocates out there explain:
1. solar brightness oscillations - a few minutes to nearly one hour
2. the 2 hr., 40 minute periodicity of the expansion & contraction of the
sun (10 kilometers amplitude
3. the 27 day, 43 minute periodicity of the solar wind
4. how convection creates a surface hotter than the sun’s interior
5. how the standard model explains the acceleration of the solar wind
from base to corona
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5734] [5739] [5742] [5736] [5741] [5744] [5747] [5749] [5755] [5735] |
|
5734 |
|
|
Date: January 14, 2015 at 20:08:14
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5739] [5742] [5736] [5741] [5744] [5747] [5749] [5755] [5735] |
|
5739 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 10:52:43
From: trapper/austin, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
|
isnt that what everyone does?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5742] |
|
5742 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 12:38:37
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
Hi trapper,
> isnt that what everyone does?
Well that's human nature, but with science observations are compared with theory to understand if theories are correct and to increase knowledge. There is a whole field of science on Helioseismology as well as Astrophysical plasma. These fields have no relationship to the electric sun/universe because the electric universe is basically dogma steadfastly sticking to a set theory that originated in support of Velikovsky. Regardless of the observations the electric universe doesn't change.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5736 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 05:17:51
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
URL: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-slowdown-global-fleeting.html |
|
Only have a few minutes now, but noticed the author of your 1st link, Tim
Thompson, also believes in anthropogenic global warming... fyi
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5741] [5744] [5747] [5749] [5755] |
|
5741 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 12:15:38
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
Hi Akira,
> Tim Thompson, also believes in anthropogenic global warming... fyi
Sure, most people who understand science including me believe in anthropogenic global warming. But many of us also disagree with the politicization and scare tactics used in climate science.
A poll of scientists was narrowed down to 79 actively publishing climate scientists and 97% of them (basically all but one) agree that the Earth has warmed and humans play a significant role.
Unfortunately the political people and activists use that 97% as support for every alarmist aspect of climate change which simply isn't true. Believing in anthropogenic global warming and believing in the scare tactics of activists are two completely different things.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5744] [5747] [5749] [5755] |
|
5744 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 15:53:54
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
"Unfortunately the political people and activists use that 97% as support
for every alarmist aspect of climate change which simply isn't true.
Believing in anthropogenic global warming and believing in the scare
tactics of activists are two completely different things. "
'every alarmist aspect' is an interesting phrase.
Do you believe there is a single aspect of global warm human beings
should be alarmed about and actively doing something to counteract?
Cuz if you don't I think I found me an all or nothing fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5747] [5749] [5755] |
|
5747 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 21:12:13
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
Hi Akira,
> 'every alarmist aspect' is an interesting phrase.
If you followed the subject you would see these 'they sky is falling' messages on a regular basis.
> Do you believe there is a single aspect of global warm human beings should be alarmed about and actively
> doing something to counteract?
Sure I do. The whole thing is a concern. Man's burning of fossil fuels has made a small but measurable change in atmospheric CO2 and that is a concern. CO2 is a greenhouse gas trapping heat through infrared radiation which has created a long term warming trend. According to physics doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of a bit less than one degree centigrade.
What is very uncertain is what feedbacks will be caused by this warming. Climate models predict a large feedback of several times the amount of warming caused by the physical effect of CO2 and yet those feedbacks are unknown and have not been seen in reality. For example warmer air can hold more water vapor and water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. But that is only true if the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor which it is not. Climate sensitivity which is the actual impact of this warming on Earth's temperature has been falling based on several recent studies.
Personally I feel we need to move away from fossil fuels.... but that is easier said than done. Nuclear power has not materialized as it is difficult to do safely and renewables are still a small percentage of total power generation. My problem is the people preaching doom well beyond the science and proposing basic yet unrealistic cuts such as the Kyoto Protocol or carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes and scams. A lot of money would change hands but little would be accomplished. Coal fired power plants are still popping up all over the world at a rapid pace.
I'm for moving away from fossil fuels in a sensible way and not the 'we must act now' mentality driven by false alarmism that wouldn't actually reduce global emission. We don't need to act now... we need to act smartly to move away from fossil fuels.
Hope that answers your question.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5749] [5755] |
|
5749 |
|
|
Date: January 17, 2015 at 10:51:32
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
URL: AIG: A Call for Weatherproofing the Insurance Industry |
|
"What is very uncertain is what feedbacks will be caused by this warming."
For one, how about the insurance industry passing off the problem of
their ever-increasing losses onto property owners and governments?
AIG report, excerpt:
"While Hurricane Sandy reminded everyone that weather variability and
extremes have always existed, there is increasing scientific evidence
supporting the premise that extreme weather events are increasing in
frequency and intensity, and will only grow more pronounced in the
foreseeable future. In 2011, property/casualty insurers were exposed to
over $100 billion dollars in global natural disaster related losses, with
over 50% of those losses stemming from severe storms, tornadoes,
flooding, and wildfires alone.1 This upward trend is of particular concern
for North America, which has seen a disproportionate increase in the
number of extreme weather events.2 Recent reports have analyzed the
effects of this worldwide ‘new normal’ of increased extreme weather
events – and its effects on the insurance industry, and have called for
insurer sector leadership to develop strategies to better predict and
prevent losses from extreme weather events.
The Upward Trend in Extreme Weather Events
Statistical data shows that the global temperature average has increased,
albeit moderately. The widely accepted scientific premise behind climate
change is that growing concentrations of greenhouse gases released into
the atmosphere cause the temperature increase. Although increases to
the planet’s average temperature over millennia have been recorded in ice
core data, the majority of the scientific community postulate that the
increase in consumption of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution is
the cause of the current temperature increase (commonly referred to as
‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’), citing the correlation in the average
temperature curve rates with the fossil fuel consumption rates.
Regardless of whether climate change is ultimately anthropogenic (man-
made), a natural phenomena, or a combination of both, it does affect the
planet’s weather patterns. Increased temperatures cause the earth’s
oceans to evaporate faster, resulting in more frequent and extreme
humidity-driven ‘convection events’ such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and
thunderstorms. Over land, increased temperatures produce drier and
hotter weather conditions, spawning droughts and wildfires. Global
warming has also accelerating the speed at which the polar ice caps are
melting, leading to rising seas and the flooding of low-lying areas
throughout the world.
In 2011, insurers responded to 99 weather-related disaster declarations
in the U.S., exceeding the previous record of 81 set in 2010.3 Equally
troubling is the fact that in addition to hurricane Sandy, 2012 saw 34,000
local record high temperatures set in the U.S., as well as large-scale heat
waves and widespread drought through the lower 48 states, and may well
be declared the most extreme weather year on U.S. record.4 According to
the Munich Re study, North America is at greater risk than other
continents for extreme weather events. The Gulf of Mexico, with its
increasingly warmer water temperature, serves to incubate frequent and
severe convection events. As sea temperatures rise, so too will the
frequency and severity of these events and their effects on the North
American population. In addition, the U.S. is naturally prone to severe
convective weather events because it has no east-west mountain ranges
(such as the Alps in Europe or the Himalayas in Asia) to block storms
created by the intermingling and clashing of warm, humid air from the
Gulf of Mexico and polar air from the Canadian north.
Over the last three decades the number of weather-related loss events
has quintupled in North America, whereas similar increases have only
doubled in Europe and quadrupled in Asia5. Given the increasing
concentration of coastal populations in North America, it’s not difficult to
see the potential impact of an increase of extreme weather events on the
insurance industry and society as a whole. In fact, Risk Management
Solutions, a market leader in catastrophic risk modeling, no longer uses
its historical 100 year old database of Atlantic hurricanes as a valid
predictor of future risk in favor of a catastrophe model which predicts
‘heightened’ hurricane activity and correspondingly larger modeled
losses, especially for the eastern seaboard and gulf regions in the U.S.6
This new modeling may lead to increases in insurance pricing, especially
in light of the fact that it is estimated that 50% of the assets located in
North America are insured, compared to only 7% of assets overseas.
Weather Event Challenges to the Insurance Industry and Society
According to the Ceres report, insurance payments relating to climactic
events have increased a dramatic 15-fold over the past thirty years. On a
global basis 2011 was the most expensive year for weather-related
property and casualty insurers, and 2012 will likely follow suit. The report
further argues that this trend line of increasing extreme weather – be it
from hurricanes, droughts, heat waves or other weather events – poses a
real threat to the insurance industry, which is already
struggling to recover from lower than normal investment returns and
from a weak overall economy. In fact, it argues that rising catastrophic
losses on the increasing number of insured assets in areas vulnerable to
extreme weather events could potentially threaten the insurance
industry’s viability."
http://www.aig.com/Chartis/internet/US/en/IPG%20Real%20Estate%20Cli
mate%20Change%20Paper_tcm3171-488915.pdf
A Call for Weatherproofing the Insurance Industry
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5755] |
|
5755 |
|
|
Date: January 18, 2015 at 09:35:31
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
Hi Akira,
>> "What is very uncertain is what feedbacks will be caused by this warming."
> For one, how about the insurance industry..
Well that's not a feedback, that's more about a possible impact. And insurance companies are always going to try to protect themselves and if they can use global warming to cut their payouts for weather related issues and make more money they will.
The issue of feedbacks I'm talking about is that physics tells us a doubling of CO2 alone will only increase temperatures a bit less than 1 degree centigrade and some climate models say a doubling of CO2 will cause 3-7 degrees centigrade warming. But those poorly performing models count on feedbacks such as increased water vapor, changes in cloud cover or albedo changes to increase the warming.
This is the issue of climate sensitivity or how sensitive is Earth's climate to small changes in CO2.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5735 |
|
|
Date: January 15, 2015 at 04:32:48
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the electric sun |
|
|
Thanks, I'll check out the links. I don't claim to believe in the theory, I
just want to see counter arguments since I don't have the background to
know if it's bogus.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |