arc

My brother smoked so many candy cigarettes as a kid, I got secondhand diabetes.

I brought this over from the climate science section; Who here is a global warming skeptic? This post received +6. He is a man of great vision and wisdom no doubt.

Yes, yes and yes. ANY airship is vulnerable to extreme weather, that being any wind under, close to and beyond the vehicle's top speed. There are no safe harbors for airships when weather "go's south" beyond there operational parameters, which are quite low compared to what nature can supply in return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1) On 3 September 1925, Shenandoah was lost during its 57th flight, the airship was caught in a violent updraft that carried it beyond the pressure limits of its helium gas bags. It was torn apart in the turbulence and crashed in several pieces near Caldwell, Ohio. Fourteen of Shenandoah's crew were killed. This included every member of the crew of the control cabin when it detached from the ship; two men who went through holes in the hull; and several mechanics who fell with the engines. There were twenty-nine survivors, who succeeded in riding three sections of the airship to earth. The largest group was eighteen men who made it out of the stern after it rolled into a valley. A number of those crew who survived would later be killed in the loss of the Akron.

Acme, this is well understood and we all agree this is what happens when an ice mass is removed from a land mass. But this debate right now is about the claim that iNow made by posting; Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around. This statement could mean post glacial rebound but he then provided this and only this link with it. http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/ This article is only about monsoon rains increasing the speed of the continent of India's movement towards and during the Himalaya uplift. It has nothing to do with post glacial rebound. He is just trying to change the content of his argument now because that claim would seem rather tenuous at best before and even more so now in light of my models simple and straight forward explanation in comparison to the article's somewhat illogical assumption that an increase in rain would lead to a continent's lateral acceleration. The article states; "Iaffaldano said that the monsoon, which increased rainfall in northeast Indian by four metres annually, sped up motion in the Indian plate by almost one centimetre per year." He is trying to obfuscate what he claimed and linked to. And he still has not directly dealt with even one, let alone all, of the predictions of observation of my hypothesis that, by the way, make a strong and what appears impenetrable case against his once irreproachable claims of anthropological warming. All he has to do is pick one and give me a believable alternative explanation for it, one that can render my claims insufficient in comparison. I am waiting to hear something other than; "98% of climate scientists. . . blah. . . blah. . . blah"

I'm sorry pears, I guess cute is in the eyes of the beholder. But I could have easily chose to study these little critters for a career. For something so small they show remarkable individual behavior. I try to take time to observe them when opportunity allows. They have a hunting style that mimics cats when they stalk prey. They can see movement at a remarkable distance, much farther than their prey. Once a target is acquired they immediately crouch and move in a stalking mode, using the terrain to conceal themselves. I watched one use an edge to sneak all the way around to behind its prospective meal, maybe 30 to 40 cm, all the while occasionally stopping to peek over the edge to check on the meal before proceeding further. Once in range they pounce from behind. I have watched this scenario play out many times. Once on my living room ceiling I was amazed and surprised when the pounce moment arrived. I was so mesmerized by the scene that I didn't even think that being upside down the pounce would be impossible, so as I watched and prepared for that blindingly fast leap I was surprised when at half the usual distance it shot forward toward the moth. It was so fast all I saw was the moth take flight and the spider was left hanging by the tether it had secured before the jump. I believe they probably always tether before the jump, but it doesn't get seen in most instances due to being right side up. It would decrease one's chances of being taken for a ride from larger prey, and it would help if you don't need to hold onto the surface while hanging onto the prey. It would free up more legs to help subdue the meal.

No, but I had that legs thing down pat. They are hours of fun. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77390-jumping-spiders-for-joy/

Quote Don't try to dodge what that link or the subject you posted was about. It wasn't glacial rebound or this site http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4388 This is from the site that iNow posted earlier http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/ The Australian-led team of researchers from France and Germany found that the strengthening Indian monsoon had accelerated movement of the Indian plate over the past 10 million years by a factor of about 20%, publishing their findings in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal. Effects of long-term climate change “The 100km-thick outer shell of Earth, the lithosphere, is divided into pieces called tectonic plates. Plates move in different directions at speeds in the order of centimetres per year, comparable to the speed of fingernail growth in humans. This is not about rebound from melting ice like your trying to redirect it to. There was no massive glacial melt here. You posted the link and you supported the claim. That the plate accelerated and it was caused by increased rain. Rain doesn't compress a continent down for millions of years so that it can rebound later. And this is about speed in a continents lateral movement. "Iaffaldano said that the monsoon, which increased rainfall in northeast Indian by four metres annually, sped up motion in the Indian plate by almost one centimetre per year." This is a tropical continent with low elevation. What Ice melt rebound? And anyway, a lot of that extra rain became snow high in the Himalayas, adding to the weight of glacial content, increasing it's mass weight not decreasing it. The lack of an accurate and complete model can lead to interpreting the "effects" of a phenomena as being the "cause". I find it difficult to give credence to a finding of a relation between increased rain and the acceleration of a moving continent within a global plate matrix. A matrix under compressional forces. These researchers did not then or even now posses an accurate model of plate tectonics. They made a presumptuous claim with no bases in an actual working model. Possibly even biased from a climate and surface mechanism direction. Seeing accelerated movement and increased rain in synchronization the researchers appear to have identified the periods warming climate as the energy source producing the rain that leads to the plate movement. To use this in an attempt to bolster a pro anthropologic climate change argument is to it's opponents advantage. Lets try it with my model. http://pubs.usgs.gov...c/himalaya.html The collision of India into Asia 50 million years ago caused the Indian and Eurasian Plates to crumple up along the collision zone. After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of these two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. The Himalayas, towering as high as 8,854 m above sea level, form the highest continental mountains in the world. Moreover, the neighboring Tibetan Plateau, at an average elevation of about 4,600 m, is higher than all the peaks in the Alps except for Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa, and is well above the summits of most mountains in the United States. . . . The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity. According to my model, the Earth's magnetic field had moved into a period of lower energy. The outer core had cooled and contracted, as it moved the mantle followed in tandem initiating the compression in the crust by way of the recent ridge infill, this raised the Himalayan range as the gravitational potential energy continued to build in the entire plate matrix. This process caused extreme amounts of compression to build in the Indian Continental plate, the mass of the surrounding and massively larger continental plates of Antarctica, Africa, Pacific and Eurasian were being gradually and increasingly converted into the gravitational potential energy as the outer core cooled. Energy that as kinetic raised the Himalayan range through compression. I would expect the Indian continental plate to gradually and increasingly give off an appreciable amount of the compressional energy as heat during this period, even though overall the mantle's strain energy into the ocean has decreased. And I would expect to see that thermal energy rise to become the mentioned monsoons above it, growing gradually and increasingly stronger over time as the compression grew. This compression, and the disposition of it is what the acceleration actually was. The researchers where unaware of the thermal energy that was being created by the compression exerted on the Indian continent by the mass of those four mega continents, enough compression to drive India into Eurasia and raise the Himalayas, and to produce the increased thermal energy for the monsoons of increased strength. It makes for a more believable mechanism in this explanation than it does as a warming climate and rain being the driver of tectonic plates during the Himalayan uplift. So iNow, don't try to switch the links and the subject phenomena to get out of a corner.

Apparently when you say something you don't really mean it, third time wasn't a charm after all. iNow, I appreciate it when you post links like; http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/ That one makes the ridiculous claim that a warming atmosphere leads to stronger monsoons which increased the movement of a continent. Is there a better example than this that the existing model is grossly inadequate to deal with the observations. It was nice to be able to show the power my model has in reinterpreting these misguided predictions of observations. I'm a little concerned that you would think that it is possible. iNow Page 1 Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:24 PM While plate movements can impact climate, their movements haven't shifted proportional to the changes we're seeing in global average annual temperatures. Specifically, the plate movements result in increased earthquakes and volcanism, both of which have, in fact, been accounted for by climate scientists. Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around. Yes, concerns me much indeed.

Hell hath no fury . . . . .

It's all about winning, by any means.

It's not that he's missing the point, he's trying to misrepresent it.

The Iphone is a photographers light meter with a hand strap. They are filming right? They would have a light meter. He holds it up for a reading, careful not to block the light receiver on the opposite side. She is using it for the first time turns away to see a change in the reading, then turns back and reads the back of her left hand.

iNow Page 1 Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:24 PM While plate movements can impact climate, their movements haven't shifted proportional to the changes we're seeing in global average annual temperatures. Specifically, the plate movements result in increased earthquakes and volcanism, both of which have, in fact, been accounted for by climate scientists. Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around. http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/ Moving goal posts? I think we are going to see a lot of goal post movement on the anthropological side of this, which should be expected. This is from the site that iNow posted earlier http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/monsoons-are-spinning-earths-plates/ The Australian-led team of researchers from France and Germany found that the strengthening Indian monsoon had accelerated movement of the Indian plate over the past 10 million years by a factor of about 20%, publishing their findings in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal. Effects of long-term climate change “The 100km-thick outer shell of Earth, the lithosphere, is divided into pieces called tectonic plates. Plates move in different directions at speeds in the order of centimetres per year, comparable to the speed of fingernail growth in humans. So how much energy is in an atmospheric storm system like a monsoon compared to the mass of the 100 km thick Indian continental plate, which by the way is surrounded on all sides by other plates and is even embedded to its north into the Himalayan Range. "the strengthening Indian monsoon had accelerated movement of the Indian plate over the past 10 million years" That 10 million year ago statement is something I already posted about. http://pubs.usgs.gov...c/himalaya.html The collision of India into Asia 50 million years ago caused the Indian and Eurasian Plates to crumple up along the collision zone. After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of these two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. The Himalayas, towering as high as 8,854 m above sea level, form the highest continental mountains in the world. Moreover, the neighboring Tibetan Plateau, at an average elevation of about 4,600 m, is higher than all the peaks in the Alps except for Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa, and is well above the summits of most mountains in the United States. . . . The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity. According to my model, the Earth's magnetic field had moved into a period of lower energy. The outer core had cooled and contracted, as it moved the mantle followed in tandem initiating the compression in the crust by way of the recent ridge infill, this raised the Himalayan range as the gravitational potential energy continued to build in the entire plate matrix. This process caused extreme amounts of compression to build in the Indian Continental plate, the mass of the surrounding and massively larger continental plates of Antarctica, Africa, Pacific and Eurasian were being gradually and increasingly converted into the gravitational potential energy as the outer core cooled. Energy that as kinetic raised the Himalayan range through compression. I would expect the Indian continental plate to gradually and increasingly give off an appreciable amount of the compressional energy as heat during this period, even though overall the mantle's strain energy into the ocean has decreased. And I would expect to see that thermal energy rise to become the mentioned monsoons above it, growing gradually and increasingly stronger over time as the compression grew. It makes for a more believable mechanism in this explanation than it does as a warming climate being the driver of tectonic plates during the Himalayan uplift. Old model vs new, is there any comparison?

This one is my favorite, you can put all kind of "origins of human behavior" in it. ANATOMY PRIZE: Frans de Waal [The Netherlands and USA] and Jennifer Pokorny [uSA] for discovering that chimpanzees can identify other chimpanzees individually from seeing photographs of their rear ends. REFERENCE: "Faces and Behinds: Chimpanzee Sex Perception" Frans B.M. de Waal and Jennifer J. Pokorny, Advanced Science Letters, vol. 1, 99–103, 2008. ATTENDING THE CEREMONY: Frans de Waal and Jennifer Pokorny Leads me to wonder, were pants simple the first attempt to disguise oneself.

It's basic engineering that natural selection would prefer. As an example, would anyone try to build a suspension bridge like the Golden gate or any of the other examples in asymmetrical design. Unlikely, the additional design considerations would be costly and difficult to overcome. And would most likely lead to structural compromise. Nature will always avoid excessive cost overruns of any type on its construction sites.

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." iNow, this is what everyone should be worried about. Look at the Little Ice Age and the sentence above. The 14C record shows we have an extremely high probability that the solar magnetic activity that heats Earth's outer core is not going to stay high for long. Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level This interglacial we are enjoying is about to end as the divergent plates start to reduce in their amount of divergent movement. We will record smaller yearly amounts of infill. This will indicate the outer core's temperature has lowered and is not producing strain energy at the crust/mantle boundaries. The oceans will cool quickly and we may have a fast decent into a short cold period. How cold? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html The Younger Dryas is the 800 pound gorilla of the climate warming and cooling record since the end of the last glacial period. Here's the facts; brief (1,300 ± 70 years) period of glacial conditions and drought. Mean annual temperature in the U.K. dropped to approximately 5 °C (41 °F) The rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere was sudden and brief, these were rapid energy fluxes on what looks like 1,470 year periodicities. Look at those drop offs, brief (1,300 ± 70 years) period of glacial conditions and drought. That is past climate history that more than hints at our future.

I knew the old you would come back!

I don't know where you got all that baggage. I have put it on line for free so everyone can read it for free. That is all I ever wanted. I am quite content to watch it filter slowly into every aspect of earth science. So every time you turn around there I am. It's your model because you are the one defending it by not admitting that it may be false by way of new evidence. Have you noticed no one has joined you. I am sorry that I appear harsh, but please reread the beginning and compare my demeanor to yours. I have read many of your old posts in climate sciences and elsewhere, you are rather harsh to those who you debate. I have no ill feelings towards you, I think we can respect each others position and move on.

As you have been told already the current model is incorrect, so that means everything you interpret with it is incorrect. Why should it's bad observations lead to good predictions? It doesn't, and never will. You have yet to deal with this material below. Can you with your model provide predictions of this quality. Well, does your model make predictions of observations for any of these. My model can accurately predict. The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand untill now continental interior The formation of divergent plate boundaries The formation of convergent plate boundaries The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries The basin and range area in the SW of N. America Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world Continental break-up Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting. Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts Formation of island arcs Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant Increased ocean thermal content Acidfication of the ocean Carbon transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere. The cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion. Can it show CLEAR cause and effect like this below; http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times. The model simply correlates the magnetic field variability shown above and the production of heat at the crust/mantle boundary from strain energy. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in amplitude of the molten iron of the outer core. Current can only be created by magnetic fields, and magnetic fields can only create current. If one changes in strength the other will follow. As the outer cores molten iron increases in temperature from increased ampacity the liquid iron will expand. This is the mechanism that displaces the mantle. The heat that is responsible for climate variation is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area. This part is really important to note. This heat is not migrating from the core, which would take considerable time. This thermal content is produced at the crust mantle boundary. The mantle makes up 85% of the Earth's mass, its thickness requires its outer surface to expand in proportion to its distance from the core creating tremendous strain in very small amounts of displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronized timing. This is why graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such medieval warm period and the little ice age. Image below courtesy of USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below modified by this author. As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing. Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase that you have pointed out; "that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?" I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age. http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004. S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland 3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." The researchers note the unlikely possibility that it is solar radiation related, but because of the lack of evidence of a solar magnetic causation they make no connection to climate change. This is what this model can deliver in accurate prediction of observations. The historic climate forcing seen in 14C tree ring samples shown earlier (and in even greater detail in the model) provide an answer to the variation through the geologic records of the past climate. And I have even more than these shown. They are held in reserve. So, can your current standard model give results like this. If it can then show them. You and your model fail in comparison unless you can.

In a way, yes you are. Again, in a way you are. As long as you refuse to learn about this model, I am.

That's because you don't do your school work and you will flunk the test coming up on the new model of planetary thermal dynamics.

You mean Josh Willis he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. or Takmeng Wong as in Takmeng Wong and his colleagues at NASA’s Langley Research Center. or do you mean Sydney Levitus, the director of NOAA’s Ocean Climate Laboratory and his colleagues. or did you mean Susan Wijffels of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and other ocean scientists but maybe it was a team of scientists led by Catia Domingues and John Church from Australia’s CSIRO (seen below), and Peter Gleckler, from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California Umm. Wait, what was your point? http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter13/chapter13_01.htm Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University Robert H. Stewart, stewart@ocean.tamu.edu All contents copyright © 2005 Robert H. Stewart, All rights reserved Updated on October 24, 2008 The oceans are the primary reservoir of readily available CO2, an important greenhouse gas. The oceans contain 40,000 GtC of dissolved, particulate, and living forms of carbon. The land contains 2,200 GtC, and the atmosphere contains only 750 GtC. Thus the oceans hold 50 times more carbon than the air. Furthermore, the amount of new carbon put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, 150 GtC, is less than the amount of carbon cycled through the marine ecosystem in five years. (1 GtC = 1 gigaton of carbon = 1012 kilograms of carbon.) Carbonate rocks such as limestone, the shells of marine animals, and coral are other, much larger, reservoirs. But this carbon is locked up. It cannot be easily exchanged with carbon in other reservoirs. Carbonate rocks such as limestone, the shells of marine animals, and coral are other, much larger, reservoirs. But this carbon is locked up. Locked up? On land yes, unless exposed to weathering. All of that in the sea floor sediments has been being fed into the convergent plate boundaries (trenches) since tectonics began. It is transported into the crust/mantle boundary, melted and then dissolved before returning in the seemingly endless cycle back out through the divergent plate boundaries that are the; "world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content." And yes, if the crust/mantle thermal content was increased by strain energy the dissolved carbon content venting into the ocean would increase proportionately. Why wouldn't it? Interesting, another batch prediction of observations - increased ocean thermal content, acidfication and carbon to be transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere. And the cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion. Man, this model kicks butt!

Sorry, it was a SAD attempt at being funny. But your point is well taken.