Climate change cause

[Tahir Gorgen]

It's the uv.

 

The moon is near the horizon more red, less ultra violet/blue. This is because particles in our atmosphere absorbe (a bit of the) ligth. It's due to the path of the ligth. It also has to travel a longer distance in our atmosphere so it is being absorbed more. So is it with the sun. Easy to understand this.

 

It affects a lot. I have not thinked so mutch about climate change because I do'nt care anymore. They spend billions of dollars but didn't understood/know this and more. I will keep the rest for myself.

 

But one I can explaim. Good to know. Flora knows that autumn has come from the more red less uv/blue and the shorter dayligths. I takes/needs/absorbes less nitrogen to make it's chlorofyl. I observed in Holland 2014 that some trees almost skipped autumn. Here in Turkey it's the same.

 

If you understand this you will be understanding a lot more. As why the temperature change is nowadays so hugh when the sky is clear and not, when we look to the past.

 

Ps: you also can measure the uv with sensors on the ground. From the heat of it's spectrum. Herschel founded uv back in 1800 with an thermometre.

 

These are my thougths and findings. All may aim or say their word. I only wanted to share this and am not going to discuss it. Thanks.

[swansont]

For climate change to be caused by Rayleigh scattering, which is sort of what you are describing, that must have changed over time. Do you have any evidence of this?

[Tahir Gorgen]

For climate change to be caused by Rayleigh scattering, which is sort of what you are describing, that must have changed over time. Do you have any evidence of this?

It is on an speculation part on the forum. I know that they aimed that the moon is so red because of the dayligths scattering. But it is the same with the sun. Prehelium aphelium etc and it's uv causes the (more) heat.

 

About the flora. I think I was the first one that aimed that it knows that autumn has come because of the less uv blue of the spectrum of ligth. I thougth about it. Some know that flore needs the more red in it's flower period (weed lamp lololol they have to kinds of weedlamps in Holland. Their the best growers haha. Blue one and one that is more red. Good to know. I know a lot about the canabis indica and sativa and psychology to) but didn't know that the flora got the sign from it.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[hypervalent_iodine]

It is on an speculation part on the forum. I know that they aimed that the moon is so red because of the dayligths scattering. But it is the same with the sun. Prehelium aphelium etc and it's uv causes the heat.

About the flora. I think I was the first one that aimed that it knows that autumn has come because of the less uv blue of the spectrum of ligth. I thougth about it. Some know that flore needs the more red in it's flower period (weed lamp lololol) but didn't know that the flora got the sign from it.

!

Moderator Note

Yes, and being as this is a science forum, we have rules regarding the scientific rigour expected of the posts here. Perhaps you should read them. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

 

Specifically:

 

'Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.'

 

 

[Tahir Gorgen]

!

Moderator Note

Yes, and being as this is a science forum, we have rules regarding the scientific rigour expected of the posts here. Perhaps you should read them. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Specifically:

'Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.'

 

Hey it's almost an hypothesis. I wanted to share this with you and others. It's knowledge. If I say that I am rigth with this, you all would hate me and could have the thougth that it's my ego that I can't held in control. I loved this

!

Moderator Note

Yes, and being as this is a science forum, we have rules regarding the scientific rigour expected of the posts here. Perhaps you should read them. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Specifically:

'Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.'

 

Btw I gave. You can measure the uv of the spectrum of the light at least as in the past with an prisma and termometre. I would like to have a prisma.

 

Let me explain it more. Esa did send 3 satellites to measure it. Back in 2013. I said why not measure the cause, this on the surface with sensors. It had mapped what I aimed, whit their satellites. So am I not right then? Surch on the web please.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[Phi for All]

Hey it's almost an hypothesis. I wanted to share this with you and others. It's knowledge. If I say that I am rigth with this, you all would hate me and could have the thougth that it's my ego that I can't held in control. I loved this

 

Listen, it's very clear you're throwing out guesswork and calling it science. That's not how it works.

 

The reason you can look something up in Wikipedia and trust the explanation is because those explanations have EVIDENCE to support them. There is NO PROOF in science, only explanations. It's the explanations that have the MOST EVIDENCE that we trust the most. Does that make sense?

 

Without evidence, you don't have knowledge, you have a guess. Anybody can guess, so that's why nobody is agreeing with you. Understand? A guess is just your opinion, and science has excellent tools for removing opinion and focusing on EVIDENCE.

[Tahir Gorgen]

Listen, it's very clear you're throwing out guesswork and calling it science. That's not how it works.

 

The reason you can look something up in Wikipedia and trust the explanation is because those explanations have EVIDENCE to support them. There is NO PROOF in science, only explanations. It's the explanations that have the MOST EVIDENCE that we trust the most. Does that make sense?

 

Without evidence, you don't have knowledge, you have a guess. Anybody can guess, so that's why nobody is agreeing with you. Understand? A guess is just your opinion, and science has excellent tools for removing opinion and focusing on EVIDENCE.

 

I red wikipedia in the past and I am not aiming that they all wrong. If no one comes with something important or logically input, how can they know then?

 

Look at global warming photo's on the web. They aim to send satellites to map them. There is a problem in our atmosphere. That's why the climate is as it is now. But why can't you all understand that the problem can be measured on the ground with an prisma and thermometre?

 

If some one wants to know the problem, it's to find and to understand in our atmophere. Their less desired particles that absorb more as in the past.

 

And btw, why shoud I share something that is known? From wikioedia or else? I opened my thougths. You all may trow it to the carbage can or something, I have no benefit of it. But first try to understand this. And we have discussed now about it, that was also important. Thanks. Bye

Edited December 23, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[swansont]

The reddening of light from sources near the horizon is from Rayleigh scattering. It's also why the sky is blue.

 

If that's responsible for warming, then it must have increased. If you don't have evidence of that, you don't have a scientific claim.

Let me explain it more. Esa did send 3 satellites to measure it. Back in 2013. I said why not measure the cause, this on the surface with sensors. It had mapped what I aimed, whit their satellites. So am I not right then? Surch on the web please.

You provide the links. It's your claim.

[Tahir Gorgen]

The reddening of light from sources near the horizon is from Rayleigh scattering. It's also why the sky is blue.

If that's responsible for warming, then it must have increased. If you don't have evidence of that, you don't have a scientific claim.

 

You provide the links. It's your claim.

I can remember but can't find it now. I will. They mapped global warming above the indian ocean and near or a part of Australia from above, with satelites. It would be accurate with sensors on the ground.

 

 

Think about this. Does the distance of the sun to earth, effect the uv that reaches the surface or earth? You could say yes because in an prehelium the sun is at 0,98 ae, so the summers are more warm and in an aphelium the winters colder than on the north half. You know why? Because when the sun is near there will reach more ligth per square. But the uv strenght/heat of it is something else. Without an atmosphere we would burn (I know. Thermosphere at daylight 2000 degrees and nights drop down till 500). Why do you think that the sun burns more in clear sky?

 

I said it before Herschel found the uv with an thermometre and light is being absorbed.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[swansont]

I can remember but can't find it now. I will. They mapped global warming above the indian ocean and near or a part of Australia from above, with satelites. It would be accurate with sensors on the ground.

Think about this. Does the distance of the sun to earth, effect the uv that reaches the surface or earth? You could say yes because in an prehelium the sun is at 0,98 ae, so the summers are more warm and in an aphelium the winters colder than on the north half. You know why? Because when the sun is near there will reach more ligth per square. But the uv strenght/heat of it is something else. Without an atmosphere we would burn (I know. Thermosphere at daylight 2000 degrees and nights drop down till 500). Why do you think that the sun burns more in clear sky?

I said it before Herschel found the uv with an thermometre and light is being absorbed.

But the issue is why that is more of an issue these past few decades as opposed to 150 years ago. You're explaining seasons. Sort of.

[Tahir Gorgen]

But the issue is why that is more of an issue these past few decades as opposed to 150 years ago. You're explaining seasons. Sort of.

Some aim the Green house effect. And the worth agglomeration.

 

I do'nt think anyone knows it exactly. I myself have not tried to understand it or learned to understand it. I also can't imagine why I must or shoud or can understand it and anyone else not. I said it before. The problem to surch for is in the atmosphere. But I have also regretted that I made this topic after all. That's all.

 

Can some one imagine, that I share this and didn't follow physics since october 2014. So I do'nt know how far they are and I am aiming something after more than 2 years.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[Strange]

I said it before Herschel found the uv with an thermometre and light is being absorbed.

 

 

Infra-red, not UV.

http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/Herschel/backyard.html

 

I don't think we can take anything you say seriously.

Some aim the Green house effect. And the worth agglomeration.

 

I do'nt think anyone knows it exactly.

 

They do.

[Tahir Gorgen]

Infra-red, not UV.

http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/Herschel/backyard.html

 

I don't think we can take anything you say seriously.

 

They do.

 

Good for them lol

[swansont]

Some aim the Green house effect. And the worth agglomeration.

I do'nt think anyone knows it exactly. I myself have not tried to understand it or learned to understand it. I also can't imagine why I must or shoud or can understand it and anyone else not. I said it before. The problem to surch for is in the atmosphere. But I have also regretted that I made this topic after all. That's all.

Can some one imagine, that I share this and didn't follow physics since october 2014. So I do'nt know how far they are and I am aiming something after more than 2 years.

There are people who study this and actually know what they're doing.

[Phi for All]

I do'nt think anyone knows it exactly. I myself have not tried to understand it or learned to understand it. I also can't imagine why I must or shoud or can understand it and anyone else not.

 

You have not tried to understand the science, or even learn to understand it, and that's why you can't imagine that other people have tried and succeeded. It like me being unable to understand how Usain Bolt can run so fast, given that I've never tried to run a race in the Olympics, nor studied how to improve my understanding of running.

 

Should I claim he can't possibly do it? Should I ignore the evidence? Isn't it just me waving my hands in incredulity, as Bolt runs past me, faster than I can believe?

[Sensei]

I will keep the rest for myself.

That would be the best for you.. At least you will save us this gibberish..

 

This is because particles in our atmosphere absorbe (a bit of the) ligth.

Sun emits 1370 W per m^2 area of Earth (at average 150 mln km distance from the Sun),

but only 1050 W per m^2 area arrives to the surface.

1370/1050 = 30% of energy from photons is absorbed by atmosphere.

 

If you understand this you will be understanding a lot more. As why the temperature change is nowadays so hugh when the sky is clear and not, when we look to the past.

Release of gases such as CH4 methane and CO2 carbon dioxide to atmosphere,

causes that they absorb photons and energy, and reflect photons toward Earth, and keep energy that normally would be radiated away from Earth to cosmos.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Sensei

[Tahir Gorgen]

That would be the best for you.. At least you will save us this gibberish.. Sun emits 1370 W per m^2 area of Earth (at average 150 mln km distance from the Sun),but only 1050 W per m^2 area arrives to the surface.1370/1050 = 30% of energy from photons is absorbed by atmosphere.Release of gases such as CH4 methane and CO2 carbon dioxide to atmosphere,causes that they absorb photons and energy, and reflect photons toward Earth, and keep energy that normally would be radiated away from Earth to cosmos.

I like it when I get - as above. I think + shoukd be an appreciation.

 

I have learned you all many new stuf on this topic. And you gave me minus.

 

Let me explain. Youre aiming about 1370 watt per m^2 for example.

 

I said in an prehelium the summers on the south half are warmer and the winters in an aphelium there colder. This is because the sun is at a distance of 0,98ae. The most close disctance to the earth. The warming up is due to 2 factors. I explained this in 2014 in holland and it is still there. I was smarter back then. No one before me did. I didn't saw it and had red learned so mutch..

 

One of the factor is that when the sun is closer there will fall more light in an square (m^2 as you aimed) on the surface than when it is at more distance.

 

Second factor is the uv. Uv is found by Herschell. With an thermometry. It has an heat and when the uv is stronger, it's themperature ill rise..

 

So we have nothing to aimings of you about 1370 watt etc. Because we can measure it with an prisma an thermometry more accurately than youre aimings. And this is also my prove of this topic 'climate change cause'. Take a prisma and thermometry. And just measure it.

 

I explained a lot in the past. If they were smart they had meausured it now for at least for 2 years.

 

Whit this story and making fun of Obama that wanted to gather 100billion dollar for climate change (back then I said:'he wants to pin the magnetic north that there isn't and use clean hydrogenbomb) and Esa, I got rid of that thougth in physics. When are the magnetic poles going to change places?

 

Btw. I now a lot but I now more not and have learned from others you and wikipedia and all. So any one else could know the second part better. I aimed to that there isn't enough of the desired particles that absorb sunlight. So maybey the ozon is thin. Maybey there isn't enough place left in the atmosphere for these. Maybey we do'nt give the planet the time to heal. I didn't surch for the answer, because I shared a lot more and do'nt want to learn all myself and share as a dumbass (because I can't held my mouth and instead of profit I lost a lot)

 

So you all may share youre thougths. I will read

Thanks for the minus above. In the past I gave myself the minuses.

 

But logically the heat of the uv of the not seen 'colour' the ultra violet would have to rise. I am not going to google if some one had aimed this before. I am sure about is

Edited December 24, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[Strange]

But logically the heat of the uv of the not seen 'colour' the ultra violet would have to rise.

 

 

Again, I think you mean IR not UV. But this is just one example of the ignorance you show in all your posts.

[Tahir Gorgen]

Again, I think you mean IR not UV. But this is just one example of the ignorance you show in all your posts.

Do I have to answer this? Do'nt feel offended. (All the colours of the ligth of an spectrum have other themparature values. Ir is near red. Uv has the highest)

 

But I have another thougth. If we measure the strentgh of an photon. And say whe could measure the strength of ligth in say mm^2. And do this in an aphelium and prehelium with the sun on it's highest point. We could know how many photon there falls on it. Hey this is verry fun and important.

I am the king of the beggars. They sended a plane with an atomic clock and more to prove Einsteins id/theory. No comment for this and others.

 

Mine are cheap to do.

Just need an sharp shutter for the proof of corioliseffect for the dummies. And a prisma and thermometre for climate change cause. Etc

[swansont]

Aphelion and perihelion.

 

The thing is, it's pretty straightforward to calculate the change in the intensity with variations in the distance - something you haven't done. Anyone claiming a new theory should be able to do simple tasks like that. And that's an annual variation; it will contribute to temperature variation during the year.

 

But it explains nothing about a trend over longer time periods, a crucial point you continue to ignore.

[Tahir Gorgen]

Aphelion and perihelion.

 

The thing is, it's pretty straightforward to calculate the change in the intensity with variations in the distance - something you haven't done. Anyone claiming a new theory should be able to do simple tasks like that. And that's an annual variation; it will contribute to temperature variation during the year.

 

But it explains nothing about a trend over longer time periods, a crucial point you continue to ignore.

Youre right about this. And this the point: no one did take me seriously with this in 2014. But they now this. So theire aimings are changed. Because of my explanations. But they ca'nt aim this because they know it's mine. We had to measure it over a longer time period to see the changes.

 

But about the prehelium and aphelium and to figure out how many photons there will fall in aan mm^2. With the sun at it highest point. Does it not make any difference for the strength of one photon. You can always divide the value in an mm^2 by any nummer to have the rigth amounth.

More clear sky or less does not make any difference, I mean.

 

But I shared my thougth. That's all.

But.. just the effect with the past I ca'nt prove. Because there was no measurment. What some can prove with this, is as I said before on this topic. Esa had mapped the bad climate and the atmosphere above the indian ocean and a part of Australia as the baddest. They could and can meausre this accurately on the surface now. With sensors.

 

 

Here you go:

 

https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=esa+map:climate+change+2014&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimvOuvgI7RAhXbeFAKHUwcC-kQ_AUIBygB&biw=800&bih=1280#imgdii=zxLO4TvBY2hYWM%3A%3BdZBrfaJuhFw53M%3A%3BdZBrfaJuhFw53M%3A&imgrc=dZBrfaJuhFw53M%3A

 

And they aimed: earth's magnetic field is weakining

 

 

Reason? They said: The magnetic poles are going to change places. Switch.

[swansont]

You have done nothing - absolutely nothing - to show the orbital variations are the source of the temperature trends.

 

There's no science in your posts.

[Sensei]

I said in an prehelium the summers on the south half are warmer and the winters in an aphelium there colder.

 

(...)

 

One of the factor is that when the sun is closer there will fall more light in an square (m^2 as you aimed) on the surface than when it is at more distance.

Perihelion is right now, when on northern hemisphere there is winter, and on southern hemisphere is summer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion

It's even in wikipedia.

"Earth comes closest to the sun every year around January 3."

 

During entire human history it did not change a lot.

 

Between 1300/1600-1800 there was Little Ice Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Aphelion and perihelion couple hundred years ago was exactly the same as now.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Sensei

[Tahir Gorgen]

You have done nothing - absolutely nothing - to show the orbital variations are the source of the temperature trends.

 

There's no science in your posts.

I am right with my aimings.

 

I am not going to share my thougths about orbital variations. If I combine my own knowledge and aim this: in the past the twisters began at a earlier point to the equator and there where stronger. You have to understand without my sayings that I mean that this is due to earths own orbit. On it's axxe. And more. The moon was near earth.

 

Further on there is mutch more.

 

I know a lot of evolution. I saw at once with the tiktaalik that it had eyes above and short leggs to push him in undeep waters.. Some parts of historry. Egyptian histoy for example. Their calander. Forget wikipedia. They had an calander of 4 seasons. 12 x30days. At the end they offerd to their Gods. If sophet the sirius star would not been seen it could mean that there would ne plages etc. I think that they were afraid of an multi universe.

 

Can you understand 30x12= 360days and only 5 more days to see the star sophet? It could mean that earths rotation around the sun was shorter than now. Ps:they build the piramides with robes. I looked to the pi of it. Drag the large stones over sand and trowed oil over it. In the sand there were trunks. Tree trunks. This all knowledge is so beautifull. And not all know this.

 

So orbital variation climate this and that. What do all really know then? More?

 

And some aimed something above about prehelion and aphelion. I explained why the summers are warmer and the winters colder in the south half with those 2 factors and did not aimed some thing else than what he did with ap and prehelion

[swansont]

I am right with my aimings.

You've shared nothing that demonstrates this. This being a science discussion board, I'd like to discuss some science.

 

I explained why the summers are warmer and the winters colder in the south half

Which has nothing to do with global warming.