The Answer to Global warming is trains,Wind and Solar farms.

[steveox]

They should install High Speed trains underground tunnels. Like this High Speed train.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJKyisRKrLg
If they put this train from Jacksonville Fla to Charlotte NC youll be there less than 2 hours and from Charlotte NC to Philadelphia PA youll be there in less than 2 Hours From Philadelphia PA to Buffalo NY youll be there in 2 Hours. This is what the Amtrak Auto Train should consider doing so not only youll be saving gas and not harming the environment cause Planes do harm the atmosphere 10 times more than Cars,Busses and trucks combined.We can cut down some Carbon dioxide by restricting a Lot of Flights and install new regalations. Like If that Flight isnt above 80% seats sold it doesnt take off you must cancell the flight and book em on another flight to fill 90% of the seatting. And Flights must fly at least 900 miles to another city you can No longer fly to Short distance. If you want to travel to short distance you can ether drive or taker the bus or the amrak.That would be ideal to help our planet.

[palerider]

The answer to global warming is to look at the Earth's history. Warming and cooling are natural cycles. If the past is any indicator at all, it is going to continue to warm until no ice exists at ethier pole and remain at that warm temperature for several million years at which time, it will begin to cool again.

If you look at the history of the earth it is clear that any ice at all is the anomoly, not the norm. If we are going to "do" anyting at all about global warming, we should be looking into technology that will make us more comfortable in the long summer that is coming. We have no more power to stop it, or even slow it down than we have to slow down a hurricaine which is next to nothing when compared to the global climate cycles.

[steveox]

Scientist have the power to weaken an powerful hurricane by dropping a chemical from a plane to weaken the storm.But the EPA wont allow them to do it.

[palerider]

Scientist have the power to weaken an powerful hurricane by dropping a chemical from a plane to weaken the storm.But the EPA wont allow them to do it.

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/FAQ/Myths_Modifications.php

Clip:

One of the biggest problems is, however, that it would take a LOT of the stuff to even hope to have an impact. 2 cm of rain falling over 1 square kilometer of surface deposits 20,000 metric tons of water. At the 2000-to-one ratio that the "Dyn-O-Gel" folks advertise, each square km would require 10 tons of goop. If we take the eye to be 20 km in diameter surrounded by a 20 km thick eyewall, that's 3,769.91 square kilometers, requiring 37,699.1 tons of "Dyn-O-Gel". A C-5A heavy-lift transport airplane can carry a 100 ton payload. So that treating the eyewall would require 377 sorties. A typical average reflectivity in the eyewall is about 40 dB(Z), which works out to 1.3 cm/hr rain rate. Thus to keep the eyewall doped up, you'd need to deliver this much "Dyn-O-Gel" every hour-and-a-half or so.


Models suggest that the dyn o gel might actually make things worse:

Accepting for the sake of argument that they actually did have an effect, the descriptions seem more consistent with an increase in hydrometeor fall speed and accelerated collision coalescence, which the numerical model results argue would strengthen the hurricane


http://www.hurricaneville.com/todays_efforts.html

Clip:

There are also other ideas such as using windmills and dynamite, but the researchers still believe that it is impossible to weaken a hurricane because they are such vast storm systems.

[steveox]

Well if NASA has the ability to move the comet or a metor from striking the earth by making go in a differant direction then scientist have the ability move the hurricane towards south head towards cuba or mexico.

[palerider]

Well if NASA has the ability to move the comet or a metor from striking the earth by making go in a differant direction then scientist have the ability move the hurricane towards south head towards cuba or mexico.

Nasa has no such abilities. You watch too many movies. We can't stop comets, we can't stop meteors, we can't slow down hurricaines, we can't stop tornadoes, hell, we can't even make sure that it rains enough on your garden every summer. The idea of changing a repeating global climate cycle is patently rediculous.

[steveox]

Nasa has no such abilities. You watch too many movies. We can't stop comets, we can't stop meteors, we can't slow down hurricaines, we can't stop tornadoes, hell, we can't even make sure that it rains enough on your garden every summer. The idea of changing a repeating global climate cycle is patently rediculous.

Ever seen the news? They developed a lazer to detor the metor into another direction.But congress wont give em the money to develop such projects.

[palerider]

Ever seen the news? They developed a lazer to detor the metor into another direction.But congress wont give em the money to develop such projects.

I believe you have confused reality with Martin the Martian. A laser beam is made of light. Photons, even when concentrated into the most powerful of laser beams can not deflect a solid object. If the laser were able to project a sufficient magnitude of photons per cubic centemeter then perhaps it could go straight through a meteor, but could never deflect it.

Physics is physics and you simply can't deflect a solid object with photons, no matter how many you throw at it.

[TruthAboveAll]

Throwing photons at a meteor... LOL! Now THAT created a Gary Larson-esque vision in my mind... Thanks for the chuckle, PR!

[Rokerijdude11]

Throwing photons at a meteor... LOL! Now THAT created a Gary Larson-esque vision in my mind... Thanks for the chuckle, PR!

you may want to check the next post as well


http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1036318516252370.xml

KENT FAULK

HUNTSVILLE. A meeting here this week will focus on how beams of energy
microwaves and lasers and such could be used to propel spaceships, deflect
asteroids or even push microscopic crafts through our veins.

Just 30 years ago, the first scientific papers began suggesting beamed
energy propulsion, said Andrew Pakhomov, the University of Alabama in
Huntsville researcher who is co-chairman of the First International
Symposium on Beamed Energy Propulsion.

"Now we are talking about hardware devices that work on these principles,"
he said.

The conference, which runs Tuesday through Thursday at UAH, is drawing more
than 100 researchers from about 10 countries, Pakhomov said. They'll discuss
their ideas, but they'll also talk about creating a program to support their
work, including a research network among facilities with high-powered
lasers, Pakhomov said.

Among the speakers, Jonathan Campbell of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
in Huntsville will discuss using lasers to deflect asteroids, meteoroids and
comets that might threaten Earth.

Takahashi Yabe of the Tokyo Institute of Technology is scheduled to talk
about how his lab used a laser to power a paper airplane. He and other
Japanese scientists also are scheduled discuss how X-rays could one day be
focused to propel "micro-ships" through the human body, Pakhomov said.

Much of the UAH symposium, however, will be focused on using beamed energy
to propel spacecraft, an idea on which Marshall is working.

Researchers believe lasers eventually could be used to launch spacecraft
into space or to push them on their way after they reach space. Beaming up
energy means spacecraft wouldn't have to carry as much fuel.

Pakhomov hopes to build a small experimental vehicle in the next year to
test whether short laser pulses can propel it in a vacuum tube.

Researchers also will hear from Alabama natives James and Gregory Benford
about next year's experiment attempting to push a large sail in space with a
half-million-watt microwave beam from Earth.

"This is the first time anyone has attempted to beam energy to an object in
space in an attempt to accelerate it," said James Benford, president of
Microwave Sciences Inc. in California. His twin brother, Gregory Benford, is
a professor at the University of California Irvine. The two physicists are
natives of Fairhope and principal investigators in the Cosmos-1 experiment,
a project of the Planetary Society.

An exciting `shoot':

Next year's experiment will be aboard a converted Russian intercontinental
ballistic missile that will be launched from a Russian submarine. Once in
orbit, blades on the spacecraft will fan out to form a sail 100 feet across.
As it orbits about 500 miles from Earth, researchers will try to steer the
microwave beam from the Deep Space Network in California onto the sail.

Microwave dishes at that site normally are used to communicate with deep
space probes. "The people at the deep space network are excited about it.
They've never been asked to shoot at an object," James Benford said.

An accelerometer on the sail will tell scientists how much the microwave
beam was able to accelerate the sail.

The experiment could prove the concept, but scientists already are saying
they could develop more powerful microwave beams to push spacecraft along at
one-tenth the speed of light, or about 18,600 mph, James Benford said.

At that speed, it would take a probe about 42 years to reach Alpha Centauri,
the star system nearest our solar system, James Benford said. With the
velocity of current rockets, the trip would take about 40,000 years, he
said.

Beamed propulsion is the most near-term prospect for humans to reach other
stars, James Benford said. "I think it is reasonable to think we could have
probes at the nearby stars at the end of the century," he said.

[Rokerijdude11]

I believe you have confused reality with Martin the Martian. A laser beam is made of light. Photons, even when concentrated into the most powerful of laser beams can not deflect a solid object. If the laser were able to project a sufficient magnitude of photons per cubic centemeter then perhaps it could go straight through a meteor, but could never deflect it.

Physics is physics and you simply can't deflect a solid object with photons, no matter how many you throw at it.

apparently your not exactly right here are you ? what old data are you relying on? It appears that Project orion has in fact been experimenting with moving objects in space and debris retreval as well as "ASTEROID AVOIDANCE" using.................Lasers you might want to look at the last post as well

take a look here at this paper

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf

here are some snippets from the pdf file
=============================

The Author

Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force
Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. In civilian life, Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the Advanced Projects Office
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

In that capacity he has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. He served as the project manager on Project ORION, which was a NASA study published in 1997 that explored the feasibility of using lasers to remove orbital debris. He has published more than fifty scientific
papers on various subjects, including laser orbital debris removal and laser asteroid, meteoroid, and comet deflection.

============================

Claude Phipps suggested the use of laser propulsion with a ground-based pulsed laser as a solution to the orbital debris problem in 1994 (Phipps 1994). The Orion Project, which was a study conducted by NASA
and the USAF in 1995-96, concluded that the concept of using ground-based lasers for removing orbital debris is feasible and cost effective relative to the cost of placing objects in orbit (Campbell 1996). This study
presents an analysis of the debris removal concept, and a plan for developing the technology for removing orbital debris with near-Earth lasers.

This study begins with an analysis of the cost of a laser orbital debris removal system as the first step toward establishing the cost-effectiveness of this concept. This study then investigates the requirements
for using laser propulsion for the diverse ensemble of debris particles in orbit. The following section demonstrates that the adaptive optics requirement for debris removal is within technological reach.

After demonstrating that laser systems can effectively remove debris from orbit with the proper engagement strategy, the study concludes with a proposal to develop the technology for debris removal and advance that technology for laser space propulsion.


===========================


III. Near Earth Asteroid Avoidance System


Coupling PALS with powerful telescopes, such as those being developed under the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) project, would provide long-term warning for implementation of an overall NEO
avoidance system. The feasibility of this system is discussed below.


The lasers that would he used in Project Orion have demonstrated sufficient capability for orbital debris removal for objects in the size range from 1-10 cm diameter. Ground based experimental data, using a 20 kW
pulsed laser, show that the impulse imparted to aluminum targets due to the ejected plasma cloud gives an average surface pressure p = 6.5 x 10-4 N/cm2, or equivalently, an acceleration, a = l.25x 10-6 m/s2 With present technology, a laser phased array can be aimed at the asteroid with sufficient power to ablate its surface. Assuming that a laser array can be
scaled up to operate on a 1 km diameter iron asteroid, this would require a 200 GW power grid.


Several alternate potential power sources are
available, including nuclear or electric generation and solar power arrays. Let us assume that the asteroid is at infinity moving toward the Earth with a velocity v0 and impact parameter R. The closest point of approach Re is given by ...

raed the rest in this interesting nasa related document

[steveox]

Now if were smart enough to do this,,Invent computers and the internet were smart enough to do something about Hurricanes and reverse Global Warming.

[palerider]

you may want to check the next post as well



Sounds more like the side show at a Star Trek convention than any sort of real science. You shoud go. Maybe Jack Herer will be there collecting data on the effects of marijuana as they relate to experiments with lasers deflecting meteors.

[palerider]

Now if were smart enough to do this,,Invent computers and the internet were smart enough to do something about Hurricanes and reverse Global Warming.


You apparently don't understand the article. We aren't smart enough to do this. At this point, we are only smart enough to wonder if it would work. And most of what we wonder doesn't actually work.

[Rokerijdude11]

Sounds more like the side show at a Star Trek convention than any sort of real science. You shoud go. Maybe Jack Herer will be there collecting data on the effects of marijuana as they relate to experiments with lasers deflecting meteors.

Once again Palerider Knows better

he knows more than

Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force
Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. In civilian life, Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the Advanced Projects Office
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

In that capacity he has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. He served as the project manager on Project ORION, which was a NASA study published in 1997 that explored the feasibility of using lasers to remove orbital debris. He has published more than fifty scientific
papers on various subjects, including laser orbital debris removal and laser asteroid, meteoroid, and comet deflection.



PULLLLLLLLLEZE

[Rokerijdude11]

You apparently don't understand the article. We aren't smart enough to do this. At this point, we are only smart enough to wonder if it would work. And most of what we wonder doesn't actually work.

No apprently its YOU who dosent understand the article . You clearly told stevox that he was crazy because lasers cant move solid objects. The paper clearly demonstrates that your assesment was WRONG as they can and have moved solid objects via laser.


they have also calculated that a phased array of lasers could move a asteroid but it would take as many as 38 days of constant exposure to be able to move something of that size

granted the objects they can move are not anywhere near the size of an asteroid yet it is something they find feasible and cost effective so the air force has continued on in the studies

so ther is the capability of lasers to move solid objects contray to what you had written in your opinion earlier

[steveox]

They said you dont wanna blow it up cause it goes in pieces and will cause more disaster.Not If you hit it on angle.Its like cutting down a tree if you want to fall a certain direction.

[palerider]

Once again Palerider Knows better

he knows more than

Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force
Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. In civilian life, Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the Advanced Projects Office
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

In that capacity he has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. He served as the project manager on Project ORION, which was a NASA study published in 1997 that explored the feasibility of using lasers to remove orbital debris. He has published more than fifty scientific
papers on various subjects, including laser orbital debris removal and laser asteroid, meteoroid, and comet deflection.

PULLLLLLLLLEZE

Jonathan Campbell is just one in a cadre of nasa scientists who have their heads up their collective asses and simply want to see continued funding for a "solar sailing" project that has already failed miserably when it was attempted by the russians with the assistance of NASA.

The fact is that photons have no mass. All the proof that is necessary that one can not move solid objects with lasers comes from light speed measurements. No matter how many mirrors you bounce a photon off of, it does not slow down. You can do a light speed measurement in which you bounce a photon off of a mirror a million times and an experiment in which you bounce a photon off of a mirror once and the speed of the photons will be identical. Since a photon has no mass, it can not be portrayed as something similar to a rubber band or a spring that slows down and then speeds back up during reflection. Since it does not slow down and speed back up, it can not transfer momentum and therefore it can not move a solid object.

Scientist take advantage of the ignorance of the public in more arenas than just global warming in an attempt to get funding.

[Rokerijdude11]

Like i said
palerider knows better.............yeah ok buddy!! I read the whole paper, Your WRONG they can and have moved objects via laser.... PERIOD. Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet

you said objects couldnt be moved they can you have been Decisevly proven wrong
nuff said

[steveox]

Volcanoes can cool down the earths temperature.Volcanoes produce steam though the ashes.Now if we can find away to produce steam plants on Islamds fron sea water it might reverse global warming into Global cooling.But the Problem with raising steam into the atmosphere it might produce too much rain and too much rain will produce floods.

[USMC the Almighty]

\Now if we can find away to produce steam plants on Islamds fron sea water it might reverse global warming into Global cooling.

Why would we ever want to do that?

[vyo476]

Why would we ever want to do that?

Save money on fans and air conditioning?

Stimulate the woolen sock industry?

Or maybe he just likes hockey more than baseball.

:p

[palerider]

Like i said
palerider knows better.............yeah ok buddy!! I read the whole paper, Your WRONG they can and have moved objects via laser.... PERIOD. Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet

you said objects couldnt be moved they can you have been Decisevly proven wrong
nuff said

Actually, it has not been decicively proven. Perhaps it has been proven to you, but then you probably believe that the magician really does produce those doves from thin air.

In typical fashion, you are unprepared to actually discuss the subject beyond a link and a string of insults.

[palerider]

Volcanoes can cool down the earths temperature.Volcanoes produce steam though the ashes.Now if we can find away to produce steam plants on Islamds fron sea water it might reverse global warming into Global cooling.But the Problem with raising steam into the atmosphere it might produce too much rain and too much rain will produce floods.


Tell me steveox. By what calculations exactly have you determined that the earth is at its optimum temperature and would not benefit from warming?

[steveox]

Look at your history.The coolest summer we ever had was way back in 1815 and that huge volcanic exploson down in the south pacific i forgot the name of that volcano.But that was the biggest eruption in the 19th century. Far more worse then Mount St Helens. Heres the link what volcanoes can do to the climate.
Ask your grand parents just how cool it was back in their days.Compare today when its much much hotter now.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/volcano/

[palerider]

Look at your history.The coolest summer we ever had was way back in 1815 and that huge volcanic exploson down in the south pacific i forgot the name of that volcano.But that was the biggest eruption in the 19th century. Far more worse then Mount St Helens. Heres the link what volcanoes can do to the climate.
Ask your grand parents just how cool it was back in their days.Compare today when its much much hotter now.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/volcano/

Krakatoa. It was cool alright. Crop failures all over the world because the ash blocked the sunlight. Millions starved to death. Is that your answer to global warming?

Let me ask you again how it is that you have determined that the present temperature is the earth's optimum temperature. If you look at paleohistory, warmer temperatures than we have now have been very good for all forms of life.

[Rokerijdude11]

NO sir

No insults here.................just the fact that you were wrong in you arrogant rant to Stevox thats all..........

Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet

pretty well the end all right there pal

[steveox]

Krakatoa. It was cool alright. Crop failures all over the world because the ash blocked the sunlight. Millions starved to death. Is that your answer to global warming?

Let me ask you again how it is that you have determined that the present temperature is the earth's optimum temperature. If you look at paleohistory, warmer temperatures than we have now have been very good for all forms of life.

But why are the bees are dying? Why are we having more powerful hurricanes,Storms and Massive Floods? Why are we having droughts? Answer is because of warmer temperatures.Without the bees we cant grow food.

[palerider]

But why are the bees are dying? Why are we having more powerful hurricanes,Storms and Massive Floods? Why are we having droughts? Answer is because of warmer temperatures.Without the bees we cant grow food.

Couldn't say about the bees. We aren't having more severe weather than has been recorded in the past. Not more powerful huricaines, not more floods, not more drought. And there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that warmer temperatures have anything at all to do with the bee blight.

[palerider]

NO sir

No insults here.................just the fact that you were wrong in you arrogant rant to Stevox thats all..........

Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet

pretty well the end all right there pal


The fact remains that photons have no mass and it is yet to be proven that a laser can move anyting. The fact that no matter how many times you bounce a photon off a mirror it continues to travel at the speed of light is undeniable evidence that it does not transfer momentum to objects that it hits. Sorry you don't grasp the physics. All sorts of scientists take advantage of an ignorant public in order to get that all important funding.

[Rokerijdude11]

Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet


end of story

[steveox]

Couldn't say about the bees. We aren't having more severe weather than has been recorded in the past. Not more powerful huricaines, not more floods, not more drought. And there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that warmer temperatures have anything at all to do with the bee blight.

Well then how come theres other kinds of plants growing in northern plains that were never there before? explain that one.

[invest07]

The answer to Global Warming is to do nothing. Just kick back, relax, put your feet up a pop open a cold one and wait for this latest natural heating and cooling cycle to play out. The earth has only had a few hundred of these in it's history.

The global warming hysteria has nothing to do with temp change and everything to do with a new world-wide tax, paid to the UN.

Don't believe me? Check out carbontax.org.

[jeffbiss]

What everyone must understand is that people like palerider simply hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. They are ideologically opposed to a paradigm that holds that there is a greater responsibility than simply satisfying one's desires.

The global warming debate is essentially not about whether the earth's climate changed in the past or whether it will in the future but that we are having a negative effect through our actions. palerider and his ilk don't like that. They see the world either: a) as designed for their use and abuse or (b) too large for us to affect it. They simply don't like the thought that they shouldn't do as they want. It is that simple.

The fact is that the raw temperature data indicates that the mean is increasing since the Industrial Revolution and so the noise, the swings in temperature, is also increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that we have released about 300 billions tons of green house gases that were not part of the normal cycle because they werere sequestered in the crust. So, we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which directly affect how much heat is retained by our system.

palerider, as for your "laser can't move anything" comment, you hsould research before you post. See the article "Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms" at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060819112154.htm

[jeffbiss]

invest07, I see that you're spreading your nonsense here too. While there are boneheads who believe that free markets are the answer to everything they are wrong. While it is true that there are many who are positioning themselves to benfit from using the market to control greenhouse gas emissions it is also true that we are causing the increase in mean temperature.

What we need are drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, preferably through better technologies than power through combustion.

[TruthAboveAll]

What everyone must understand is that people like palerider simply hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. They are ideologically opposed to a paradigm that holds that there is a greater responsibility than simply satisfying one's desires.

I'm 100% sure that palerider is totally capable of answering this post. However, since I'm one of those people like him, I'll make my own comments. We (okay, I) do not hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. What I do have a strong disgust for is the fear tactics nurtured in such a cavalier manner utilizing lies and half-truths. I have great respect for the earth, for nature, for all that it supplies and the resources we are blessed with.

What do you think, that those of us that oppose the premises presented in the "Inconvenient Truth" mentality want to slash and burn the entire earth? Preposterous! We have the same desire to leave our children, our grandchildren, and so on a clean, healthy environment and world, where they too will have the advantages of living in the same abundance that we've experienced.

The global warming debate is essentially not about whether the earth's climate changed in the past or whether it will in the future but that we are having a negative effect through our actions. palerider and his ilk don't like that. They see the world either: a) as designed for their use and abuse or (b) too large for us to affect it. They simply don't like the thought that they shouldn't do as they want. It is that simple.

The global warming debate is exactly about the current and historical contexts of climate change. Supposed current global warming (supposed, as there are a growing cadre of scientists worldwide disputing that basic premise) has been presented as an unprecedented catastrophic warming, that mankind's actions are directly responsible for.

What is going on now is nothing short of terrorist tactics. To exaggerate facts and statistics to support a "cause" is the height of irresponsibility, even arrogance. When a fault-filled film like An Inconvenient Truth is being force-fed to our elementary school children across the U.S. to literally scare them half to death, to convince them that their world is going to come crashing down with flooding shores and tortured, dying wildlife is unconscionable. And to imply, no CHARGE that their parents and all adults (especially in the prosperous, self-indulgent U.S.) are responsible is a new level of hate speech. Actually, it fits the category of hate speech than many crimes currently included in that category. An Inconvenient Truth, from a lost-cause politician, who created a cause to bolster his own inconsequential status in American life.

The words of Al Gore himself, in an interview with with David Roberts in Grist, when asked about present the idea of global warming and getting people engaged: Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is... Ah... Right! Let's "over-represent" the facts, over-state the danger so that we can frighten school children into believing that there mommies and daddies are part of a "destroy the earth" conspiracy, just for their own enjoyment.

The fact is that the raw temperature data indicates that the mean is increasing since the Industrial Revolution and so the noise, the swings in temperature, is also increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that we have released about 300 billions tons of green house gases that were not part of the normal cycle because they werere sequestered in the crust. So, we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which directly affect how much heat is retained by our system.

You are mixing different suppositions here with some questionable statistics. For example, there is an increase in mean temperature, with estimates (yes, estimates!) running from 0.3-0.6 C. That equates to about 0.5-1 F. Temperature swings are nothing new, and the mean temperatures recorded indicate that while some locations are experiencing higher averages at different times of the year, other locations are experiencing lower averages.

There are changes going on, but "300 billion tons of green house gases" is very much like statements thrown about on other forum sites. This information is extrapolated from data that is extremely hard to verify, and there are so many other components (like the increased heat from the sun) that it is nearly impossible to accurately gauge what effect man's activities have on the whole thing. No doubt, we are burning fossil fuels. That is something new to the global environmental mix. But so are increased forest fires, from careless people or downright pyromaniacs starting the blaze.

To view certain impacts that human activity has on the environment, then to try to correct it when it is detrimental, is fine. I'm all for responsibility. But that responsibility is a two-edged sword, and I've no place at all for giving any legitimacy to hysterical "Chicken Little" declarations and the sky-is-falling scare tactics used by the supposed responsible environmentalists.

Start acting a bit more responsible with your claims and "statistics" and you will get further in the long run. Remember, for every authority you can line up claiming that global warming and climate shift is an impending calamity, I can provide an equal number stating that your authorities' claims are full of, excuse the pun, hot air. The only problem is, there is no sensationalism in saying "Folks, the globe is going through a normal climatic shift."

Also remember, that many of the same environmentalists and experts that you and YOUR ilk cite were raising the alarm in the 1970's that we were going into an ice age.

So, since responsible journalism seems to be a dying breed, we are left with only the hope that the truth will come out. Hopefully in time to prevent a total devastation of the U.S. economy through oppressive restrictions and the "global" fees and taxes that we're starting to hear about.

You and YOUR ilk are the same people screaming about the Constitutional violations of the Bush administration. You are the same ones protesting the loss of our rights. And yet you're willing to blindly and passively hand over your rights to international organizations that will totally destroy and obliterate the blessings of the American way of life that we enjoy so much. I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I did all I could to protect our country for them, from the economy, to our freedoms, to the environment. I'm not sure what you will tell yours.

[palerider]

Well then how come theres other kinds of plants growing in northern plains that were never there before? explain that one.


Plants growing in more northern lattitudes don't constitute more severe weather. And you can hardly say "never" We know that before the ice age that we are presently exiting began, there were tropical plants growing as far north as the arctic circle. Mammoths, have been found frozen with tropical plants still in their mouths and stomachs.

[palerider]

What everyone must understand is that people like palerider simply hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. They are ideologically opposed to a paradigm that holds that there is a greater responsibility than simply satisfying one's desires.

I am all for cleaning up the environment. I am the sort who takes a trash bag into state and national parks and even into the woods when I go hunting to carry out any trash that I may find. Do you do as much? And I am all for fining companies who pollute illegally very heavily for their first offense and fining them out of existence on their second. What I am not in favor of is lying to anyone who will listen to scare them into giving you the power to regulate everyting in the name of trying to alter a natural global climate cycle.

The global warming debate is essentially not about whether the earth's climate changed in the past or whether it will in the future but that we are having a negative effect through our actions. palerider and his ilk don't like that. They see the world either: a) as designed for their use and abuse or (b) too large for us to affect it. They simply don't like the thought that they shouldn't do as they want. It is that simple.

Then try telling the truth. Try framing the argument in terms of cleaning up the environment (which most people are in favor of) instead of lying through your teeth that we are causing a global climate catastrophe.

The fact is that the raw temperature data indicates that the mean is increasing since the Industrial Revolution and so the noise, the swings in temperature, is also increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that we have released about 300 billions tons of green house gases that were not part of the normal cycle because they werere sequestered in the crust. So, we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which directly affect how much heat is retained by our system.

Hello? The fact is that the temperature has been rising since the earth began to come out of the ice age that we are presently in. The ice has melted back over 2,000 miles and sea level has risen 900 feet since the present warming trend began. Your harping on a degree in the past 100 years is patently silly when put in the context of history.

Further, you clearly don't know what you are talking about with regard to greenhouse gasses and their effect on the climate. You just parrot what you are told with no understanding of what you are saying.

There has been three times as much greenhouse gass in the atmosphere as would be required to cause the current greenhouse effect since we began to exit the ice age we are presently exiting. There wasnever been a need for manmade greenhouse gas to increase the potential for greenhouse warming because the atmosphere is already completely opaque in the relevant absorption bands . That means, there is already a "competition" between overabundant greehnouse gass molecules to reflect the available outbound infrared radiation . For this reason alone, the catastrophic warming scenarios generated by climate models that predict catastrophic global climate change are laughable. The models have been programmed only with positive feedbacks. That is, they predict even greater warming from trivial increase in absorber availability while real world potential actually works with negative feedback. You gett progressively less warming per cc of greenhouse gas by adding more of them because there is simply not enough radiation from the sun to go around. Climate scientists are creating hysteria over something that physically cannot happen?

palerider, as for your "laser can't move anything" comment, you hsould research before you post. See the article "Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms" at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060819112154.htm


Drifting electrons don't constitute moving matter.

[OPGhostdog]

" Jesus Christ " Some of you should start your own web forum
called (Writing A Book). However, the global warning will always
be in effect until environmental people find a solution to clean
the Air of emission smoke (including toxic smog).

I agree with some of the stuff that Al Gore is saying concerning
global warning. Also he is wasting his time trying to prove his
point, due to the fact that many of us do not realize exactly
what the air is doing to our health, and yet some Scientists &
Environmentalists is ignoring the facts.

I have just marked this topic for special attention to research
more, and as I find information I will share it.

[palerider]

" Jesus Christ " Some of you should start your own web forum
called (Writing A Book). However, the global warning will always
be in effect until environmental people find a solution to clean
the Air of emission smoke (including toxic smog).

I agree with some of the stuff that Al Gore is saying concerning
global warning. Also he is wasting his time trying to prove his
point, due to the fact that many of us do not realize exactly
what the air is doing to our health, and yet some Scientists &
Environmentalists is ignoring the facts.

I have just marked this topic for special attention to research
more, and as I find information I will share it.

What the air is doing to our health is almost entirely a local problem and has nothing at all to do with global climate change. If air in a particular area is bad, then I am completely in favor of cleaning it up "IF" it isn't going to cost too many people their jobs or severely damage the economy of said area. If someone finds themselves living in an area in which the air gives them a hard time but not the general population, then that person should consider moving rather than expecting things to change on their account.

What I am not in favor of is creating a great big lie (which is the case with anthropogenic climate change) for the purpose of gaining political power over people and business.

[Rokerijdude11]

sometimes you really sound ALOT like Charlie Browns teacher

wahhh................wah.......wa.........wahh.... wahhh...wah!!!

anyone who remembers CB'S teach will appreciate this

[palerider]

sometimes you really sound ALOT like Charlie Browns teacher

wahhh................wah.......wa.........wahh.... wahhh...wah!!!

anyone who remembers CB'S teach will appreciate this

Sorry to be talking over your head. If you had a better vocabulary, or more intellectual wattage, what I am saying would come across as words that might prompt you to a rebuttal rather than just noise that intimidates you into the sort of sniping that you seem helpless to avoid.

I would use the crayon feature and draw you a picture, but we don't have one.

[Abraxis Axis]

Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet


end of story

read it absorb it

[palerider]

read it absorb it

You post that as if you are unaware that "reputable" scientists aren't proven wrong every day of the year including holidays. Reputable one day, disgraced the next. Can you offer up any argument to my position or is all of this just too too far over your head to expect any intelligent comment?

[palerider]

Oops, forgot to mention, even making the argument that so and so is such and such and therefore must be right constitutes one of the most juvenile of the logical fallacies. It is known as an appeal to authority. That particular on is usually perpetrated by folks who have a rather limited knowledge base and therefore depend on what others tell them in lieu of actually knowing something.

[Rokerijdude11]

yup just some guy on the internet

[palerider]

yup just some guy on the internet

And arguing that a piece of information is correct because so and so said it is one of the most beardless of the logical fallacies. Either you can argue the points that I have made or you can't. If you can't, mewling that I am just some guy on the internet in lieu of making a real argument only highlights the fact that you really don't belong in this debate.

[Rokerijdude11]

sorry pal you were conclusivly proven wrong in this thread.
You made some hasty, half thought out, statements and were taken to task on them. In all instances, your pompus, know it all manner, was shown to be wrong .And even refuted by a reputable scientist, who works for NASA


I'm sorry that you are unable to see the fact that you have been proven wrong handily in this thread? There is no need to debate anything further? You claimed some things, i have shown where you erred in judgment

I have ALREADY beaten you in this debate, why would i feel the need to go into it any further?

[palerider]

I have ALREADY beaten you in this debate, why would i feel the need to go into it any further?

Like I said, you don't understand the science that has been posted by either side. If you would like to extract some bit that you think has proven me wrong and bring it forward, I would be more than happy to rip it to shreds for you.

Running away and claiming that there is no need to go further is just your style. Congratulations on being very predictable.

[Rokerijdude11]

you have been proven wrong.............no need to further humiliate you at this point? you said something could not be done Myself and others have proven you wrong Period......

you didnt "Rip It to shreds " the first time around?


why do you insist on trying to justify yourself its quite pathetic

[invest07]

palerider

You raise an interesting point with the Mammoth. Many of these big guys have been recovered almost intact, frozen where they stood. Genetic tests on their DNA demonstrates they are closely related to present day elephants. Elephants are strictly warm climate animals. They require huge quantities of food each day and their tusk are totally unsuitable for rooting out food in a frozen turf.

So how did they boys stay alive? The answer is that their range used to be far warmer and more tropical than today. We are talking about Siberia and Alaska looking more like India. And many of these Mammoths have been dated to about 4,000 years ago. So tropical Siberia was not all that long ago. This temp change happened rapidly.

Any temp change today is part of one of the hundreds of heating/cooling cycles that earth has gone through.

The global warming hysteria is all about a new worldwide tax and has zero to do with temp change.

Check out carbontax.org

[palerider]

palerider

You raise an interesting point with the Mammoth. Many of these big guys have been recovered almost intact, frozen where they stood. Genetic tests on their DNA demonstrates they are closely related to present day elephants. Elephants are strictly warm climate animals. They require huge quantities of food each day and their tusk are totally unsuitable for rooting out food in a frozen turf.

So how did they boys stay alive? The answer is that their range used to be far warmer and more tropical than today. We are talking about Siberia and Alaska looking more like India. And many of these Mammoths have been dated to about 4,000 years ago. So tropical Siberia was not all that long ago. This temp change happened rapidly.

Any temp change today is part of one of the hundreds of heating/cooling cycles that earth has gone through.

The global warming hysteria is all about a new worldwide tax and has zero to do with temp change.

Check out carbontax.org

It isn't just mammoths. Non fossilized crocodile (or alligator?) bones have been found as far north as England. Alligators are even more cold sensitive than the mammoths. The whole anthropogenic climate change hysteria is for the purpose of gaining power over people and business. The scientists who promote AGW today are, in essence, no different than the pagan priests of centuries past. Folks who knew when eclipses were coming, and had the seasonal changes worked out and they knew how to play ignorant peasants like musical instruments. They even had power over the rulers of the day.

Same today. Those who don't grasp the science are easily fooled. roker/abraxis is a good example. He doesn't understand the science and gloams onto one scientist (a government hack from nasa no less) as the object of his faith and when challenged, simply recites his mantra. So and so says this and that and so and so works for nasa so this and that must be true.

As to the carbon trading scheme, my financial guy suggested over a year ago that I start doing some research into companies that will be trading carbon credits. While it is a cappy business, buying stock in them, if you pick the right ones will be like buying microsoft at $3 dollars per share. You might look into it as well. The carbon trading scheme is going to be big business because there are just too many idiots out there that simply can't grasp the science that proves that we have nothing to do with global climate change.

[palerider]

you have been proven wrong.............no need to further humiliate you at this point? you said something could not be done Myself and others have proven you wrong Period......

you didnt "Rip It to shreds " the first time around?


why do you insist on trying to justify yourself its quite pathetic

roker. You know and I know, and everyone else knows that if you had anything at all with which to slap me down, you would bring it forward and print it in red all caps. The fact that you haven't done so is proof positive that you are just talking through your hat.

[Abraxis Axis]

roker. You know and I know, and everyone else knows that if you had anything at all with which to slap me down, you would bring it forward and print it in red all caps. The fact that you haven't done so is proof positive that you are just talking through your hat.

anyone reading this thread in its entirety KNOWS that YOU Palerider told Stevox a few things about lasers and made fun of him ......

Roker, flat out proved your assumptions wrong, Provided corroboration, and references from a NASA scientist?
You had your azs ripped by the 10th post of this thread ? what are you talkin about skippy?........page one you were proven wrong !!!! and you have been crawdaddin for 5 more pages?

Funny how you seem to skip things all the time its all here in the thread oh pompus one

[palerider]

anyone reading this thread in its entirety KNOWS that YOU Palerider told Stevox a few things about lasers and made fun of him ......

Roker, flat out proved your assumptions wrong, Provided corroboration, and references from a NASA scientist?
You had your azs ripped by the 10th post of this thread ? what are you talkin about skippy?........page one you were proven wrong !!!! and you have been crawdaddin for 5 more pages?

Funny how you seem to skip things all the time its all here in the thread oh pompus one


As I pointed out, if you bounce light off of one mirror, or one million mirrors, the light continues to move at the speed of light. If photons were capable of transferring momentum to solid objects, they would lose speed in the process. Since they don't slow down, they are not transferring momentum and therefore can not move a solid object.

Now, if you would like to discuss how it is that you think photons could possibly transfer momentum to solid objects without trading speed (the only trade they could possibly make since they have no mass) in the equation, feel free to explain till your heart's content.

As I have pointed out numerous times, you do not address the basic physics, you just continue to make your beardless appeal to authority. Can you discuss the topic or not?

[USMC the Almighty]

roker. You know and I know, and everyone else knows that if you had anything at all with which to slap me down, you would bring it forward and print it in red all caps.

This is the first thing that I've ever read on a message board that made me laugh out loud.

[Abraxis Axis]

apparently your not exactly right here are you ? what old data are you relying on? It appears that Project orion has in fact been experimenting with moving objects in space and debris retreval as well as "ASTEROID AVOIDANCE" using.................Lasers you might want to look at the last post as well

take a look here at this paper

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf

here are some snippets from the pdf file
=============================

The Author

Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force
Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. In civilian life, Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the Advanced Projects Office
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

In that capacity he has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. He served as the project manager on Project ORION, which was a NASA study published in 1997 that explored the feasibility of using lasers to remove orbital debris. He has published more than fifty scientific
papers on various subjects, including laser orbital debris removal and laser asteroid, meteoroid, and comet deflection.

============================

Claude Phipps suggested the use of laser propulsion with a ground-based pulsed laser as a solution to the orbital debris problem in 1994 (Phipps 1994). The Orion Project, which was a study conducted by NASA
and the USAF in 1995-96, concluded that the concept of using ground-based lasers for removing orbital debris is feasible and cost effective relative to the cost of placing objects in orbit (Campbell 1996). This study
presents an analysis of the debris removal concept, and a plan for developing the technology for removing orbital debris with near-Earth lasers.

This study begins with an analysis of the cost of a laser orbital debris removal system as the first step toward establishing the cost-effectiveness of this concept. This study then investigates the requirements
for using laser propulsion for the diverse ensemble of debris particles in orbit. The following section demonstrates that the adaptive optics requirement for debris removal is within technological reach.

After demonstrating that laser systems can effectively remove debris from orbit with the proper engagement strategy, the study concludes with a proposal to develop the technology for debris removal and advance that technology for laser space propulsion.


===========================


III. Near Earth Asteroid Avoidance System


Coupling PALS with powerful telescopes, such as those being developed under the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) project, would provide long-term warning for implementation of an overall NEO
avoidance system. The feasibility of this system is discussed below.


The lasers that would he used in Project Orion have demonstrated sufficient capability for orbital debris removal for objects in the size range from 1-10 cm diameter. Ground based experimental data, using a 20 kW
pulsed laser, show that the impulse imparted to aluminum targets due to the ejected plasma cloud gives an average surface pressure p = 6.5 x 10-4 N/cm2, or equivalently, an acceleration, a = l.25x 10-6 m/s2 With present technology, a laser phased array can be aimed at the asteroid with sufficient power to ablate its surface. Assuming that a laser array can be
scaled up to operate on a 1 km diameter iron asteroid, this would require a 200 GW power grid.


Several alternate potential power sources are
available, including nuclear or electric generation and solar power arrays. Let us assume that the asteroid is at infinity moving toward the Earth with a velocity v0 and impact parameter R. The closest point of approach Re is given by ...

raed the rest in this interesting nasa related document


yes Palerider is obviously right, and NASA is therefore Wrong

[Abraxis Axis]

palerider, as for your "laser can't move anything" comment, you hsould research before you post. See the article "Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms" at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060819112154.htm

and yet someone else, has also taken you to task, on these comments interesting huh?

[palerider]

...Ground based experimental data, using a 20 kW pulsed laser, show that the impulse imparted to aluminum targets due to the ejected plasma cloud gives an average surface pressure p = 6.5 x 10-4 N/cm2, or equivalently, an acceleration, a = l.25x 10-6 m/s2 With present technology, a laser phased array can be aimed at the asteroid with sufficient power to ablate its surface.

Do you know what this means? I am going to give you a chance to demonstrate that you have some small understanding that this is not a description of a laser moving matter before I use it to demonstrate that you don't.

[TruthAboveAll]

Well.... Since this whole thread started out about global warming, and there has been a great deal of information about heating/cooling events and discussion about whether the current warming trend is man-made, I thought I'd add this link: Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm)

Lots of information about ice core drillings, comparrisons, etc. Methodology applied. 450,000 year old insect DNA. (OLD bugs!)

Near the end of the article this quasi-summary paragraph:

"That signifies that there was ice there during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago. It means that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion."

It's a BAAAADDDD day for Al Gore & company...

[palerider]

Well.... Since this whole thread started out about global warming, and there has been a great deal of information about heating/cooling events and discussion about whether the current warming trend is man-made, I thought I'd add this link: Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm)

Lots of information about ice core drillings, comparrisons, etc. Methodology applied. 450,000 year old insect DNA. (OLD bugs!)

Near the end of the article this quasi-summary paragraph:

"That signifies that there was ice there during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago. It means that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion."

It's a BAAAADDDD day for Al Gore & company...

The fact is, with regard to sea level change, is that since the glaciers began to melt back from most of the northern hemisphere some 120,000 years ago, sea level has risen 900 feet and we are moving towards a mean global temperature that will be so warm that no ice will exist at either pole. For the vast majority of earth's history, there has been no ice at one, or both of the poles. Ice on earth is the anomoly, not the norm.

[TruthAboveAll]

The fact is, with regard to sea level change, is that since the glaciers began to melt back from most of the northern hemisphere some 120,000 years ago, sea level has risen 900 feet and we are moving towards a mean global temperature that will be so warm that no ice will exist at either pole. For the vast majority of earth's history, there has been no ice at one, or both of the poles. Ice on earth is the anomoly, not the norm.

Agreed. In general, anyway. I'm not altogether sure that ice is an anomaly and not the norm, but from what I've seen the opinions are so varied, and since no one bothered to invent consistent record keeping ;) at least until humans showed up, I think it's safe to say that there has been some wide fluctuations.

There is also continental drift, the possibility of earthquakes, volcanoes, even meteoric activity influencing the geographical structure we are familiar with today. Lots of possibilities, no way to know for sure.

Again, agreed though. Since I believe that God is ultimately in control of the whole thing, and I believe that he never says "Oops!" it's highly unlikely that man, no matter how arrogant some of us want to be about it, can have much of an impact on much of anything.

It's like your house. You buy it or build it. You put the furnishings in it. You live in it. And you should be responsible to keep it maintained and clean. But it certainly doesn't mean you can't wear your shoes on the carpet, or stink up the kitchen frying fish.

[palerider]

Agreed. In general, anyway. I'm not altogether sure that ice is an anomaly and not the norm, but from what I've seen the opinions are so varied, and since no one bothered to invent consistent record keeping ;) at least until humans showed up, I think it's safe to say that there has been some wide fluctuations.

Here is a simple, but accurate, chart that shows the mean temperature over the history of the earth. Very little ice could exist anywhere when the global mean rises to 16 to 18C and clearly, for most of earth's history, it has been warmer than 18C.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/Tempcycles.gif

[steveox]

Then Explan this graph chart over 1000 years
http://whyfiles.org/218glo_warm/images/variations.jpg

[palerider]

Then Explan this graph chart over 1000 years


That is the infamous "hockey stick" steve. It has been thoroughly discredited. That chart isn't worth the band width it took for you to post it. The hockey stick completely ignores the medieval warm period of which we now have DNA evidence from the greenland ice cap.

I hope you weren't trying to compare your graph to the one that I posted steve. In case you didn't notice, the scale of mine is in millions of years while yours is in years. Even if yours hadn't been completely discredited, they are showing two entirely different things.

[steveox]

Global Warming is Very Real. Im Sorry but Al Gores theory is right unless we find a way to reverse global warming into Global Cooling.

[palerider]

Global Warming is Very Real. Im Sorry but Al Gores theory is right unless we find a way to reverse global warming into Global Cooling.

Algore is an idiot. It is true that global warming is real. It is false that we are causing it. Steve, we can't stop a huricaine. We can't stop a tornado. We can't stop an el nino. Hell steve, we can't even stop a summer shower from falling on your back yard cookout. The very idea that we can stop, slow down, speed up, or have any other effect on the global climate is patently rediculous and that you and others believe it is testament to the fact that there is one born every minute.

[steveox]

Algore is an idiot. It is true that global warming is real. It is false that we are causing it. Steve, we can't stop a huricaine. We can't stop a tornado. We can't stop an el nino. Hell steve, we can't even stop a summer shower from falling on your back yard cookout. The very idea that we can stop, slow down, speed up, or have any other effect on the global climate is patently rediculous and that you and others believe it is testament to the fact that there is one born every minute.

We can reduce a hurricane. But the EPA and the evonmentalist wont allow the scientist to do it.

[9sublime]

Do you really believe that all these dirty fossil fuels we are pumping into the planet... 6 billion people doing it, is not doing anything at all Palerider?

[palerider]

We can reduce a hurricane. But the EPA and the evonmentalist wont allow the scientist to do it.

I posted information on that already. Didn't you read it or was it too complicated for you?

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/F...ifications.php

Clip:

One of the biggest problems is, however, that it would take a LOT of the stuff to even hope to have an impact. 2 cm of rain falling over 1 square kilometer of surface deposits 20,000 metric tons of water. At the 2000-to-one ratio that the "Dyn-O-Gel" folks advertise, each square km would require 10 tons of goop. If we take the eye to be 20 km in diameter surrounded by a 20 km thick eyewall, that's 3,769.91 square kilometers, requiring 37,699.1 tons of "Dyn-O-Gel". A C-5A heavy-lift transport airplane can carry a 100 ton payload. So that treating the eyewall would require 377 sorties. A typical average reflectivity in the eyewall is about 40 dB(Z), which works out to 1.3 cm/hr rain rate. Thus to keep the eyewall doped up, you'd need to deliver this much "Dyn-O-Gel" every hour-and-a-half or so.

This is saying that in order to have even a minor impact on a hurricaine, we would have to fly 377 C5-A aircraft (one of the largest transports in existence) to the storm every hour and a half and each one of them would have to dump 100 tons of the stuff. I suppose we could have a minor effect on a hurricaine by setting off a nuclear bomb in the eye as well but is the damage we would cause worth it?

[palerider]

Do you really believe that all these dirty fossil fuels we are pumping into the planet... 6 billion people doing it, is not doing anything at all Palerider?

No, I never said that. We are certainly polluting which is not a good thing and I am all for cleaning up. But we are not causing a global climate change. The fact is, that we simply can not enhance the greenhouse effect by producing more greenhouse gas. There is a saturation point with regard to green house gasses and the green house effect. That is, there is a point where more gasses don't enhance the greenhouse effect at all.

There has been three times as much greenhouse gass in the atmosphere as would be required to cause the current greenhouse effect since we began to exit the ice age we are presently exiting. There has never been a need for manmade greenhouse gas to increase the potential for greenhouse warming because the atmosphere is already completely opaque in the relevant absorption bands . That is, there is already a "competition" between overabundant greehnouse gass molecules to reflect the available outbound infrared radiation (greenhouse effect) . For this reason alone, the hysterics generated by climate models that predict catastrophic global climate change are laughable. The models have been programmed only with positive feedbacks. That is, they predict even greater warming from trivial increase in absorber (green house gass) availability while the real world potential actually works with negative feedback. You get progressively less warming per cc of greenhouse gas by adding more of them because there is simply not enough reflected radiation from the sun to go around. The fact is, sublime, that we would get an enhanced greenhouse effect by producing less greenhouse gasses.

[Pidgey]

Well, this certainly looks... lively.

As to the question of whether you can push something with a laser, it seems to me that there're errors on both sides of the aisle here. Yes, photons do appear to be able to exert some force (review a Crookes Radiometer) but I don't think it's a practical way of pushing a large mass. You'd get more actual lateral deflection from the body to be moved by way of possibly vaporizing some of the surface material, in effect creating thrust, than you would by the photonic pressure.

But, it's a completely useless argument when applied to a mass the size of a comet, as you simply can't transfer a significant enough quantity of energy to provide the required "work done". While originally solely for your entertainment dollar, a statement out of "Armageddon" would seem appropriate: "C'mon guys, that'd be like shootin' a freight train with a BB gun!" The only thing that the scientist(s) in question have to offer at this point is enough of an argument to wrangle a government grant so that they don't have to get a real job. Such grants are typically awarded, by the way, from politicians who really don't have a clue.

As to the content of this thread in particular, it's parallel to so many situations that you find in the workplace and life-in-general every day: fundamental emotional beliefs drive the rationales in dispute, and nobody's really willing to examine those first. It is what we hold most dear, the very definitions of ourselves, after all. The ultimate result of arguing from that basis is usually a standoff, with nothing really gained.

I guess I just woke up this morning looking to express myself somewhere as a complete pompous ass. Somebody please tell me I just succeeded...

[palerider]

Well, this certainly looks... lively.

As to the question of whether you can push something with a laser, it seems to me that there're errors on both sides of the aisle here. Yes, photons do appear to be able to exert some force (review a Crookes Radiometer) but I don't think it's a practical way of pushing a large mass. You'd get more actual lateral deflection from the body to be moved by way of possibly vaporizing some of the surface material, in effect creating thrust, than you would by the photonic pressure.

Crookes radiometer is not an example of photons exerting force. In a radiometer, the black side of the vane is hotter than the other side, as radiant energy from a light source warms the black side by black-body absorption faster than the lite side. The air molecules are "heated up" (i.e. experience an increase in their speed) when they touch the black side of the vane.

The internal temperature rises as the black vanes transfer heat to the air molecules (in a partial vaccum), but they are cooled again when they touch the bulb's glass surface which is at room temperature. Heat loss through the glass keeps the internal temperature of the radiometer at a (relative) constant so that the two sides of the vanes can develop a temperature difference. The white side of the vanes are slightly warmer than the internal air temperature but cooler than the black side, as some heat conducts through the fin from the black side.

If you have a total vaccum inside the glass, the blades won't spin because there are not enough air molecules to cause air currents to move the vanes whereas if photons were actually imparting pressure on the blades, it would spin faster in a hard vaccum than in a partial vaccum.

[Pidgey]

Sometimes, strict adherence to technicalities is counterintuitive in an argument, which is an attempt to persuade. There's truth, there's fact and then there's perception. Semantic barriers usually get in the way of communicating these things, seemingly as a rule.

Anyhow, by whatever mechanism, light causes the Crookes radiometer to spin. As you've noted, the Crookes radiometer is too blunt of an instrument to be accepted as proof for the concept of "radiation pressure". However, by hook or Crooke, the mass is affected, nonetheless. If you want to go looking for more detailed study on that, look into the Nichols Radiometer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer

and radiation pressure:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dujs/2002S/pressureoflight.pdf

But, it's still one heckuva'n exercise in futility to go shootin' a comet with a laser.

[Rokerijdude11]

agreed. And as you mentioned, it runs the risk of vaporizing or fracturing the object being moved. In the case of a large asteroid, i don't think thats practical either, but i wasn't really arguing that point of the story. Only the fact that lasers COULD move solid objects .

Particularly in a pulsed array set up.......which is what they say would be needed for a Large object, to POSSIBLY be moved, over a Fairly large amount of TIME........... making it at this time Unlikely that an asteroid could be Moved effectivly


as i say Palerider contended, that Lasers were incapable of moving any solid objects......I simply provided limited support documentation. To prove this was an incorrect theory that he was asserting upon Stevox and the rest of the readers

i see that you recognize the manner in which he has chosen to distort and misdirect

thanks for the refreshing post

[Pidgey]

Well, I think we all distort and misdirect on a fairly regular basis. Look at what I said about common senseless scientists and politicians... crap, they can't ALL be that bad...

...can they?

There are people who sit around and daydream stuff up. They fairly often do not have one stinking clue how to actually do it, count the cost or even start the process but they manage to write it down or otherwise publish the idea. It often takes another kind of person to objectively consider the tools and resources at hand and how they can work in concert to make a workable daydream into a reality, someone with a feel for the economics and logistics involved in the exercise. And sometimes, it takes an entire team to arrive at such a reality.

But there are tangible limits that sometimes prevent a "possibility" from proceeding to a "probability" and then on to "production". The laser idea to reach out and touch someone(thing) that far away seems to me to really lack in practical credibility and my posts above are laden with that opinion without the benefit of truly practical proof. Yet I encoded that opinion in somewhat derisive language.

I am probably more in agreement-in-principle with Palerider's side of the general content of this thread than not. His personal debate style is unimportant to me. While it's often a bad idea to cage one's statements in too absolute of terms in a forum like this because of the potential for distributing a fungal infection from one's foot to one's mouth, the risk one takes expressing one's opinions is only to one's ego and/or beliefs.

So, getting back to the overall, I don't personally believe that trains, wind and solar farms are the answer to global warming. At least, not the one and only.

[Rokerijdude11]

No i don't believe any of those things mentioned in the thread are the answer to global warming either. I was ONLY commenting on a lasers ability to move solid matter.

[palerider]

Pigdey.

Not to split a hair too fine but applying pressure upon matter is not moving matter. I have looked and have found some scholarly papers that suggest a bit of electron drift when attempts to move matter have been made in the laboratory, but can find none that describe actual movement of matter.

You have piqued my curiosity, however, and if there is evidence that the photons that compose the laser light have actually moved matter as opposed to plasma streams in the opposite direction from the destruction of the matter itself, I really would be interested in seeing it so as not to mistakenly argue this same point at some future date.

[Rokerijdude11]

hahhahahahahaha


the windbag has to concede to the new guy superb

[USMC the Almighty]

hahhahahahahaha


the windbag has to concede to the new guy superb

Roker, seriously, why do you post stuff like this? What purpose does it serve?

[Rokerijdude11]

its pretty self explanatory isnt it? Seems as Palerider has and equal when it comes to circle talking.I find it amusing as hell

[palerider]

hahhahahahahaha


the windbag has to concede to the new guy superb

That is the difference between you and me roker and why I will always be smarter than you. I can learn. And if he provides credible information that states decisively that I am wrong, then I take that information and add it to my knowledge base and if I ever enter a discussion on whether or not photons can actually move matter, I will have more knowledge at my disposal.

I regularly learn from people I have never encountered before. Whenever I pick up a book from an author that I have never read, I expect to learn something that I didn't know before. Your implication that I have lost something because I may conceed a point to a "new guy" highlights why you remain ignorant. I don't know whether the new guy is, in reality, Bozo the clown or Stephen Hawking and it really doesn't matter. If he is right, he is right and if he can demonstrate that he is right, then I either have to accept that he is right and add the knowledge to what I know, or be like you and hang on to what I wish.

[Pidgey]

More Bozo the Clown, I've been told...

Y'all kinda' like jabbin' each other, don'tcha'?

The force exerted by light (if I read it all aright) is so stinkin' tiny that I don't think that component has anything whatsoever to do with any scientist's idea of redirecting a comet anyhow. I would have to believe that they'd theorized that they could create some lateral thrust to (very minutely) change the comet's course by way of attempting to create a plasma plume with the lasers' light. Somebody had mentioned using a phased-array, well, that's why you would. In lasers, the materials tend to burst apart when you actually pump enough power into them to output a truly significant wattage. So, you use enough of them focused on a single spot to perform the trick instead if that's what it takes. That's what they'd be doing.

Of course, there are a lot more complications to this deal than just the technical problem of getting your targeting perfect across a distance that would mean a substantial time lag into the minutes (never mind being able to see the effect that you're having and measuring it)--you've still got to deal with the fun of actually calculating the trajectory of the potentially-offending-heavenly-body forward in time long enough to get it right. That's a lot tougher to do than it looks because of the gravitational forces of everything else in the system causing said body to wobble every which way throughout its course in the timespan to its eventual impact.

The further back from that point you can hit it, the less energy it would take to deflect it significantly enough to miss. Truly a tough problem. A mathematical error (remember Hubble's debut?) could end up being a horrible mistake.

I probably got into this deal more because it seemed to me that it's a classical argument between the technician and the... UNtechnical person. The one is always having to explain to the other why "that won't work... " before the UNtechnical person blows millions of dollars and puts the company in bankruptcy. There always seems to be some envy or jealousy on the part of the UNtechnical person against the technical person and, therefore, the UNtechnical person always instinctively knows where the technical person's goat's tied.

I thought that this thread started going to a-place-with-a-REAL-global-warming-problem in a handbasket from the third post:

Scientist have the power to weaken an powerful hurricane by dropping a chemical from a plane to weaken the storm.But the EPA wont allow them to do it.

...and I musta' been a'spoilin' for a fight or something. I really don't have the time for this...

[palerider]

More Bozo the Clown, I've been told...

Y'all kinda' like jabbin' each other, don'tcha'?

You might say that. I enjoy pushing his buttons and they are such easy buttons to push.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/s0105150_std.jpg


I am with you on all that you said but in this instance, I am focused on the technicality of whether any scientist in any lab has actually moved matter with photons or have they simply measured pressure.

As I said, I have found some papers that describe some electron drift that is "very likely" due to photon pressure but nothing that speaks to actual movement. In fact, I haven't found any papers that speak to lights of different characters, and intensities (including lasers) producing different amounts of photon pressure.

[Pidgey]

Well, F=MA. If you want to run the mathematics conceptually through language, then for a pressure, or force, to have been measurably applied, a mass must have been accelerated. Perhaps the publications gleaned so far find this point too obvious to state, as this particular discussion would not have been in their agenda to answer.