OOPS, not good news for Global Warminists

Only if you are absolutely convinced that the increase in "warming" over the past 200 years is "human caused".

Who cares what causes it.

Considering that almost half (or more) of the population of this country lives within 200 miles of one ocean or another, perhaps some plans should be made for getting them out and relocating them.

Perhaps we should just ignore it. Screw the eastern seaboard, Those idiots chose to live there, after all.

TerryRC wrote:Examples are everywhere from Algore's hypocrisy to my daughter's HS science teacher telling me my beloved RI will be swallowed by the Atlantic within the next dozen years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3506963.stm

The problem isn't isolated and is noticeably worse now than it was in 2004.

I'm trying to figure out why pointing this out is considered "hypocritical".

Man-made, or not, ignoring this is foolish.

No, no........apparently we are having another failure in communication, most likely my fault.


The teacher said RI would be under water by 2020, not some tiny little island barely above sea level to begin with founded on coral in the south Pacific.

Algore is hypocritical because he jets around the world (massive carbon outputs) while his home has a 5 figure utility bill.

SamCogar wrote:TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

Oh boy. I presume that's an "IF you think you can do it" suggestion.

Gravitational pulls, centrifical force, and orbital speeds- the permutations of the physical challenges are endless.

TerryRC wrote:
Only if you are absolutely convinced that the increase in "warming" over the past 200 years is "human caused".

Who cares what causes it.

Considering that almost half (or more) of the population of this country lives within 200 miles of one ocean or another, perhaps some plans should be made for getting them out and relocating them.

Perhaps we should just ignore it. Screw the eastern seaboard, Those idiots chose to live there, after all.

YUP, and the ocean water would have to rise over 550 feet to flood Charleston.

Since the 1900s, the climates of Antarctica and Greenland have been gradually warming. Since 1850, the mean temperature of the earth has risen by one Celsius degree. As temperature rises, glaciers will melt, especially the the ones outside of the north and south poles. By 2100, melting glaciers will contribute to a sea level rise of 50 cm. This will cause coastal flooding.

Terry, that is 19.5 inches.

And that ain't gonna cause much of a problem ...... except when a hurricane or tidal wave pushes it inland.

That's about like a "spring tide".

Now "waterfront" homes in the intertidal zone will loose part of their yards.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

Oh boy. I presume that's an "IF you think you can do it" suggestion.

Gravitational pulls, centrifical force, and orbital speeds- the permutations of the physical challenges are endless.

AW, ..... GIMME A BREAK.

There are dozens of communication satellites doing just that.

.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

Oh boy. I presume that's an "IF you think you can do it" suggestion.

Gravitational pulls, centrifical force, and orbital speeds- the permutations of the physical challenges are endless.

AW, ..... GIMME A BREAK.

There are dozens of communication satellites doing just that.

.

Now wait a minute. Those communications satellites are circling the EARTH, not the sun. And they are "parked" over a single point, not between two points. And they are all very nearly the same distance from earth- because they won't stay up there and be over the same spot except at a certain distance- the distance at which their orbital speed has the same angular speed as does the rotating earth below.

But to park a "sun-blocker" out there, it would have to be in a solar orbit- and "parked" directly between the sun and the earth. Now I tell you, that ain't gonna happen. The orbital speed of an object is directly related to its distance from the object it orbits.

The earth is at + or - 93 million miles from the sun. Any "sun-blocker" would have to be in an orbit that had the same angular speed of revolution around the sun as the earth has. And the only orbit that supports the same angular speed of revolution as the earth is at + or - 93 million miles from the sun. If the intended "sun-blocker" contraption is obriting the sun between the earth and the sun, it will have a higher solar orbital speed than the earth has. And so it would pass right under the earth and move on. If we slow it down so that it stays precisely between the earth and the sun, it will fall into the sun.

There ain't no way to do it with a stricty orbital vehicle. But if it were a self- powered vehicle, it could keep its thrusters going constantly to keep itself afloat, and to keep it from drifting away from the sun-to-earth line. But that would constantly consume considerable fuel from somewhere.

ziggy wrote:
Now wait a minute. Those communications satellites are circling the EARTH, not the sun. And they are "parked" over a single point, not between two points. And they are all very nearly the same distance from earth- because they won't stay up there and be over the same spot except at a certain distance- the distance at which their orbital speed has the same angular speed as does the rotating earth below.

Now Zig, why in gawd's name would ya want that Solar Shade to be "over the same spot" on the earth ..... all the time?

It's purpose is to "shade" the Sun light, ...... not the dark.

Zig, you do realize 1/2 the earth is in the "dark" ........ all the time, ..... cept when the Moon is shinning brightly, of course.

ziggy wrote:But to park a "sun-blocker" out there, it would have to be in a solar orbit- and "parked" directly between the sun and the earth. Now I tell you, that ain't gonna happen. The orbital speed of an object is directly related to its distance from the object it orbits.

The earth is at + or - 93 million miles from the sun. Any "sun-blocker" would have to be in an orbit that had the same angular speed of revolution around the sun as the earth has. And the only orbit that supports the same angular speed of revolution as the earth is at + or - 93 million miles from the sun. If the intended "sun-blocker" contraption is obriting the sun between the earth and the sun, it will have a higher solar orbital speed than the earth has. And so it would pass right under the earth and move on. If we slow it down so that it stays precisely between the earth and the sun, it will fall into the sun.

There ain't no way to do it with a stricty orbital vehicle. But if it were a self- powered vehicle, it could keep its thrusters going constantly to keep itself afloat, and to keep it from drifting away from the sun-to-earth line. But that would constantly consume considerable fuel from somewhere.

Well now big boy, ..... I never suggested a Solar orbit, ....... did I?

.

SamCogar wrote:Well now big boy, ..... I never suggested a Solar orbit, ....... did I?

.

No, but you did say:

SamCogar wrote:TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

To do that would mean that the thing would appear to "stand still" while the earth whirled under it. And to appear to be standing still it would have to actually be still as relates to any movement (revolution) around the earth. You can't have it orbiting the earth and yet have it remain between the earth and the sun.

The geo-synchrous satellites circle the earth once every 24 hours- and they are opposite the sun as much as they are toward the sun. Have a couple cold Buds and think about it, Sam.

Yes, you can park a zillion of 'em over some specifc earth spot. But you can't park even one of them and have it remain between the earth and some spot way out there- the sun for example.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Well now big boy, ..... I never suggested a Solar orbit, ....... did I?

.

No, but you did say:

SamCogar wrote:TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

To do that would mean that the thing would appear to "stand still" while the earth whirled under it. And to appear to be standing still it would have to actually be still as relates to any movement (revolution) around the earth. You can't have it orbiting the earth and yet have it remain between the earth and the sun.

The geo-synchrous satellites circle the earth once every 24 hours- and they are opposite the sun as much as they are toward the sun. Have a couple cold Buds and think about it, Sam.

Yes, you can park a zillion of 'em over some specifc earth spot. But you can't park even one of them and have it remain between the earth and some spot way out there- the sun for example.

Well now Zigster, I think it is great that you took an interest in this subject because of the educational value to you and I really hope my efforts in addressing your misunderstanding of my statement proves worthwhile.

But first I will address the cause of your misunderstanding which pertains to “reading and understanding” …… verses …… “reading and assuming”, ….. the latter being your problem.

Zig, if one is to understand the context of a written document, they can not merrily “scan” said document, picking n’ choosing selected words from a phrase, sentence, paragraph, etc., and use only those chosen words to create an intelligent, honest, creditable, logical, meaningful response. One only does it that way because of their ignorance (lack of education) or because they only want to “throw feces into the game”.

So Zigster, let me explain my statement to you, to wit:

....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchronous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

First, I would like to note I had misspelled “synchronous” but corrected said therein.

Second. Ziggy, please note there are two (2) different “actions” stipulated in my statement: to “build”, to “place”.

Said “actions” are completely different …… but are conjoined by the word “and” to specifically note what the word “it” is referring to. aka: the satellite.

Ziggy, please note there are two (2) different “subjects” stipulated in my statement: a “satellite”, a “geo-synchronous orbit”.

“Different”, Zigster, …….. DIFFERENT.

Therefore it is unwise and/or stupid to combine the two (2) into one (1) subject or object, such as: a geosynchronous satellite orbit, …… a geoorbit synchronous satellite, …. a geosatellite orbit synchronous ……. or a satellite synchronous orbit geo.

Ziggy, I hope I explained that to your understanding, …… so will continue on.

Third, Zig, I explicitly defined the first noted subject/object as a “Sun Blocker satellite”, ……. and given the “primary” subject of this conversation is “global warming”, a cause of said being “Solar energy” and the sub-subject of the Post being “preventing said warming”, ….. then the name given to the satellite explicitly defines it’s purpose: ….. to block/prevent the Solar energy (Sunlight) from striking the earth.

Fourth, Zigster, the second part of my statement defines the placement of said satellite so that it will perform the “function” is was designed for, …… to block the Solar energy. Not 20 minutes per day, not 12 hours per day, not just for the United States, …… but globally, which is explicitly implied because it is to prevent “global” warming, ….. which explicitly implies 24 hours per day.

Thus, my “placement” statement, “in geo-synchronous orbit between the Earth and the Sun” …… was because that is where it must be “placed”.

Now, Ziggy baby, we are down to the crux of your …… confusion and misunderstanding.

Zig, did you bother to check the spelling or the definition of the word “geo-synchronous” which I used to describe said placement of said satellite?

Why hells bells “NO” you didn’t.

If you had checked said ….. you would have first badmouthed me for misspelling “synchronous”, …. and secondly badmouthed me for inserting a “hyphen” between “geo” and ”synchronous” ……… claiming it to be a misspelling or no such word.

But Zigster, instead of questioning me on my use of said word …….. you took it upon yourself to “give ole dummy Sammy a Science lesson”.

“WRONG”, wrong thing to do, Ziggy, …… wrong thing for you to do.

Ziggy, my statement was made to TerryRC, and it was “short n’ sweet” and to the point, ….. and with use of “words” that he would comprehend, …… or should comprehend. I was not “thinking of” or even considering your comprehension of said word …… so I will “cut-you-some-slack” on your “science lesson” tirade.

Ziggy, you will not find a definition for the word “geo-synchronous”.

And that is because I "composed" said word, a priviledge extended to "scientific writings"........ and I don't have time to explain it all to you.

You can find one for “geo” which means: geographic, geographically.

You can find one for “synchronous” which means: at the same time, synchronized.

You can find one for “geosynchronous” which means: an orbit whose period is equal to the rotational rate of the earth, geostationary.

Thus Ziggy, if I had used the word “geosynchronous” it would have been a correct usage because the inference was that said “Sun Blocker” satellite was to be in a geostationary orbit ….. between the Earth and the Sun.

And to be "geostationary" in an earth orbit ...... does not mean it is geostationary to a specific "location" on the earth's surface ........ unless it is implied, specified or stated as being so. Assuming doesn't always "cut it".

But I chose to use the word “geo-synchronous”, …… meaning “geographically synchronous” with said satellite being geographically ”between the Earth and the Sun”.

Zigster, there is such a thing as Space Geography, …. ya know.

cheers

ps: Now just look at that Zigster, it has taken me bout three (3) pages to explain to you what I said to TerryRC in one (1) sentence.



.

Ziggy, after thinking about it for a few minutes I’ve decided that my previous post will only boggle your mind more, so I will post and addendum to it.

Ziggy, the earth currently has a “Sun Blocker” satellite in orbit, but there are several “problems” associated with it that precludes it use in “minimizing global warming”.

And those problems are:

Its orbit is in the wrong plane.

Its orbital speed is wrong.

It doesn’t cast a big enough “shadow”.

We have no way of adjusting, changing or controlling any of the above.

cheers

OH, and ps Ziggy, I forgot to mention the following in my last post.

With a man-made “Sun Blocker” satellite, …… we would only need to “control” the amount of “blocking” …… six (6) months out of each year: June, July, August, …… and December, January and February.

Spring and Fall times in the respective hemispheres would not require any “blocking” action.



.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Well now big boy, ..... I never suggested a Solar orbit, ....... did I?

.

No, but you did say:

SamCogar wrote:TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

To do that would mean that the thing would appear to "stand still" while the earth whirled under it. And to appear to be standing still it would have to actually be still as relates to any movement (revolution) around the earth. You can't have it orbiting the earth and yet have it remain between the earth and the sun.

The geo-synchrous satellites circle the earth once every 24 hours- and they are opposite the sun as much as they are toward the sun. Have a couple cold Buds and think about it, Sam.

Yes, you can park a zillion of 'em over some specifc earth spot. But you can't park even one of them and have it remain between the earth and some spot way out there- the sun for example.

Well now Zigster, I think it is great that you took an interest in this subject because of the educational value to you and I really hope my efforts in addressing your misunderstanding of my statement proves worthwhile.

But first I will address the cause of your misunderstanding which pertains to “reading and understanding” …… verses …… “reading and assuming”, ….. the latter being your problem.

Zig, if one is to understand the context of a written document, they can not merrily “scan” said document, picking n’ choosing selected words from a phrase, sentence, paragraph, etc., and use only those chosen words to create an intelligent, honest, creditable, logical, meaningful response. One only does it that way because of their ignorance (lack of education) or because they only want to “throw feces into the game”.

So Zigster, let me explain my statement to you, to wit:

....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchronous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

First, I would like to note I had misspelled “synchronous” but corrected said therein.

Second. Ziggy, please note there are two (2) different “actions” stipulated in my statement: to “build”, to “place”.

Said “actions” are completely different …… but are conjoined by the word “and” to specifically note what the word “it” is referring to. aka: the satellite.

Ziggy, please note there are two (2) different “subjects” stipulated in my statement: a “satellite”, a “geo-synchronous orbit”.

“Different”, Zigster, …….. DIFFERENT.

Therefore it is unwise and/or stupid to combine the two (2) into one (1) subject or object, such as: a geosynchronous satellite orbit, …… a geoorbit synchronous satellite, …. a geosatellite orbit synchronous ……. or a satellite synchronous orbit geo.

Ziggy, I hope I explained that to your understanding, …… so will continue on.

Third, Zig, I explicitly defined the first noted subject/object as a “Sun Blocker satellite”, ……. and given the “primary” subject of this conversation is “global warming”, a cause of said being “Solar energy” and the sub-subject of the Post being “preventing said warming”, ….. then the name given to the satellite explicitly defines it’s purpose: ….. to block/prevent the Solar energy (Sunlight) from striking the earth.

Fourth, Zigster, the second part of my statement defines the placement of said satellite so that it will perform the “function” is was designed for, …… to block the Solar energy. Not 20 minutes per day, not 12 hours per day, not just for the United States, …… but globally, which is explicitly implied because it is to prevent “global” warming, ….. which explicitly implies 24 hours per day.

Thus, my “placement” statement, “in geo-synchronous orbit between the Earth and the Sun” …… was because that is where it must be “placed”.

Now, Ziggy baby, we are down to the crux of your …… confusion and misunderstanding.

Zig, did you bother to check the spelling or the definition of the word “geo-synchronous” which I used to describe said placement of said satellite?

Why hells bells “NO” you didn’t.

If you had checked said ….. you would have first badmouthed me for misspelling “synchronous”, …. and secondly badmouthed me for inserting a “hyphen” between “geo” and ”synchronous” ……… claiming it to be a misspelling or no such word.

But Zigster, instead of questioning me on my use of said word …….. you took it upon yourself to “give ole dummy Sammy a Science lesson”.

“WRONG”, wrong thing to do, Ziggy, …… wrong thing for you to do.

Ziggy, my statement was made to TerryRC, and it was “short n’ sweet” and to the point, ….. and with use of “words” that he would comprehend, …… or should comprehend. I was not “thinking of” or even considering your comprehension of said word …… so I will “cut-you-some-slack” on your “science lesson” tirade.

Ziggy, you will not find a definition for the word “geo-synchronous”.

And that is because I "composed" said word, a priviledge extended to "scientific writings"........ and I don't have time to explain it all to you.

You can find one for “geo” which means: geographic, geographically.

You can find one for “synchronous” which means: at the same time, synchronized.

You can find one for “geosynchronous” which means: an orbit whose period is equal to the rotational rate of the earth, geostationary.

Thus Ziggy, if I had used the word “geosynchronous” it would have been a correct usage because the inference was that said “Sun Blocker” satellite was to be in a geostationary orbit ….. between the Earth and the Sun.

And to be "geostationary" in an earth orbit ...... does not mean it is geostationary to a specific "location" on the earth's surface ........ unless it is implied, specified or stated as being so. Assuming doesn't always "cut it".

But I chose to use the word “geo-synchronous”, …… meaning “geographically synchronous” with said satellite being geographically ”between the Earth and the Sun”.

Zigster, there is such a thing as Space Geography, …. ya know.

cheers.

I could not have said it better myself.