>Jupiter's internal heat would not CANCEL OUT external heating, it would ADD to it.<

_When did I say that? Quote me exactly or apologise profusely.
_And just so you know (you can get Flint to do the math on this if you like) the external heat from the sun is, when compared to that which is internal to Jupiter, negligible in influence at best.<<

Regardless of whether solar radiation is 1% or 5% or 25% of the heat, when it increases, the entire energy of the system increases and there will be greater turbulence.  You argue that if it can't match the inner heat, it doesn't count.  It increases the heat in the atmosphere and has an effect. 

The models that "proved" a correlation between rising pollution and climate change have failed.  They are inaccurate after just 10 years of refinement.  There is no proven link between pollution and climate change.

Given that we keep talking heat, we are ignoring three other SIGNIFICANT factors as well.

1) Magnetics

2) Cosmic Radiation

3) Solar Flares (Special type, known as CME's)

Given Jupiter is 5 AU from the sun it has a different series of affects from Solar Flares, the CME's take 25 days instead of 5 days to reach it.

Coronal Mass Ejections range in speed from about 20 km/s to 2,700 km/s with an average speed (based on SOHO/LASCO measurements between 1996 and 2003) of 489 km/s. The average mass based on coronagraph images is 1.6 x 1015 g.

Now magnetics has a play due to the fact the suns magnetic field was growing from 1900 up til recently, when it down shifted. Also the magnetics has a play in the interior currents inside the sun. a dramatic change is in the works inside our sun. Jupiters magnetic sphere typically pushes against the suns and extends out past our solar system. It also pushes on the various other planets magentic spheres to a certain extent. This push has changed dramatically recently with the change of the suns magnetic sphere. Since lightning storms are an electromagnetic issue this should give us an "Ocams razor" reason for why this new storm formed.

Finally cosmic radiation is pushed by magnetic spheres. A lot of it gets stopped cold at stronger barrier locations, thus giving Earth a radioactive belt around us. However with the reduction of the magnetic spheres we are seeing a dramatic increase in the total cosmic radiation which arrives to our planet. This in turn has created one hell of a wet year on Earth.

But apparently you agree with me you have no basis to argue pollution causes climate change, so what are you arguing about?

"And I do have a basis to argue that pollution is the the cause of climate change: It is the ONLY available explanation."

No. The models that showed a correlation are crap.

"Now you may well be convinced that solar woo-woo rays are affecting our Earth, Mars, and Jupiter (in that order) but if you apply two seconds of logical thought you will realise that ANYTHING powerful enough to affect Jupiter will cook the Earth."

Not necessarily.

>"And I do have a basis to argue that pollution is the the cause of climate change: It is the ONLY available explanation."

No. The models that showed a correlation are crap.<

Wow. You really cannot accept the fact that we agree on this can you? Does my perceived political leeaning prevent you from accepting the fact that I agree that the computer models from over 10 years ago are cock? Does my perceived political leaning mean you have to try and squeeze in a point of contention that did not exist in this discussion untill now?
Yes the models are cock, no that is not proof that climate change is not pollution related, that is like trying to use errors in the Bible as proof that God does not exist.

Cosmic woo-woo has been proven, repeatedly, to be not the answer.
Solar woo-woo has been proven, repeatedly, to be not the answer.
That leaves planetary cycles, Man and God.
We're supposed to be on the verge of another ice age, according to the planetary cycles so that can't be it.
God doesn't exist, which just leaves us.

>"Now you may well be convinced that solar woo-woo rays are affecting our Earth, Mars, and Jupiter (in that order) but if you apply two seconds of logical thought you will realise that ANYTHING powerful enough to affect Jupiter will cook the Earth."

Not necessarily.<

So what you are saying is that if I turn up my microwave so that it will cook a melon behind 4 layers of lead from five miles away that same microwave will have no discernible affect on an egg, less than a mile away, protected by a sheet of paper?
Face it Yell, reality itself is against this one.
_____

>fokker, without wasting too much time...the point about susceptibility, global warming being largely dependent on atmospheric conditions, and mercury not having an atmosphere to speak of, your point left me laughing<

I please to aim.

>But you don't have any basis to invoke my "responsibility"<

Yes I do; I have a child and I don't want her choking to death on your selfish shit. Now that may seem melodamatic to you, what with you being an unattached fourty year old who hasn't had sex since the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, but at the end of the day I want something left for her AND her children.

Now maybe I am wrong, maybe three quarters of the scientific community is wrong, maybe when people finally get smart and redo the climate models on real computers instead of three 486's and an abacus we will discover that the climate is going to shit for no reason other than the universe has a real bad attitude problem.

This is a possibility I have accepted long ago, despite the fact that I am almost convinced that this change is our doing, but that does not mean I am going to risk my child's future just because you need to compensate for your unimpressive genatalia by driving 32V brick that does 1mpg if the wind is behind you AND you're going downhill, OK?

Now I think I have the right to ask a question:

What the hell makes you think this is wrong?

> TheYell wrote:

> Like I said, no science.  Your likes and desires are about as meaningful, scientifically, as the sincere faith of an Orsini cardinal reading Galileo's pamphlet.<

No you're right: No science, just common zarquon sense.
__________

> Deci wrote:

> fokker, he still has no incentive to change his behaviour. it's your kid, not his. i even throw the recyclable bottles in the garbage because i can't be bothered to take them to the store. not caring is a bliss.<

That's what I like about you, you're a dick sometimes but at least you're honest.

wtf anyhow both gits running for President will cripple our economy to cut down on cow farts and such so your daughter can grow up in a Depression era

Cause I was a medieval history major and time and time again I'd read "Country X's economy went in the toilet during the famous Little Ice Age of the blath century"  Such swings happen naturally and repeatedly.

Yes good luck with global trade without a NATO navy to protect it.  And don't think we'll keep ours up to date with what's coming.

I know that in the preindustrial era there were decades-long or century-long periods where climate in Europe got weird enough to radically alter agriculture.  And bear in mind we only encountered the Gulf Stream around 1520 and didn't map it until the 1600s.  Effective mapping of ocean currents only dates to 1851 and some head of the US Naval Observatory who took the trouble to collate mail accounts of ship captains.

You're saying you'll rely on trade with China. With whose Navy?  Ours is probably going the way of the Royal Navy.

Is this the same global warming that has the Penguins now marching an additional 20 miles to their breeding grounds ?

There was ones a Plain and a Marshy river running through it where now sits the Grand Canyon.

New Islands are born every few years in the Pacific on the  Rim of Fire.

Im sure an Island sinks every now and then.

Also, do we go through the stories of record rain fall in new areas and first snows in 100 years ??

How about the massive floods in the corn belt this year in the plains states ?

Please.  One story begets another.

> Is this the same [climate change] that has the Penguins now marching an additional 20 miles to their breeding grounds ?<

Yup.
Seriously now, don't you think you should deal with the fact that we lefties have already accepted that the term "global warming" is a misnomer? I think you should, your arguments will work much better when you do.

>There was ones a Plain and a Marshy river running through it where now sits the Grand Canyon.<

Aye, way back when the Earth was a much hotter place; so hot it was mostly tropical,

>New Islands are born every few years in the Pacific on the  Rim of Fire.<

So?

>Im sure an Island sinks every now and then.<

Sure enough to reasearch HOW islands sink and then ask yourself if people really cannot tell the difference between sinking land and rising water?

>Also, do we go through the stories of record rain fall in new areas and first snows in 100 years ??<

Snow, where? They stole it from me!
But seriously: Hotter clime, more water evapoarates into the cycle....

>How about the massive floods in the corn belt this year in the plains states ?<

Yeah, and? The river Trent and Nottingham canal have flooded almost every year since 2001, something which has never happened before (If it had half the city would not be built in those areas).

>Please.  One story begets another.<

Actually it seems like one theory begets a half thought out "Oh yeah?!"
__________

> Elysian Thebes wrote:
> how many active volcanoes do you know of in Europe, fokker<

Two, the one in Italy, and an underwater one somewhere. Why?