|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
Nasa Earth Observatory "While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental, there are still some prominent scientists who feel that the threat of global warming has been greatly exaggerated.' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../warming5.html "The above chart shows the current scientific understanding of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects" s |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
..Nasa claims Ice Sheets Shrinking Faster then 10 Years Ago
Nasa Earth Observatory
December 11, 2006 NASA PROVIDES NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE EARTH'S CHANGING ICE SHEETS http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...121123869.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
..Nasa ."Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply"
December 6, 2006
NASA RESEARCH REVEALS CLIMATE WARMING REDUCES OCEAN FOOD SUPPLY "The evidence is pretty clear that the Earth's climate is changing dramatically, and in this NASA research we see a specific consequence of that change," said oceanographer Gene Carl Feldman of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center" http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...120623847.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
Clearly, we should stop burning petroleum and reserve it for the far
more important use of providing the tar to tar and feather anti- nuclear activists. -- http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
"Jonathan" wrote in message
... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../warming5.html "The above chart shows the current scientific understanding of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects" notice that most of the factors are rigorous (the uncertainty measured by the height of each bar is small, and the mean prediction represented by the dark line is roughly centered in each bar), and cumulatively they tend towards stasis (the positive forcings roughly offset the negative forcings, the definition of a stable system). Then there's greenhouse gasses. Fairly rigorous, and it's way up in the positive-forcing area. IOW, all other things being equal (or cancelling each other out), greenhouse gas emissions force temperatures upwards to a close approximation. The wildcards in this graph are mineral dust and tropospheric aerosols (dust and soot kicked up into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and the like). They have a very wide band, thus a high degree of uncertainty in the predictive model. And neither has a central estimate, IOW nobody really has a firm idea how much of an impact those two factors actually have on climate. Sounds like a model that supports global warming from CO2 and methane emissions to me... -- Terrell Miller "Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g" Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and"Detrimental"
Terrell Miller wrote: The wildcards in this graph are mineral dust and tropospheric aerosols (dust and soot kicked up into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and the like). They have a very wide band, thus a high degree of uncertainty in the predictive model. And neither has a central estimate, IOW nobody really has a firm idea how much of an impact those two factors actually have on climate. We've got some data from the eruption of Mt Pinatubo: http://www.cosis.net/members/onlib/r...1/nhs-2-91.pdf http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/ Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ... "Jonathan" wrote in message ... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../warming5.html "The above chart shows the current scientific understanding of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects" notice that most of the factors are rigorous (the uncertainty measured by the height of each bar is small, and the mean prediction represented by the dark line is roughly centered in each bar), and cumulatively they tend towards stasis (the positive forcings roughly offset the negative forcings, the definition of a stable system). Then there's greenhouse gasses. Fairly rigorous, and it's way up in the positive-forcing area. IOW, all other things being equal (or cancelling each other out), greenhouse gas emissions force temperatures upwards to a close approximation. The wildcards in this graph are mineral dust and tropospheric aerosols (dust and soot kicked up into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and the like). They have a very wide band, thus a high degree of uncertainty in the predictive model. And neither has a central estimate, IOW nobody really has a firm idea how much of an impact those two factors actually have on climate. Sounds like a model that supports global warming from CO2 and methane emissions to me... I thought that was a pretty informative chart too. What it doesn't show are the relationships or feedback between all those variables. For instance, if the temps rise will cloud cover increase and offset the temp change etc. I think we have to use methods of analyzing our biosphere like analyzing a natural ecosystem. By looking at certain outputs as indicators of overall system health. Like focussing on the species at the top of the food chain as an indicator of the health of the forest. I think the ice sheets would take the place of the top emergent ecosystem feature. As they are more sensitive to problems withing the overall system. This article indicates that stopping the increase is enough, we don't have to reverse the increase. That the biosphere will adapt if the rate of change isn't too fast. Terrestrial Tipping Point http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...cle&sid= 1543 -- Terrell Miller "Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g" Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Terrell Miller wrote: The wildcards in this graph are mineral dust and tropospheric aerosols (dust and soot kicked up into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and the like). They have a very wide band, thus a high degree of uncertainty in the predictive model. And neither has a central estimate, IOW nobody really has a firm idea how much of an impact those two factors actually have on climate. We've got some data from the eruption of Mt Pinatubo: http://www.cosis.net/members/onlib/r...1/nhs-2-91.pdf http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/ There are some that think we should deliberately pollute the atmosphere with volcano like sulfates to offset greenhouse gasses. I suppose that could be a last resort. Or maybe nature will find a way to do much the same. But what about the acid rain? Scientists Researching Benefits Of Deliberate Pollution By CHARLES J. HANLEY The Associated Press Published: Nov 17, 2006 http://www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB28CP1MUE.html Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
Jonathan wrote: There are some that think we should deliberately pollute the atmosphere with volcano like sulfates to offset greenhouse gasses. I suppose that could be a last resort. Or maybe nature will find a way to do much the same. But what about the acid rain? Dummy. The best way is nuclear winter, of course. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
"Jonathan" wrote in message
Nasa Earth Observatory "While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental, there are still some prominent scientists who feel that the threat of global warming has been greatly exaggerated.' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../warming5.html "The above chart shows the current scientific understanding of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects" Why is the 2e20 joules that's related to our moon, that which has only been with us since the last ice age, making you and those of your kind so deathly afraid of your own shadow? Since you're such a damn pagan wizard of "COLLECTIVE INSANITY", and/or merely another certified rusemaster at your very black heart; please share as to what's the overall birth to grave thermal efficiency of the entire world going fully nuclear for all of our energy requirements? Since I know of folks that couldn't possibly live another day without their 24/7 existence demanding an average of 100 KW, and knowing others (much like myself) that would be damn proud as punch if they each got 1 KW, let us say upon average giving 10 KW per each and every soul on Earth, and make that a matter of fact on behalf of a future population of 1e10 souls. That's only 1e14 joules at the end-user point of sale. So, we're talking about having to establish thousands of new and improved nuclear power plants, along with all of the necessary infrastructure that'll feed sufficient fuel via yellowcake, plus establishing massive global power grids, along with butt-loads of security that's related to most everything nuclear and of it's power grid related infrastructure, plus accommodating those long term and truly vast taboo areas on behalf of the radioactive remainders as per demanding their storage for hundreds if not thousands of generations to come. Therefore, as all-knowing that you folks are, can you or others of your brown-nose kind say as to what we're talking about is merely a grand birth to grave total creation of sustaining a continuous production of 3e14 joules, or is it actually a bit worse off than 5.1e14 joules (roughly one joule/m2). Exactly how large of multiple open pit yellowcake mining operations are we talking about? How much radioactive worthy elements do we have at our disposal, and at what bloody birth to grave cost? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"VideO Madness" "Pulp FictiOn!!!," ...., and "Kill Bill!!!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 26th 06 09:24 PM |
"VideO Madness" "DO yOu want?!?!?!..." 'and' "GoD HATES FAGS!!!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 13th 06 07:28 AM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Planetoid2001 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 10:33 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Astronomie | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 04:01 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Phineas T Puddleduck | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 03:23 PM |