...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental"
Jonathan
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/Library/GlobalWarming/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
Jonathan
December 11, 2006
NASA PROVIDES NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE EARTH'S
CHANGING ICE SHEETS
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006121123869.html
Jonathan
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/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006120623847.html
Joseph Hertzlinger
more important use of providing the tar to tar and feather anti-
nuclear activists.
Terrell Miller
news:2p2ih.2516$U12...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/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
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Just...take...the...fucking...flower...darling"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com
Pat Flannery
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/request.php?file=EGS/NHS/2002/1/nhs-2-91.pdf
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
Pat
Jonathan
"Terrell Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BQaih.3506$U12....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
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.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1543
Jonathan
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:12oj030...@corp.supernews.com...
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
Raghar
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.
Brad Guth
> Nasa Earth Observatory
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