Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372564 > unrolled thread

Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-22 22:14 +0000
    Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-23 18:24 +0000
      Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 11:58 -0800
        Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-24 18:58 +0000
          Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 12:26 -0800
            Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 21:14 +0000
              Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 13:34 -0800
                Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-26 03:21 +0000
                  Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 19:25 -0800
              Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:57 -0600
                Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 07:58 -0800
                  Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 20:44 -0800
                  Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 04:32 -0800
                    Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 13:58 -0800
                      Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 14:48 -0800
    Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-26 11:49 +1100
      Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 02:39 -0800
        Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-26 23:11 +1100
      Re: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:30 -0500

#372564 — Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

Sam Wormley wrote:

> 
>    The jimp still thinks that the earth hasn't been warming for the last
>    17 years. The data for 2015 added to this graph will be a doozy.

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372642

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:14:54 +0000, Ezra Farrow wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> 
>>    The jimp still thinks that the earth hasn't been warming for the
>>    last 17 years. The data for 2015 added to this graph will be a
>>    doozy.
> 
> Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-
fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

This is of course a gross distortion of the facts by a typical climate 
change denier. The key word in the article is 'Local'. It has been well 
known for a long time that pollution can cause local dimming of sunlight 
and low level cooling. Meanwhile the overall effect is one of increased 
absorption of sunlight throughout the polluted volume and a warming of 
the upper atmosphere, which soon gets transferred to lower levels by 
turbulence.   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372651

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:14:54 +0000, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> >
> > Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
> > http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-
> fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
> 
> This is of course a gross distortion of the facts by a typical climate 
> change denier. The key word in the article is 'Local'. It has been well 
> known for a long time that pollution can cause local dimming of sunlight 
> and low level cooling. Meanwhile the overall effect is one of increased 
> absorption of sunlight throughout the polluted volume and a warming of 
> the upper atmosphere, which soon gets transferred to lower levels by 
> turbulence.

This of course explains why the earth cooled down for hundreds of years
after the Medieval maximum when several volcanos blew their tops and
the temperature didn't start rising again until after the Maunder
minimum :-)))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372700

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:58:48 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> 
>> This is of course a gross distortion of the facts by a typical climate
>> change denier. The key word in the article is 'Local'. It has been well
>> known for a long time that pollution can cause local dimming of
>> sunlight and low level cooling. Meanwhile the overall effect is one of
>> increased absorption of sunlight throughout the polluted volume and a
>> warming of the upper atmosphere, which soon gets transferred to lower
>> levels by turbulence.
> 
> This of course explains why the earth cooled down for hundreds of years
> after the Medieval maximum when several volcanos blew their tops and the
> temperature didn't start rising again until after the Maunder minimum
> :-)))

You obviously don't know what 'local' means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372710

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 11:58:31 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:58:48 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > > This is of course a gross distortion of the facts by a typical climate
> > > change denier. The key word in the article is 'Local'. It has been well
> > > known for a long time that pollution can cause local dimming of
> > > sunlight and low level cooling. Meanwhile the overall effect is one of
> > > increased absorption of sunlight throughout the polluted volume and a
> > > warming of the upper atmosphere, which soon gets transferred to lower
> > > levels by turbulence.
> > 
> > This of course explains why the earth cooled down for hundreds of years
> > after the Medieval maximum when several volcanos blew their tops and the
> > temperature didn't start rising again until after the Maunder minimum
> > :-)))
> 
> You obviously don't know what 'local' means.

You obviously don't know what atmospheric turbulence does, even though you
pretentiously used it to support your claim.  You seem to have a strong
hypocritical component.

http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/Eruption-Of-Mount-Tambora.htm

"Adding to the disaster's massive scale, the huge amount of dust blasted
into the upper atmosphere by the Tambora eruption contributed to a bizarre
and highly destructive weather event the following year. And 1816 became
known as The Year Without a Summer."

So a volcanic event halfway around the world can't cause weather effects
locally :-)))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372763

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 11:58:31 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:

>> You obviously don't know what 'local' means.
> 
> You obviously don't know what atmospheric turbulence does, even though
> you pretentiously used it to support your claim.  You seem to have a
> strong hypocritical component.
> 
> http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/Eruption-Of-Mount-
Tambora.htm
> 
> "Adding to the disaster's massive scale, the huge amount of dust blasted
> into the upper atmosphere by the Tambora eruption contributed to a
> bizarre and highly destructive weather event the following year. And
> 1816 became known as The Year Without a Summer."
> 
> So a volcanic event halfway around the world can't cause weather effects
> locally :-)))

When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372764

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > So a volcanic event halfway around the world can't cause weather effects
> > locally :-)))
> 
> When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.

That depends on a number of factors, like whether it's night or day.  And
if that cloud continues to cover a large extent of the earth day and night
will result in cooling.  But the fact that either is possible means
volcanic events cause extensive weather effects, so stop the sophomoric
sophistry.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372777

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:34:32 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > So a volcanic event halfway around the world can't cause weather
>> > effects locally :-)))
>> 
>> When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.
> 
> That depends on a number of factors, like whether it's night or day. 

So the sun shines at night in your region, eh? Nice!

> And if that cloud continues to cover a large extent of the earth day and
> night will result in cooling.  But the fact that either is possible
> means volcanic events cause extensive weather effects, so stop the
> sophomoric sophistry.

Do you think you invented that well known fact?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372778

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 8:21:25 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:34:32 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So a volcanic event halfway around the world can't cause weather
> > > > effects locally :-)))
> > > 
> > > When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.
> > 
> > That depends on a number of factors, like whether it's night or day. 
> 
> So the sun shines at night in your region, eh? Nice!

Good one, "Henry" - you just proved that you can't follow a simple
thread of discussion :-))

> > And if that cloud continues to cover a large extent of the earth day and
> > night will result in cooling.  But the fact that either is possible
> > means volcanic events cause extensive weather effects, so stop the
> > sophomoric sophistry.
> 
> Do you think you invented that well known fact?

Apparently you haven't figured out what it means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372798

On 12/25/2015 3:14 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.
>

And is the cloud-covered Venus hotter or colder than here?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372813

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/25/2015 3:14 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.
> >
> 
> And is the cloud-covered Venus hotter or colder than here?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

If temperature goes up on earth but air pressure goes up as well then the boiling point of water also goes up. We , bags of mostly water , are still okay to go about our daily business. Had a fuzzy point about Venus but I forgot what is was? 

Water bears! Water bears , Tardigrades , are an interesting animals that has the ability to repair its own genes. This is unique for animals. With this in place it can withstand high cosmic radiation exposure. It also has a high temperature tolerance of 0 to 100 c in a hibernated state. If there ever was a candidate for the seed of life on earth Mr water bear would be the one. Water in Venus's atmosphere is slightly higher than earth. Where there is water vapor there has to be water. Possibly a carbon water mix for higher bonding energy like antifreeze for a lower freezing and higher boiling points. Venus has 100 times our atmosphere pressure so the boiling point of water would be higher. In short what seems not inhabitable to us could be water bear heaven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372829

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 9:58:12 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote:
> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 12/25/2015 3:14 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > When a cloud covers the sun, do you feel hotter or colder.
> > >
> > 
> > And is the cloud-covered Venus hotter or colder than here?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> If temperature goes up on earth but air pressure goes up as well then the boiling point of water also goes up. We , bags of mostly water , are still okay to go about our daily business. Had a fuzzy point about Venus but I forgot what is was? 
> 
> Water bears! Water bears , Tardigrades , are an interesting animals that has the ability to repair its own genes. This is unique for animals. With this in place it can withstand high cosmic radiation exposure. It also has a high temperature tolerance of 0 to 100 c in a hibernated state. If there ever was a candidate for the seed of life on earth Mr water bear would be the one. Water in Venus's atmosphere is slightly higher than earth. Where there is water vapor there has to be water. Possibly a carbon water mix for higher bonding energy like antifreeze for a lower freezing and higher boiling points. Venus has 100 times our atmosphere pressure so the boiling point of water would be higher. In short what seems not inhabitable to us could be water bear heaven.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

This is a most excellent post.  If everything is affected- then our measures are bound to be fad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372840

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:58:12 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> If temperature goes up on earth but air pressure goes up as well then the
> boiling point of water also goes up. We , bags of mostly water , are
> still okay to go about our daily business.

I'm afraid at a temperature around 45 C the proteins in our bodies will
tend to denaturate (coagulate).  This is fairly independent of pressure
and cannot be a good thing :-(

> Had a fuzzy point about Venus but I forgot what is was? 

Perhaps you were going to say that the temperatures on Venus are way beyond
the coagulation point of any protein in the human body :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372858

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:32:18 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:58:12 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> >
> > If temperature goes up on earth but air pressure goes up as well then the
> > boiling point of water also goes up. We , bags of mostly water , are
> > still okay to go about our daily business.
> 
> I'm afraid at a temperature around 45 C the proteins in our bodies will
> tend to denaturate (coagulate).  This is fairly independent of pressure
> and cannot be a good thing :-(
> 
> > Had a fuzzy point about Venus but I forgot what is was? 
> 
> Perhaps you were going to say that the temperatures on Venus are way beyond
> the coagulation point of any protein in the human body :-)

No no coagulation breath . A distant relative of yours , Uncle Hot Toes Crab " yeti crab " would say otherwise. He can be found underwater near volcanic vents . Ware protective clothing for this family reunion as Mr Hot Toes and his proteins have a preferred room temperature of 200 C not 20 C .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372862

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:32:18 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:58:12 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > If temperature goes up on earth but air pressure goes up as well then the
> > > boiling point of water also goes up. We , bags of mostly water , are
> > > still okay to go about our daily business.
> > 
> > I'm afraid at a temperature around 45 C the proteins in our bodies will
> > tend to denaturate (coagulate).  This is fairly independent of pressure
> > and cannot be a good thing :-(
> > 
> > > Had a fuzzy point about Venus but I forgot what is was? 
> > 
> > Perhaps you were going to say that the temperatures on Venus are way beyond
> > the coagulation point of any protein in the human body :-)
> 
> No no coagulation breath . A distant relative of yours , Uncle Hot Toes
> Crab " yeti crab " would say otherwise. He can be found underwater near
> volcanic vents . Ware protective clothing for this family reunion as Mr
> Hot Toes and his proteins have a preferred room temperature of 200 C not
> 20 C .

I didn't know that, but that's still a far cry from 700 C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372768

On 23/12/2015 9:14 AM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>
>>     The jimp still thinks that the earth hasn't been warming for the last
>>     17 years. The data for 2015 added to this graph will be a doozy.
>
> Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
>

A somewhat selective view.

How about this quote from the article?

"But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking 
these factors into account means existing climate change models have 
underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be."

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372783

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/12/2015 9:14 AM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>     The jimp still thinks that the earth hasn't been warming for the last
> >>     17 years. The data for 2015 added to this graph will be a doozy.
> >
> > Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
> > http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
> >
> 
> A somewhat selective view.
> 
> How about this quote from the article?
> 
> "But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking 
> these factors into account means existing climate change models have 
> underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be."
> 
> Sylvia.

The CO2 foot print leading to greenhouse effect . What should be considered here is all plants are starved for CO2. More than 50 percent of a plant is carbon that comes from the air not the soil. If CO2 levels go up plants will grow faster and larger. Are plants a self regulating system that keep CO2 levels within a range? There are a lot of plants on earth hungry for carbon but is it enough to offset industrial development? It did go out of balance 10,000 years ago with the last mini ice age. Was this caused by not enough carbon in the air or something else? The notion that CO2 equals green house effect so we are all doomed is too simplistic? To give this balance the north and south poles are melting at an alarming rate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372788

On 26/12/2015 9:39 PM, John Heath wrote:
> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:49:42 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23/12/2015 9:14 AM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The jimp still thinks that the earth hasn't been warming for
>>>> the last 17 years. The data for 2015 added to this graph will
>>>> be a doozy.
>>>
>>> Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says
>>> NASA
>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
A somewhat selective view.
>>
>> How about this quote from the article?
>>
>> "But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of
>> taking these factors into account means existing climate change
>> models have underestimated at the future impact on global
>> temperatures will be."
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The CO2 foot print leading to greenhouse effect . What should be
> considered here is all plants are starved for CO2. More than 50
> percent of a plant is carbon that comes from the air not the soil. If
> CO2 levels go up plants will grow faster and larger. Are plants a
> self regulating system that keep CO2 levels within a range? There are
> a lot of plants on earth hungry for carbon but is it enough to offset
> industrial development? It did go out of balance 10,000 years ago
> with the last mini ice age. Was this caused by not enough carbon in
> the air or something else? The notion that CO2 equals green house
> effect so we are all doomed is too simplistic? To give this balance
> the north and south poles are melting at an alarming rate.
>

What should be considered is a quantitative approach, not a qualitative one.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372803

On 12/25/2015 07:49 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/12/2015 9:14 AM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     The jimp still thinks that the earth hasn't been warming for the
>>> last
>>>     17 years. The data for 2015 added to this graph will be a doozy.
>>
>> Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
>>
>>
>
> A somewhat selective view.
>
> How about this quote from the article?
>
> "But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking
> these factors into account means existing climate change models have
> underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be."
>
> Sylvia.

OF course they HAD to say that to be politically correct (and keep their 
jobs). But how true is it? Well GISS data clearly shows no warming for 
17 years even though Wormley is desperately singing "tomorrow, tomorrow, 
tomorrow!".

And what did the "underestimating" models show?

This:

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg

Oh look at that! Hundreds of warmballer models and not ONE of them 
showing the actual future temperature. ALL of them OVERESTIMATING warming.

And look at the screeching that goes with the errors! The more the 
models are off the more clowns like warmlie scream they are a sure thing.

What is now a sure thing, is that with the name change to "climate 
change" no matter WHAT weather does, up or down, the claim will be we 
need an energy tax to fix it!


-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web