« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: 'Climate Change' Shock: Burning Fossil Fuels 'COOLS Planet'... 

By: Decomposed in POPE IV | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 21 Dec 15 11:51 PM | 70 view(s)
Boardmark this board | POPES NEW and Improved Real Board
Msg. 01483 of 47202
(This msg. is a reply to 01482 by Decomposed)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

My unresolved questions about global warming: 


1) Is the Earth's temperature actually rising?
2) How do we know?
3) ASSUMING THE ANSWER IS YES, by how much?
4) Will it continue to do this, or will forces, natural or unnatural, halt or reverse the process? (As has happened countless times in the past.)
5) What will a warmer Earth be like?
6) How do we know that?
7) Is that bad or good?
8 ) How do we know that?
9) What should be done about the rising temperature?
10) How much will doing this cost?
11) Who should foot the bill?
12) Does the world have that much money?
13) What will spending this much money do to our quality of life? In other words, what will our lives be like?
14) Does it make any sense to make the recommended changes when far larger polluters such as China aren't doing so?
15) Could doing this make the problem WORSE instead of better? (Letting a starving man stuff himself will KILL him.)
16) Could Global Warming just be a political tool, not a real threat?
17) Why are politicians on ONE SIDE using Global Warming to enhance their careers and fortunes?
18 ) Why are scientists who disagree about Global Warming being \"taken out\"?
19) Why are civilians who disagree about Global Warming taunted?
20) Why isn't it a HUGE story that, per #18, scientists are pressured to behave in a very unscientific manner... namely, to treat Global Warming as
fact? (Oregon’s chief meteorologist was fired by the governor because he “denied” Global Warming. NASA’s chief denied it, created a firestorm, then
abruptly backed off of the claim. I could go on.) There’s less pressure these days on deniers of RELATIVITY.
21) Since Global Warming is supposed to cause climate change, why are stories about heat, dryness and fire getting all the publicity, instead of stories of
cold, rain and blizzard?
22) Why is the New York Times printing articles about Virginia oceanside towns that are going underwater… and attributing it to Global Warming...
when we all know that the ocean rise has been insignificant. Besides, if the oceans had risen,
all such towns would be going underwater equally. So, why is the NYT printing such things?
23) Why are Global Warming stories that have since been proven false not commonly known? (The polar bear population is actually INCREASING, etc.)
24) Why is Global Warming so focused on the North Pole, where ice is decreasing, and not on the South Pole, where most of the world's ice is located?
25) Why is ice at the South Pole INCREASING?
26) Could the Sun actually be the cause of Global Warming?
27) How much of Global Warming could be due to the increased sunspot activity (which affects cloud formation)
28 ) Why is Global Warming Occurring?
29) Is Man responsible?
30) How do we know that?
31) Why are the ice caps on Mars decreasing?
32) Why is a WEAK greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, getting the blame? Water vapor is a far better greenhouse gas. Methane is vastly better still.
33) Based on studies of Antarctic ice, CO2 levels are today 94 ppm higher than they were 650,000 years ago. That means there is less than one
additional CO2 molecule for every TEN THOUSAND other molecules of air. The information comes from here – a global warming
site: http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/CARBONDIOXIDE.html . I've studied chemistry. There are NO significant systemic changes that occur with chemical
introductions at those levels. Any comments?
34) Why isn’t Al Gore being crucified by scientists (and, actually, by everyone else) for his claim three years ago that oceans would rise TWO HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FEET (67 metres) between 2014 and 2019?
35) Has he lost his credibility because of this, in your view?
36) Are there any concerns by the left that Al Gore's exaggerations and fear-mongering have made him one of the Uber-wealthy that they claim to despise?
37) MIGHT, just MIGHT, that have been Al's real motive?
38 ) Where is the liberal outrage of the ENORMOUS carbon footprints generated by some of the Global Warming proponents best known politicians? (Al
Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, to name just a few.)
39) Ray Kurzweil, one of the world's visionary geniuses (he's the premier authority on voice recognition, among many, many other things), sides with you that
the Earth IS warming. However, he is certain that it is an utter waste of time and money to do anything about it today since, within 30 years, nanotechnology will
have advanced to the point that carbon-eating nanobots will be readily available to deal with \"the problem\" for practically no cost. And today, we don't have
the technology to deal with the problem at all. WHY ISN'T THIS BEING DISCUSSED?
40) Why has the left zeroed in on Global Warming, and not the Earth’s other huge environmental problems –some of which we all acknowledge to
be real. What makes Global Warming more important than:
• The expanded ozone hole
• Depletion of the rain forests
• Pollution of the oceans
• Population growth
• Insufficient food production
• The water crisis
• The energy crisis
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons.
41) If Global Warming is such an open and shut phenomenon, why are there so many world class (and Nobel prize winning) physicists, chemists and
meteorologists who have stuck their necks out to denounce the weakness of the evidence, the contractory evidence, and the theory's many flaws?
42) Why are the Left treating Global Warming like a religion, to be accepted with faith, to not be challenged?




Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
'Climate Change' Shock: Burning Fossil Fuels 'COOLS Planet'...
By: Decomposed
in POPE IV
Mon, 21 Dec 15 11:41 PM
Msg. 01482 of 47202

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.

By Jon Austin
PUBLISHED: 13:07, Mon, Dec 21, 2015

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.

"Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales.

"TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilised."

The spokesman said it was "well known" that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet.

He added: "In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight."

Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.

She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling.

“They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution.

"There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be."

The study found existing models for climate change had been too simplistic and did not account for these factors.

The spokesman said: "There have been many attempts to determine TCR and ECS values based on the history of temperature changes over the last 150 years and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide.

"As part of that calculation, researchers have relied on simplifying assumptions when accounting for the temperature impacts of climate drivers other than carbon dioxide, such as tiny particles in the atmosphere known as aerosols, for example.

Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: "The assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS.

“The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables,” he said, adding that only within the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations.

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.

NASA researchers at GISS accomplished a first ever feat by calculating the temperature impact of each of these variables—greenhouse gases, natural and manmade aerosols, ozone concentrations, and land use changes—based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations.

The spokesman said: "Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be.

"This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the future estimate rise at 1.8°F (1.0°C).

But the new NASA study dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C).

Mr Schmidt said: “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.”

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


« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next