NASA on Climate Change - Page 2





Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 103
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    East London
    Age
    47
    Posts
    907

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Olyfboer View Post
    Then I suggest you read up on the Younger Dryas Ice Age. It cooled within decades from warm to an ice age and several centuries later the climate returned to as it was withing decades.
    The Younger Dryas Ice Age may be a natural phenomenon but would you not think that man is not recreating this phenomenon?

    The current theory is that the Younger Dryas was caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor", which circulates warm tropical waters northward, in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.
    Would that fresh water not be coming from our melting ice-caps, ice sheets and glaciers? Greenland for instance lost 2 billion tons of Ice in a single day. A whole lot of fresh water is being dumped into our oceans and fast.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/terr...re-2019-8?IR=T
    Last edited by Roberto Betta; 2019/10/21 at 03:13 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Ezulwini Eswatini
    Posts
    1,533

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    The suns direct radiation is not what heats the planet. What heats the planet is the atmosphere that traps the radiation coming from the planet ( sun - long wave radiation earth reflecting the suns radiation is shortwave) know as green house effect.

    Co2 is what makes our atmospheric blanket more " Insulated' for want of a better word. even though co2 composition of air is only 0.04 percent its the way these molecules vibrate that causes the shortwave radiation coming from the planet to be trapped rather that escape into space.

    so anyone saying its the sun or how close we are to the sun is missing a few high school science lessons.

    The most effective way to decrease co2 is to plant co2 converters or trees; they naturally covert co2 with the help of sunlight and store co2 as wood.

    2011 VW Touareg V.8 TDI
    2006 VW Touareg 3.0 TDi air suspension aka Pumba ( sold)
    2003 Pajero IO 2.0 aka Bosvark

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Roodepoort
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,072

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quite a few people say that as the cows produce so much methane, which is much stronger green house gas than CO2, we have to stop eating red meat. It is not so simple. If the fields that are used for grass are converted to grain it is touch and go which is less damaging. Add to that the location. Calculation changes depending in which part of the world the calculation is done.

    All these things require studies but not narrow field or with narrow mind.

    Windmill can be more harmful than coal. Coal is more harmful than nuclear. Energy saver is more harmful in cold countries than old fashioned light bulb. Recycled glass bottle is more harmful than crushed glass or aluminum container. Dishwasher is less harmful than hand wash...

    It is not so simple.
    Jouko
    ----------
    2003 Grand Cherokee 4.7l
    2012 Smart
    Never drive a normal car 8)

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    The role of co2 in the atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels could potentially impact the future climate was first reported in the 1800s. I dont know why we have to turn everything into a conspiracy theory. There are planet wide changes in temperatures, not localised.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    57
    Posts
    35,598

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishing1 View Post
    The role of co2 in the atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels could potentially impact the future climate was first reported in the 1800s. I dont know why we have to turn everything into a conspiracy theory. There are planet wide changes in temperatures, not localised.
    CO2 is mostly released by natural means.

    Our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the natural carbon cycle each year.

    Less than 4%.

    And strangely, the more CO2, the faster plants grow. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

    Wow. Who would have thought.

    So on a global scale, I'd say there is no way global warming means the end of the planet as we know it. What will happen is a rapid change in localised climates as the temperatures change and the water supply fluctuates.
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Brackenfell
    Age
    38
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    CO2 is mostly released by natural means.

    Our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the natural carbon cycle each year.

    Less than 4%. Problem is that science tells us that even a small variation in a closed system can have a massive impact.

    And strangely, the more CO2, the faster plants grow. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. This happens only up to a point, beyond a certain threshold, the CO2 levels actually become toxic to the plants. Just as mush as any other living organism. If you consume more food (CO2 is plant food), you start to grow faster and stronger, beyond a certain point of consumption though, it becomes bad for your health and eventually you die.

    Wow. Who would have thought. Problem here is deforestation and lack of reforestation. The total number of CO2 being produced is more than what the total number of plants can actually convert. This leads to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Essentially a compounding effect. Also, the bulk of CO2 is converted by photo-plankton, which is starting to see big declines due to the acidification of the oceans. Plants can also do very little to deal with Methane.

    So on a global scale, I'd say there is no way global warming means the end of the planet as we know it. What will happen is a rapid change in localised climates as the temperatures change and the water supply fluctuates.
    Personally I think the issue of climate change is far more complicated than even the points being discussed here.
    2018 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 4X4
    2016 Mazda CX-3 2.0 Dynamic Auto - Sold
    2012 VW Tiguan 2.0TDi Bluemotion - Sold
    2009 Ford Fiesta 1.6 Titanium 3 door - Sold

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    4% where do you get that figure from? The ppm of CO2 is now way over 400 and before the industrial revolution it was 280 amd it has between 180 and 280 for the last 800 000 years. Yes clinate change is not going to grind everything to a halt on the planet it is just going to cause a lot of problems for us. It has already started. And yes plants grow better with more co2 up to a point then it no longer has an impact. You can measure it in a lab or in the field there are various instruments you can do it with. A plants chloroplasts can only utilise a limited amount of co2

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    57
    Posts
    35,598

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishing1 View Post
    4% where do you get that figure from?
    29 GiT divided by 750GiT multiplied by 100 = 3.8% directly attributed to human activity

    750 gigatons of CO2 release is from NATURAL PROCESSES including sea transfer and volcanoes
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    The natural sources are pretty much at equilibrium, it releases today and absorbs somewhere else tomorrow. Your average natural system works like that and you need to take that into consideration. As Werner pointed out when you have deforestation and other land degradation that equilibrium falls apart amd then you have to add fossil fuels to the mix.......

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    57
    Posts
    35,598

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishing1 View Post
    The natural sources are pretty much at equilibrium, it releases today and absorbs somewhere else tomorrow. Your average natural system works like that and you need to take that into consideration. As Werner pointed out when you have deforestation and other land degradation that equilibrium falls apart amd then you have to add fossil fuels to the mix.......
    the only way to reverse the process is to kill off the human species
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Lol or you can find a brewing method that absorbs co2 that will be a win win situation

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    57
    Posts
    35,598

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishing1 View Post
    Lol or you can find a brewing method that absorbs co2 that will be a win win situation
    sadly yeast does the opposite
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    284

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    If the climate issue were really a science, all the "climate crisis" brigade would have to do, is just make the data available (the RAW data, not the manipulated mumbo jumbo stuff) and then regular people could see for themselves.

    The data is difficult (and sometimes complex) but nothing that smart members of the general scientific community and even a couple of retirees behind their computers couldn't figure out... why is the data hidden, the "environmental protectors" have it... that's what drives all their crazy models... the ones that predict we will live in a post apocalyptic swamp in 12 years... and 12 years later... something even worse on the horizon...

    "Climate scare" is built on models... none have been right so far...

    I used to think everyone on the forum was smart... now I know better... but there really are some smart guys here... more than enough to make sense of this question.

    Lets just start with the basics...

    Who trusts the weather forecast for today? Most of us with a bit of skepticism, but enough to have lunch indoors....
    Who trusts the weather forecast for tomorrow? Most of us, we'll get the braai ready, but also make sure the dining room table is ready... just in case.
    Who trusts the weather forecast for next week? It's a good indication there may be some rain, a cold front, a hot spell... we may even take some action, not pack away the winter woolies...
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the coming month? Who ever made any change to their plans based on a 30 day weather forecast?
    Who trusts the weather forecast for next quarter? Nah... just go with the averages of what we can remember for the season... and it works out fine.
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the next six months? Is there really anything like that...
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the next year? Maybe you are out there... I'd like to know... what you heard, how you reacted, and how it panned out.
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the next 5 years? Just to be clear, I don't want to miss something out... for the pedantic.
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the next 10 years? No joking, otherwise the jump would have been to big.
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the next 25 years? OK, so now we trust the weatherman so much we are willing to ditch our fossil fuel energy sources... never mind the cost and consequences... we trust these guys.
    Who trusts the weather forecast for the next 50 years? Don't worry. They say you won't even get there... the earth would have burned up by then... cause the Yanks wouldn't give up their V8s

    Predicting the weather is the same, the methods don't change it is just the models that get much, much more complicated as the period gets longer.

    So, if you are ready to have a good night's sleep, and not worry too much about the climate crisis (well worry that they take your diesel bakkie away) then you can go read other threads...

    BUT IF NOT, THEN WAIT, THERE'S MORE...

    We have not even looked at the some numbers yet...
    "The problem with internet quotes is that they are very often unverified."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pretoria
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,056

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    The problem is that we often confuse scientists with science.

    Its well documented that scientists are fudging climate change models- except of course russia:


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

    But the science doesn’t support the climate change models:


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmUS7PAWFw

    Or even makes it sound more dramatic:


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx-Zmjzv_EQ

    The fact remains that science has no means right now to definitively determine the influence man has on climate change:

    https://www.cato.org/multimedia/medi...ent-hurricanes

    So the climate change debate is being abused by all and sundry:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

    Zapiture,
    Discovery 4 Facelift 2015
    Defender D90 2.8 2003
    Conqueror Commander 2014

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Roodepoort
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,072

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    I happened to watch SkyNews today. New research have been published in UK on the air quality. It is on the peak values. Not in general. Poor air quality caused by cars (mainly diesel) and burning coal and oil has killed more people than all nuclear accidents and the two uses of nuclear bombs combined. Poor air quality has killed people like flies.

    Would have been better to go nuclear instead of coal and oil. After all electric cars were used before petrol or diesel. Unfortunately it is similar case like when an airplane falls down and people die compared to car accidents on the same day. One accident is huge news but the "silent" killer not.
    Jouko
    ----------
    2003 Grand Cherokee 4.7l
    2012 Smart
    Never drive a normal car 8)

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    If you read and listen to enough conspiracy theories you eventually start believing them.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Fraserburg
    Age
    60
    Posts
    530

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    the only way to reverse the process is to kill off the human species
    Which is exactly what nature will do.
    2001 Isuzu Frontier 4X4 DT280 LX 2.8 Turbo Diesel (Tourer)
    2011 JMC 4X4 Double Cab 2.8 Turbo Diesel (Work Bakkie)
    1973 Land Rover Series 2A 109" Ford V6 Kanniedood, Salisbury diff, galvanised chassis etc. (Hobby and Work vehicle)

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    284

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Jouko View Post
    I happened to watch SkyNews today. New research have been published in UK on the air quality. It is on the peak values. Not in general. Poor air quality caused by cars (mainly diesel) and burning coal and oil has killed more people than all nuclear accidents and the two uses of nuclear bombs combined. Poor air quality has killed people like flies.

    Would have been better to go nuclear instead of coal and oil. After all electric cars were used before petrol or diesel. Unfortunately it is similar case like when an airplane falls down and people die compared to car accidents on the same day. One accident is huge news but the "silent" killer not.
    The study alluded to just makes stark headlines, good for clicks and revenue for the publisher, but does not provide any data...

    I have no reason to believe that article, it's not like Sky News won't make some news if they can't find any (especially news that meets their viewer profile) so I make the following suggestion. See the actual data here for yourself and see how concentrated the pollution is, and how quickly it dissipates in the countryside.

    There is a big difference between standing in a lane or closed off area, unloading a truck with the engine running, and "Climate Change".
    "The problem with internet quotes is that they are very often unverified."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Roodepoort
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,072

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    I could dig out quite a few scientific studies on air pollution. British Empire was quite good in keeping records on air pollution. Those records are a handy tool today. Just picked up one story:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...finds-research

    When the weather is specific type in London people start dying after specific time after the start of the weather. Cannot remember if it is 2 days or 4 but it is exactly the same as it was when coal burning was allowed and smog was there. Same applies to all cities.

    Numbers change depending which study is used as a bases. For comparison:
    Hiroshima: estimates are both sides of 100 000 dead
    Nagasaki: estimates are both sides of 50 000 dead

    My kids survived about a one year stay in Witbank but I would say there were very few days that they were not sic.

    Air pollution, fossil fuels and changing weather are linked. The problem is the reporting. If 500 people dies in a hurricane it is big news "global warming" but 50 000 dying for the same core reason is ignored and is no news.
    Jouko
    ----------
    2003 Grand Cherokee 4.7l
    2012 Smart
    Never drive a normal car 8)

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    South-Africa
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: NASA on Climate Change

    I can't believe some of the stuff I am reading.

    Start using google scholar if you want to understand, and after careful consideration, comment on the science. If you can't get an article behind the paywall use sci-hub (https://sci-hub.tw/).

    The USA/NOAA/NCAR is kind enough to provide every imaginable source of climate data free of charge. See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access, https://data.noaa.gov/onestop/, https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/data-type/gridded-obs, and https://data.giss.nasa.gov/. I could go on. So just tell me what "raw data" you statisticians need and I'll tell you it's probably out there and most likely freely available.

    Now if you find Microsoft Excel isn't particular good at handling 10 million plus data points and you're kinda lazy just go scan the IPCC summary report https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._FINAL_SPM.pdf. If you find the science in the summary a bit simple for your liking here is the full report https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf. But wait, the data! Here you go http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/index.html !

    O yes, of course it's just leftist agenda! What does the World Economic Forum have to say about this? Well go read up for yourself here http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Glo...eport_2019.pdf , page 4-6 should tell you everything you need to know.

    And to respond to the OP. The Milankovitch cycle is a real thing, we teach it in Climatology 111 first semester, and 3rd class. Go buy The Weather and Climate of Southern Africa, by Tyson and Preston-Whyte, if you feel like you need to know more about the Milankovitch cycle, and South-Africa's weather and climate in general. Or just use google scholar!

    Now everyone please think 3 times before you post a pixelated graph, or an article from a radio show.
    Last edited by Padawon; 2019/10/21 at 10:30 PM.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •