Principia Scientific International, WTF! :: Remember, remember, the velvet November


node:	Principia Scientific International, WTF!
template:	4
parent:	NASA STUDY PROVES CARBON DIOXIDE COOLS ATMOSPHERE
owner:	escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
viewed by:
created:	10.05.2013 - 11:24:07
updated:	10.05.2013 - 11:27:32

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63533
2727454
7155461
7169986

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

neurons
stats|by_visit|by_K source tiamat K|my_K|given_K last commanders polls
total descendants::24
total children::1
1 ❤️

show[ 2 | 3] flat

Zaujimave to urcite je. Najzaujimavejsie na tom je sledovat, ake nezmysly je klima-skepticka sebranka schopna produkovat, do akej miery je ochotna prektucat fakty a stavat veci na hlavu, ba natvrdo klamat, aby podporila svoju "everything is fine, keep shopping propagandu".
Hned som vedel, ze sa bude jednat o nejaky dalsi nezmysel, ale dal som si tu pracu a precital som si povodny clanok od NASA. Takze poprve: Neviem kde prilsli jebkovia na to, ze "recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere." Nic v tomto tvrdeni sa nezhoduje s poziciou NASA. Ti prisli na to, ze sklenikove plyny maju schopnost odrazat do kozmu teplo vytvorene pocas solarnych burok v termosfere. To je prilis male na to, aby tak - ci onak mohlo mat dopad na klimu, hlavne sa vsak jedna o uplne iny jav, ako je zadrziavanie tepla tymito plynmi v spodnych vrstvach atmosfery, ktore je povodcom klimatickych zmien a faktom podporenym vedeckym konsenzom, ktoremu sa dany report NASA vlastne nijak nevenuje.
Imho treba si precitat povodnu spravu NASA a nie ucelovo formulovane nezmysly, zneuzivajuce z kontextu vytrhnute citaty. Strasny shit, ako otatne cela "klima-skepticka" radoby-argumentacia.

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231

Neviem co ty citas ale ja nevidim problem:

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

takze tvrdi, ze co2 znizuje teplotu. zrejme je tam aj nejaky efekt kedy co2 zvysuje teplotu a treba to dokopy zratat na nejaky spolocny vysledok.

sorry, nezmyselny sa mi zda tvoj prispevok :)

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248

obavam sa, ze moj prispevok ti pripada nezmyselny predovsetkym koli tomu, ze nepozorne citas...inak by si musel jasne vidiet, ako drzo PSI klamu a zavadzaju, je to len tazko prehliadnutelne.
takze este raz:
1.) ten efekt na ktory prislo NASA sa nijak netyka klimy, nema vyznamnejsieho vplyvu na teplotu atmosfery. NASA samozrejme nepise, ze by to na klimu nejaky vplyv malo a samozrejme, ako kazda seriozna institucia sa drzi vedeckeho konzenzu a o posobeni CO2 pri zohrievani atmosfery.
2.) pridu sarlatani z Principia Scientific International, vytrhnut zopar tvrdeni z kontextu, zaradia ich to kontextu uplne vymysleneho a hurra, clovekom sposobene zmeny klimu su zrazu nezmyslom.

EDIT: no a citam odkaz na NASA, ktory ma PSI v samotnom clanku, na ktoty si tu upozornil. ked si porovnas povodnu verziu NASA s tym od PSI, tak uvidis, kde je problem.

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173380

pre doplnenie aby sme vedeli o com sa bavime - polopatisticke vysvetlenie z nasa:

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717338007173405

pise sa tam aj nieco v suvislosti s tym ako funguju tieto plyny na teplo akumulovane v nizsich vrstvach atmosfery? imho to je asi pointa, inak je to ako tvrdit ze ventilator by bol dobra lodna skrutka len preto ze sa toci.

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248071733800717340507173446

pointa je, ze tie plyny zabranuju oteplujucemu ziareniu z kozmu - o tom je clanok. ked chces diskutovat o inych fenomenoch klimatologie kludne mozme ale mozno by si mal vytvorit nove vlakno :)

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173380071734050717344607174116

netreba :)

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173360

este raz - ten citat co som dal je z nasa stranky.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” -- http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
chces povedat ze nasa na vlastnej stranke vytrhava veci z kontextu? da sa nejako inak pochopit, ze co2 odraza to teplo a funguje ako prirodzeny termostat? - je to tam doslovne napisane. ja som uplny laik ale tak citat jednoduchu vetu viem. zato tvoje dohady v bode 1) co ma vplyv a co nema su len dohady.

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419

problem je teda asi ten, ze si uz zabudol, co si tu sam postoval a tudiz sa tazko v celej debate vyznas. tvoja povodna noda bola odkazom na zvasty z PSI, ktore vytrhavaju NASA z kontextu.
napr.:
"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere."
nic takeho sa samozrejme v NASA nedeje, to si vycucali z prstu na zaklade uplne zcestnej interpretacie zaverov NASA. a podobne dalej a dalej a dalej:
"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

EDIT: btw. tie "moje dohady" nie su dohadmi, co ma vplyv a co nema pise samotna NASA:
“Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248071733600717341907173441

zbytocne sa slovickarit. ponaucenie, nabuduce dam link na nasa pre vseobecnu spokojnost :) kazdopadne, stale sa bavime o tom istom, ze co2 hra aj ulohu akehosi termostatu a chrani zem pred ziarenim z kozmu. to je pointa mojho postu.

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173360071734190717344107174141

a ta pointa je chujovina, lebo sa tam pise:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists
do ziadneho konfliktu sa tym ale nedostava. rovnako ako nie je v konflikte fakt ze ozon v nizkych vrstvach atmosfery je skodlivy, ale v ozonosfere dolezity.

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419071734410717414107175076

inak ja som pisal pointu z mojho pohladu ktora nie je nazvom clanku - a na ten post reagujes... necitas ;)

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419071734410717414107175052

co2 je povazovane iba za zle a pritom ma aj pozitivne ucinky ako sa ukazalo v tejto studii. ja tam konflikt vidim. kazdopadne nevidim dovod rozoberat nadpis clanku ako nieco podstatne.

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248071733600717341907173441071741410717505207175078

co2 (v atmosfere) nie je povazovane iba za zle a nikdy nebolo

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173360071734190717344107174141071750520717507807175088

ked ho chcu znizit tak asi dobre nebude. a teraz sa objavil fakt, ze sluzi ako tepelny stit. ziadnu kontradikciu tam nevidis?

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419071734410717414107175052071750780717508807175099

ked ho chcu znizit tak asi dobre nebude.
ked vypijes 20 litrov vody za den bude ti zle. voda je zla!

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248071733600717341907173441071741410717505207175078071750880717509907175106

ok :)

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173360071734190717344107173490

no tak to jednoznacne. urcite ak ti slo o poukzanie na samotny zaujimavy vedecky poznatok, je lepsie hodit link na NASA.
urcite nie na propagandisticku a zavadzajucu, preudo-vedecku PSI ;) jej pointou je totiz nieco uplne ine.

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419071734410717349007173515

btw, nasa patri americkej vlade snad si nemyslis, ze su bez propagandy.

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248071733600717341907173441071734900717351507173653

myslim, ze zrovnavat vedecku uroven a mieru propagandy NASA a PSI je uz skutocne len strata casu.

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173360071734190717344107173490071735150717365307173685

prekrucas co som napisal

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419071734410717349007173496

no ja myslim ze global warming propagandy je viac nez dost takze trochu z opacnej strany nie je az taky hriech :)

00000101000635330272745407155461071699860717323107173248071733600717341907173441071734900717349607173650

to mi je uplne jasne od zaciatku, ze mas problem rozoznat medzi dobre podlozenym vedeckym konsenzom a propagandou ;)
dost mozne ze prave vdaka tomu si narazil na taky "skvost", akym je PSI.

0000010100063533027274540715546107169986071732310717324807173360071734190717344107173490071734960717365007173687

zbytocne urazas

000001010006353302727454071554610716998607173231071732480717336007173419071734410717349007173496071736500717368707173727

ospravedlnujem sa.
ale na tento druh argumentov a la pro-klimaticka loby si vymyslela som troska citlivy. mozno si to ani tak nemyslel, ale ista tendencia davat na rovnaku uroven argumenty oboch "taborov" tam bola.