Re[3]: Principia Scientific International, WTF! :: Remember, remember, the velvet November


node:	Re[3]: Principia Scientific International, WTF!
template:	4
parent:	Re[2]: Principia Scientific International, WTF!
owner:	ma
viewed by:
created:	13.05.2013 - 13:23:45

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63533
2727454
7155461
7169986
7173231
7173248
7173360

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

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.