Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Global Warming!!!
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
 
Next time someone posts the "great concensus" of scientists who believe some theory w/ virtually no evidence, remember to give them a quick kick in the as$.

BTW, Dogger you want one thing W did right? He didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol treaty. Sure it wasn't popular. But, it was right*. There are others of course, but I just want your whining to be properly recognized.

*Actually it is the right thing to do even if greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming. The Kyoto Protocol will make things worse.


<a href='http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0528earthshine.html' target='_blank'>Full story at NASA web site. WITH PICTURES</a>

May 27, 2004 - (date of web publication)


SCIENTISTS LOOK AT MOON TO SHED LIGHT ON EARTH'S CLIMATE


According to a new NASA-funded study, insights into Earth's climate may come from an unlikely place: the moon.

Scientists looked at the ghostly glow of light reflected from Earth onto the moon's dark side. During the 1980s and 1990s, Earth bounced less sunlight out to space. The trend reversed during the past three years, as the Earth appears to reflect more light toward space.

Though not fully understood, the shifts may indicate a natural variability of clouds, which can reflect the sun's heat and light away from Earth. The apparent change in the amount of sunlight reaching Earth in the 1980s and 1990s is comparable to taking the effects of greenhouse gas warming since 1850 and doubling them. Increased reflectance since 2001 suggests change of a similar magnitude in the opposite direction.

Remember the G Lakes freezing over last winter? The panic people forgot to mention that.

Researchers from the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), Newark, N.J., and California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Pasadena, Calif., combined NASA cloud data from satellites with records of Earth's reflectance off the moon, called earthshine. The study, funded by NASA's Living With a Star Program, appears May 28 in the journal Science.

"Using a phenomenon first explained by Leonardo DaVinci, we can provide valuable data on the overall reflectance of the Earth, and indirectly, on global cloud cover," said Phil Goode, a physicist at NJIT, one of the paper's authors. He is director of Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO), Big Bear City, Calif. "Our method has the advantage of being very precise, and light reflected by large portions of Earth can be observed simultaneously," he said.



Recent news reports suggested sunshine reaching Earth declined from the late 1950s to the early 1990s. This new study suggests the opposite. Earth's surface may have been sunnier, or less cloudy, in the 1980s and 1990s. BBSO has conducted precision earthshine observations since 1994. Regular observations began in late 1997.

The research team improved upon an old method for monitoring earthshine. They compared earthshine measurements from 1999 to mid-2001 with overlapping satellite observations of global cloud properties. The cloud satellite record from 1983 to 2001 came from the NASA-managed International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. By matching these two records, the researchers used the cloud data to extend the record and construct a substitute measure of Earth's albedo, the fraction of light reflected by a body or surface.


The data showed a steady decrease in Earth's albedo from 1984 to 2000. Between 1995 and 1996, Earth dimmed even more sharply. The data were consistent with satellite measurements of changing global properties. From 1997 to 2000, Earth continued to dim. The researchers suggest, during this time period, the decreases in Earth's reflectance may be related to an observed accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures. From 2001 to 2003, Earth brightened to pre-1995 values. The researchers attributed the brightening to changes in cloud properties.

"At the moment, the cause of these variations is not known, but they imply large shifts in Earth's radiative budget," said co-author Steven Koonin, a Caltech physicist. "Continued observations and modelling efforts will be necessary to learn their implications for climate."

Translation: At the very least those climate models that folks clamor about are missing vital data. Worst case is they are just flat out wrong, but we're too polite to say so.

The research offers evidence Earth's average albedo varies considerably from year to year, and from decade to decade. "Our most likely contribution to the global warming debate is to emphasize the role of clouds in climate change must be accounted for, illustrating that we still lack the detailed understanding of our present and past climate system to confidently model future changes," said Enric Palle, a postdoctoral associate at NJIT, lead author of the paper. Pilar Montan~es-Rodriguez, a postdoctoral associate at NJIT, is another co-author.

"Even as the scientific community acknowledges the likelihood of human impact on climate, it must better document and understand climate changes," Koonin said. "Our ongoing earthshine measurements will be an important part of that process."

Translation: All the global warming paranoia helped fund my research, and I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me.

BBSO, operated by NJIT, is partially supported by NASA. NASA's Living with a Star Program develops the scientific understanding necessary to effectively address those aspects of the connected sun-Earth system that directly affect life and society.
06-14-2004 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Skipuno Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 321
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #2
 
One question I always wanted to ask the global warming people. If man is responsible for global warming, what caused glaicer that spanned from canada to north texas to disapear? Neanderthal cook fires?
06-15-2004 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #3
 
Yesterday I read a very testy response to this work published in New Scientist. One contributor said that if he'd been involved in the peer review, he would have rejected it for publication.

He had the nerve to say that the conclusions reached by the study were too far removed from the actual data.

Hello! dumb***. What do you think all the global warming scenarios are? Except they have even less data and more conjecture.

The most pointed criticism IMO was that extra cloud cover retains the thermal radiation from the earth. Of course it blocks IR radiation from the sun too (not just the visible associated w/ earthshine) but, a simple energy balance equation using full spectral radiance should answer that question.

Anyway the criticism was grossly hypocritical...but that's not too uncommon for those folks.
06-16-2004 07:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wryword Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 974
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
The thing that is so amusing about the "greenhouse" panic in some places is that no scientist will ever say that science knows enough about the natural variations in this planet's climate to be able to say anything definite about the changes some think they have observed over the last century or so. What I think they can all agree upon is that the Earth naturally and normally has climatic changes, some of them quite dramatic. We have and will have again ice ages; we have had and will have again "warm" spells. And within climate ages, there are periods like the "little ice age", in which sharp and persistent changes occur. We are affected by the changing face of the sun, volcanic activity here, and maybe even permutations of the moon. Given our actual ignorance of what we are seeing over the eye-blink of the last century, or even back to the Industrial Age, I think it is not very scientific to rush off to a judgment that the "global warming" they may or may not have detected is strictly a consequence of human activity.

The radicals on this issue remind me of the pro-abort crowd. They don't know, they say, when human life begins, but instead then of seeing the wisdom of staying their hands with respect to abortion, their ignorance somehow becomes a part of the rationale to support abortion. Strange logicians, these people.
06-16-2004 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.