Climate Change
- Thread starter Atomic_Lobster
- Start date
They are full of shit and the EPA should have been shut down over the idiotic idea that CO2 is a pollutant.
H2O + CO2 -> (photosynthesis)= O2 + sugar (sap)
CO2 is plant food.
Let's not forget the emailgate, where commies were actively conspiring to discredit scientists who disagreed with their summations, which are not based on science but on an economic formula for stock market performance.
H2O + CO2 -> (photosynthesis)= O2 + sugar (sap)
CO2 is plant food.
Let's not forget the emailgate, where commies were actively conspiring to discredit scientists who disagreed with their summations, which are not based on science but on an economic formula for stock market performance.
Well it sure as shit caused more taxes on the middle class, so why not space debris.
What ever happened to the ozone scare? More bullshit huh?
Speaking of bullshit.
Ron White had a bit about people crying to him about cow farts ruining the ozone layer and what was he going to do about it.
"I'm eating the cows!"
Pretty much. They knew it was natural processes that broke down the ozone layers at the poles but blamed cfc's. In later news Duponts patent on r12 refrigerant had just run out and they had already developed a replacement. How lucky.
If you can choose when your study begins and when it ends results become increasingly predictable.
For instance, I did a scientific study last week. It began on Sunday at noon and ended the following Saturday at midnight. Proved that the temperature dropped 21.5*. This study showed the Earth was in a phase of rapid cooling.
We're doomed. Donate what you can to prevent Global Cooling. PayPal to BR-549!
Thank you,
MrSmith
For instance, I did a scientific study last week. It began on Sunday at noon and ended the following Saturday at midnight. Proved that the temperature dropped 21.5*. This study showed the Earth was in a phase of rapid cooling.
We're doomed. Donate what you can to prevent Global Cooling. PayPal to BR-549!
Thank you,
MrSmith
Glad to see all the brilliant scientists of the bear pit have concluded the MIT department of aeronautics and astronautics have no idea what they're talking about.
From the study:
"Greenhouse gases like C02, trapped in the lower atmosphere, pull heat down from the upper atmosphere. The cooling effect on the upper atmosphere decreases density and, in turn, reduces atmospheric drag on satellites, which would normally pull them back down to Earth. As a result, the lifetime of satellites in low Earth orbit may be extended.
The upper atmosphere can only carry so many satellites before things start to get dangerous. In the new study, researchers aimed to evaluate the “satellite carrying capacity” of certain altitudes of interest, or “shells", in low Earth orbit by creating simulations of carbon emissions scenarios.
Increased emissions over the next century, the researchers found, will likely contribute to reduced carrying capacity in low Earth orbit. Based on this scenario, they estimate that the carrying capacity — or the amount of satellites that can safely exist within the altitudes of 200 and 1,000 kilometers — could be reduced by 50 to 66 percent by the end of this century.
“Our behavior with greenhouse gases here on Earth over the past 100 years is having an effect on how we operate satellites over the next 100 years,” says study author Richard Linares, associate professor in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro).
“The upper atmosphere is in a fragile state as climate change disrupts the status quo,” adds lead author William Parker, a graduate student in AeroAstro. “At the same time, there’s been a massive increase in the number of satellites launched, especially for delivering broadband internet from space. If we don't manage this activity carefully and work to reduce our emissions, space could become too crowded, leading to more collisions and debris.”
That the atmosphere is literally shrinking doesn't concern anyone here is funny, but even funnier is that people have been mischaracterizing Linares studies for atleast a decade as some kind of evidence that mixing a bunch of historically high concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere won't have any sort of impact on it's retention of heat.
From the study:
"Greenhouse gases like C02, trapped in the lower atmosphere, pull heat down from the upper atmosphere. The cooling effect on the upper atmosphere decreases density and, in turn, reduces atmospheric drag on satellites, which would normally pull them back down to Earth. As a result, the lifetime of satellites in low Earth orbit may be extended.
The upper atmosphere can only carry so many satellites before things start to get dangerous. In the new study, researchers aimed to evaluate the “satellite carrying capacity” of certain altitudes of interest, or “shells", in low Earth orbit by creating simulations of carbon emissions scenarios.
Increased emissions over the next century, the researchers found, will likely contribute to reduced carrying capacity in low Earth orbit. Based on this scenario, they estimate that the carrying capacity — or the amount of satellites that can safely exist within the altitudes of 200 and 1,000 kilometers — could be reduced by 50 to 66 percent by the end of this century.
“Our behavior with greenhouse gases here on Earth over the past 100 years is having an effect on how we operate satellites over the next 100 years,” says study author Richard Linares, associate professor in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro).
“The upper atmosphere is in a fragile state as climate change disrupts the status quo,” adds lead author William Parker, a graduate student in AeroAstro. “At the same time, there’s been a massive increase in the number of satellites launched, especially for delivering broadband internet from space. If we don't manage this activity carefully and work to reduce our emissions, space could become too crowded, leading to more collisions and debris.”
That the atmosphere is literally shrinking doesn't concern anyone here is funny, but even funnier is that people have been mischaracterizing Linares studies for atleast a decade as some kind of evidence that mixing a bunch of historically high concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere won't have any sort of impact on it's retention of heat.
How much money does MIT get for their endowment? from who?
How many predictions made by the pundits based on studies such as these have proven accurate?
R
So you’re saying it's a self correcting problem. The space junk will start falling out of the sky.
I thought CO2 was heavier and denser that O2 and other gases in the atmosphere. That is part of the reason why the plant life uses it because it tends to stay lower in the atmosphere and closer to the ground. I don't have an MIT education but I know how to read.
The majority of this specific department has always been funded by DARPA who is undoubtedly concerned about the impact to their combat effectiveness if they can't keep their satellites in low orbit. The broader project if you look it up is all about tracking the load satellite volume is inducing on the inner and outer atmosphere with no considerations to climate change but rather entirely focused on space trash and how difficult it will make it to continue operating launches/satellites.
This particular study is a small sub analysis of how that load will change due to the changing makeup of the atmosphere. Interesting read.
Did you read the first sentence?
"Greenhouse gases like C02, trapped in the lower atmosphere, pull heat down from the upper atmosphere. The cooling effect on the upper atmosphere decreases density and, in turn, reduces atmospheric drag on satellites, which would normally pull them back down to Earth. As a result, the lifetime of satellites in low Earth orbit may be extended."
Been real dry in the south west in the 2020's.
When else was it like that? The 1920's.
Ya know when else it was like that? The 1820's
When else was it like that? The 1920's.
Ya know when else it was like that? The 1820's
in order for this to have any relevance or fear mongering capability you must first prove that climate change is real via actual data that hasnt been massaged, excluded or otherwise edited. Good luck.
Which part of their conclusion are you saying isn't real? The more CO2 in the atmosphere due to carbon emissions from humans burning fuels, or that it's changing the density and makeup of the atmosphere?
Yes. But put off to the side the comparison on CO2 that came from Mount Pinatubo and the ongoing volcanic activty so that it can be compared to anthropogenic influences. Also be sure to strictly quantify what the actual % increase in CO2 is in our atmosphere since we have had satellites. Then quantify - with proof - of what the peak CO2 was in the past. After this is done, then fully explain why we need to stop human advancement so that we can keep satellites in the air when CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and why we should fight the earth and solar cycles.
Graphs. We need graphs.
Last edited:
Are you under the impression that the CO2 emitted when Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 is still mixed into our atmosphere? It most certainly is not the vast majority of that CO2 came back down to the Earth and embedded in the soil and oceans before the turn of the century.
You know what CO2 is still in the atmosphere? Almost the entirety of human emissions both before and after that eruption.
If you ignore that entirely however and just pretend that the CO2 in rock and ash shot out of a volcano has the same impact on our atmosphere as atomized gasses from burning petroleum or gassing methane the volume in comparison isn't hard to find:
| Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to 2010 global anthropogenic CO2 | 700 |
Humans generate 700 Pinatubos or 3500 St Helens eruptions per year. Additionally those eruptions are extremely rare occurrences.
I'm sure there are plenty of graphs that show this but I don't really think a graph is necessary. The math seems pretty straight forward.
Didn't the entirety of this whole "volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans" thing come from some Koch funded study anyways? Why would I believe Coal companies over MIT?
Their point of study isn't just that the lifespan of satellites will be reduced significantly, which are replaceable at increasing expense. It's that the overall load of satellites the near orbit atmosphere can support will be greatly decreased and therefore near orbit satellites will be significantly less feasible resources moving forward and into the near future.
We use near orbit satellites for all manner of critical infrastructure
MIT? You mean the guys that receive government funds for geoengineering research, collaborate with NOAA who was found to have altered climate data to meet certain criteria and created the Climate Policy Center that is involved with government policymaking? That MIT?
You still need to prove that CO2 is a poison -and- that humans are the root/majority cause of CO2 emissions -and- that any human caused CO2 emissions are the main driver of any temperature swings in the last 200-ish years
And you need to explain how the actual data that the fraudulent “hockey stick” was based on didn’t show a legitimate temp difference, even though that period of time was the Industrial Revolution
And then you can explain the buzzwords I posted above, that hint at any results the MIT researchers obtained were from some sort of climate modeling which has always overestimated human causes and underestimated the fucking cycles of the sun and inclination of the earth
Do you think the research they're publishing is bullshit? Go ahead and point out specific examples where you think these atmospheric researchers are bullshitting. You can actually become famous from doing this.
Are you asking me to prove that CO2 in a substrate of oxygen increases the heat absorption of that substrate, or are you asking me to demonstrate the degree to which that happens, or how that could change weather patterns?
I think if you agree that CO2 increases the heat in a greenhouse, the MIT folks seem to have a pretty reasonable observation regarding the upper atmosphere supporting low orbit satellites. None of that seems at all unreasonable to me.
Well, if they knew CO2 was previously much higher and assumed that for satellite purposes it would stay the same or within a very narrow boundary that isn't mankind's fault. It was a ceteris paribus error.
So you think that their study is sensible, just that they shouldn't have assumed CO2 would be consistent in the atmosphere in the first place? I'm pretty sure for all the prior historical instances of higher CO2 we have very clear understandings of what caused those, and how long it took etc. That's sort of the core IPCC thesis in all of their years of reports.
Yeah you asked me to recreate the entirety of the IPCC thesis rather than this specific discussion about CO2 causing the upper atmosphere to sustain less satellites like the original article.
The IPCC report is only like 2000 pages I'm sure we can unpack that here
No, I was talking about legitimate dataYeah you asked me to recreate the entirety of the IPCC thesis rather than this specific discussion about CO2 causing the upper atmosphere to sustain less satellites like the original article.
The IPCC report is only like 2000 pages I'm sure we can unpack that here
Called out the glowie when he first showed back up fear mongering bird flu, with an 8 or 10 year gap in posts. 
clowns gonna clown.
clowns gonna clown.
And just to put a bow on this thread
If you think climate change is bad now wait till the sun goes all red giant.
You always have to ask who is paying people to say what they say. Scientists lean way left because they have no common sense, and they get tons of money for doing research that, amazingly, turns out to support leftist pseudo-scientific hoaxes.
Hospitals were paid tens of thousands of dollars for every covid diagnosis, and look at the lies they went on to tell us. It was amazing. I remember downloading the official government diagnostic guidelines they used early in the pandemic. Testing was not even required. It took a long time for tests to be developed and distributed.
Any patient whose symptoms matched part of a list of symptoms commonly associated with the flu and other respiratory infections could be diagnosed with covid, and then the government would send a check. The amount started at about $13,000 per patient, went to $39,000 with a ventilator, and could go higher.
Imagine what went on in doctors' minds. "Hmm. He had a cough, a low fever, a sore throat, and chills. I don't know what it is. If I say it's covid, we get $13,000. If I say it's the flu, we get nothing. Hmm. This is tough. You know, this is really starting to look like covid to me."
Then the flu magically almost entirely DISAPPEARED for several years. What a coincidence that was! It was almost as if the vast majority of flu cases were recorded as covid, but we know that could never happen, because doctors are honest little gods.
Anyone who doesn't think this happened, or who has forgotten, needs to look it up. The flu just WENT AWAY. And we were supposed to believe it.
Now covid is disappearing. Why? They told us we would never get permanent immunity, even with the dangerous shots that killed a lot of people who didn't need vaccinations to begin with. But the figures last year were low, and this year, they're down around 2/3 from that.
In 2020, there were so few flu cases, they were nearly nonexistent. Last year: 40 million. Are we supposed to believe covid cures the flu?
I wonder how many people here knew folks who died from things like car accidents yet were listed as covid deaths. It happened. Guy near me died in a motorcycle accident and got written up as a covid casualty.
All I can say about global warming is that I hope it cancels out global cooling, which must have been afflicting us for the last 45 years. Scientists said it was upon us, so it must have happened. Personally, I did not notice it, but I live in Florida.
As for scientific consensus, the consensus among American scientists was that Kamala Harris would be a great president. This is a fact, and it should wreck anyone's confidence in the judgment of scientists.
Hospitals were paid tens of thousands of dollars for every covid diagnosis, and look at the lies they went on to tell us. It was amazing. I remember downloading the official government diagnostic guidelines they used early in the pandemic. Testing was not even required. It took a long time for tests to be developed and distributed.
Any patient whose symptoms matched part of a list of symptoms commonly associated with the flu and other respiratory infections could be diagnosed with covid, and then the government would send a check. The amount started at about $13,000 per patient, went to $39,000 with a ventilator, and could go higher.
Imagine what went on in doctors' minds. "Hmm. He had a cough, a low fever, a sore throat, and chills. I don't know what it is. If I say it's covid, we get $13,000. If I say it's the flu, we get nothing. Hmm. This is tough. You know, this is really starting to look like covid to me."
Then the flu magically almost entirely DISAPPEARED for several years. What a coincidence that was! It was almost as if the vast majority of flu cases were recorded as covid, but we know that could never happen, because doctors are honest little gods.
Anyone who doesn't think this happened, or who has forgotten, needs to look it up. The flu just WENT AWAY. And we were supposed to believe it.
Now covid is disappearing. Why? They told us we would never get permanent immunity, even with the dangerous shots that killed a lot of people who didn't need vaccinations to begin with. But the figures last year were low, and this year, they're down around 2/3 from that.
In 2020, there were so few flu cases, they were nearly nonexistent. Last year: 40 million. Are we supposed to believe covid cures the flu?
I wonder how many people here knew folks who died from things like car accidents yet were listed as covid deaths. It happened. Guy near me died in a motorcycle accident and got written up as a covid casualty.
All I can say about global warming is that I hope it cancels out global cooling, which must have been afflicting us for the last 45 years. Scientists said it was upon us, so it must have happened. Personally, I did not notice it, but I live in Florida.
As for scientific consensus, the consensus among American scientists was that Kamala Harris would be a great president. This is a fact, and it should wreck anyone's confidence in the judgment of scientists.
Absolutely. There is a lot of visual evidence to support it. Some speculate that it runs in a roughly 50 year cycle.
I read that report. He was killed in a motorcycle accident and it was listed as a COVID death because the antibodies showed up in his blood during autopsy.
Yes.
MSM made sure to help throttle anyone even having questions.
Are the MIT guys money-grubbing scum and idiots? Yes.
Why are they not also publishing the data of what is more important, which is heat reflection? Many gases and liquids can reflect radiation in the infrared and of heat. CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth at 15 is microns. Relatively invisible.
There is a huge bandwidth of reflection at 6 microns, which is water vapor, i.e., clouds.
Another throttled scientist proved with a 20 year study that gamma rays have to do with cloud formation. So, high solar activity that wards of gamma radiation affects the local climate.
Also, you geniuses at MIT have it bass-akwards because that's what pays the bills. It is the ocean that produces the largest amounts of CO2. Also, plants reverse the process somewhat at night.
Finally, since I have not seen you here before, let me educate you. I do not care what subject you bring up, you will find an SME or at least some educated people in the Pit who can and will debate you on it. Just be prepared for that and that argument from authority (these guys are from MIT!) is not a very successful tool of debate.
Similar threads
