Meteoroids streaking through the atmospheres of planets such as Earth, Mars and Venus can change these worlds' air, in ways that researchers are just now beginning to understand. Most planetary atmospheres are made up of simple, low-mass elements and compounds such as carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen. But when a debris particle, or meteoroid, passes through, it can shed heavier, more exotic elements such as magnesium, silicon and iron.
Always look for the phrase "scientific consensus." Those are scientist who are depending on Cap & Trade legislation to knee cap their ideological adversaries, who are are for the most part conservative oil men known as the "ruling elite".....
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Always look for the phrase "scientific consensus." Those are scientist who are depending on Cap & Trade legislation to knee cap their ideological adversaries, who are are for the most part conservative oil men known as the "ruling elite".....
Actually, "scientific consensus" generally means that a fact has been accepted by a majority of the scientific community.
Do you always make stuff up as you go along?
I'm sure this has something to do with supposed man made global warming.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
I'm sure this has something to do with supposed man made global warming.
Why? The article is about effects on the ionosphere. That doesn't have much to do with warming or man.
Originally posted by kloejen
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Are you claiming that meteoroids are responsible for the current climate changes??
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by iforget
Having driven into the smog bank around LA
When was this?
Originally posted by kloejen
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by iforget
Having driven into the smog bank around LA
When was this?
and
this
Try googling "LA smog"...
This is caused by meteroids?
The radiocarbon content of some plant life has been linked to the distribution of smog in some areas. For example; presence of Creosote bush in the Los Angeles area has been shown to have an effect on smog distribution that is more than fossil fuel combustion alone
Originally posted by iforget
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
It has been a number of years probably 20.
I hope things have improved there if they did it certianly wasn't from ignoring the issue or denying the cause.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
That's Burbank, probably late 70's or early to mid 80s at the latest. You see I'm intimately familure with the area in question, skylines etc.
The radiocarbon content of some plant life has been linked to the distribution of smog in some areas. For example; presence of Creosote bush in the Los Angeles area has been shown to have an effect on smog distribution that is more than fossil fuel combustion alone
source en.wikipedia.org...
It's also an inversion layer producing area due to its location to the ocean, climate and typography.
Please come shop again?
Originally posted by kloejen
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
That's Burbank, probably late 70's or early to mid 80s at the latest. You see I'm intimately familure with the area in question, skylines etc.
The radiocarbon content of some plant life has been linked to the distribution of smog in some areas. For example; presence of Creosote bush in the Los Angeles area has been shown to have an effect on smog distribution that is more than fossil fuel combustion alone
source en.wikipedia.org...
It's also an inversion layer producing area due to its location to the ocean, climate and typography.
Please come shop again?
Lol.. so once again we can blame it on Bush?
Guess It's all natural then! Bushes and meteroids! Nothing to worry about!
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Flimsy arguments
There are many credible arguments against the conclusions of climate scientists and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate science, like any branch of science, is far from "settled." But Coleman's program, which you can watch online in four installments, offers nothing more than a loose collection of long-debunked arguments against the conclusion that human emissions of greenhouse gases are helping to cause global temperatures to increase, and features a parade of climate change skeptics who portray climate science as a giant conspiracy.
There is healthy skepticism, and then there is paranoia.
Coleman pins the bulk of his scientific argument on the fact that, according to historical records of temperature change and atmospheric composition, there is a lag between the rise and fall of carbon dioxide and the rise and fall of temperatures. But it is well known in the climate science community that carbon dioxide can act at various times as either a climate feedback or a climate forcing mechanism -- that is, it can amplify changes already underway, or instigate them in the first place. This has been explored in numerous studies and has been explained by a wide variety of sources, including this 2007 piece at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, this page at NOAA, and Spencer Weart's comprehensive "Discovery of Global Warming."
Yet Coleman still cites the feedback/forcing issue as evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide do not cause climate change.
"This is it, the basic scientific failure in the Al Gore IPCC global warming case," Coleman states.
Furthermore, Coleman claims he is being apolitical in his criticism of climate science, which is bizarre considering how overtly political his documentary actually is. In one moment, Coleman says the program is not about advocating a political view, yet in the next he says the number one reason for exploring the "other side" to climate science is because the EPA has classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and this, Coleman says, "will lead to major new taxes and fees..."
"The EPA ruling may have a major impact on your way of life," he warns viewers.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
I'm sure this has something to do with supposed man made global warming.
Why? The article is about effects on the ionosphere. That doesn't have much to do with warming or man.
So any additional particles added to the top layers of our atmosphere have no reflective affects on sunlight, heat retention, etc, and thus no impact on planetary warming? And how long will the material stay up that high? What about gravity overtime?
Such elements can have a significant impact on the circulation and dynamics of winds in the atmosphere, researchers say."significant impact"
It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.
Many oceanographers have a hunch about what is going on: Climate change, Ray Schmitt, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, told journalists during a news conference Wednesday
Over the past 50 years, the salty parts of the oceans have become saltier and the fresh regions have become fresher, and the degree of change is greater than scientists can explain.
Excerpt from the article...
How do meteoroids affect Venus's and Mars's ionospheres?
Recent discoveries in the ionospheres of Venus and Mars of layers of metal ions that have been known to exist on Earth for decades have opened a new area for observationally constrained comparative planetology.
Funny how there is really nothing published about meteor shower activity over the past 50-60 years as far as studying the activity rates are concerned.
In general I still have my money on this being the main cause of global warming
I thought more energy meant more mixing of the oceans, more convective activity.Why? If it is the sea surface is being warmed, how would that affect convective activity do you think? Weren't you just talking about temperature inversions? Seems you would understand what a temperature inversion is.
And I can't figure out why NASA is so eager to getting into studying the oceans so recently?
