"Meteoroids Change Atmospheres of Earth, Mars, Venus"

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I'm sure this has something to do with supposed man made global warming.



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.


Finish reading the article here> www.space.com...

Well, well, well more evidence that evil man made global warming might have another source, but the Chris Hayes fanatics of the world will still tie meteors to acts of man somehow. This is what they are> www.bing.com...|||| Yep he and his bunch are nutty that's for sure.

NOTE: Always look for the phrase "scientific consensus." Those are scientist who are depending on Cap & Trade legislation to knee cap their ideological adversaries. Adversaries who are for the most part conservative oil men known as the "ruling elite." These "scientific consensus" scientists hope to be one day well financially armed with mass funds raised by their knights in shinning armor far left science philanthropists, social engineers, such as Evelyn Rothschild (and his Jesus looking kid in the second video), Al Gore and Jeffrey R. Immelten.wikipedia.org... Folks in the media like Chris Hayes are simply ideologically driven useful idiots that will give the Rothschilds of the world the rope in which they will financially hang us with. They will be reviving with their carbon credit holdings 90 of every dollar spent on goods and services in the future. Cap & Trade will increase the price of every thing 10 fold. Carbon Credits owned by some of the most far left radical self serving thinkers on this planet. The type who have no issue living in palaces and flying on private jets while the rest of us live in mud huts, starving and riding bicycles for our main mode of transportation.

I'm for Obama, but he is WRONG when it comes to embracing global warming hysteria. Of course Jeffrey Immelt has him in his pocket who wants to pirate with Cap & Trade legislation the global energy market, and thus central banking with Al "Capone" Gore and social engineer Evelyn Rothschild and son David, and so that explains Obama's public position.

All in all this goes to show that as time goes on there are much more natural influences on our planet's atmosphere than first meets the mediate eye. Blaming man for atmospheric changes is an economically and politically motivate fanciful and irrational claim. This fact is coming to light more and more with discoveries such as illuminated in the article I've posted above.




edit on 9-9-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: I changed some content.




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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've seen the polling data on what the majority of this so called scientific community believes in benefiting from cap & trade. Unlimited funding for their future projects by the likes of the Rothschild family, Gore and GE CEOs, the ones who will come after Immelt. Major holders of Carbon Credits ALL.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Are you claiming that meteoroids are responsible for the current climate changes??



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kloejen
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Are you claiming that meteoroids are responsible for the current climate changes??


Could have some. However most planetary warming is caused from Milankovitch cycles and solar cycles.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I don't care how much climate change is related to human activity I would rather live in a world of clean energy barons than oil barons. Profiteers are everywhere. Having driven into the smog bank around LA I have to believe that it is possible for humans to have an influence on our atmosphere. If ideas related to minimizing these effects are used by some to further their own agenda, as every other idea has been throughout history, then it is still possible there may be sone positive change and furtherbit strikes me that the negatives mostly apply only to those who now hold the power provided by the importance of oil.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 




Having driven into the smog bank around LA



When was this?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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?


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?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

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.


Because of LA and the surrounding area's unique natural atmospheric conditions which I listed in my last post above at the end, the rest of the planet's human inhabitants have to be chained to a consumer slave system based on a carbon credit scam created and benefiting only far... far... left wing super wealthy folks?
edit on 9-9-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: I reworte some content.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

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!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

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!






posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool


Interesting... but extremely flawed




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.


source

Al thou i agree that introducing a new tax is not going to solve anything.

Climate change is real. Who is to blame? Probably man, but does it matter? The question is, can we do anything about it? Except enforcing new taxes...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

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?

Not really much effect. The ionosphere doesn't have much affect on climate but we're talking about atoms here, not really large enough to reflect much of anything.

You understand that meteors have been entering the ionosphere for a very long time, right? Sort of hard to understand how it would have any different affect now than before.
edit on 9/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Excerpt from the article

Such elements can have a significant impact on the circulation and dynamics of winds in the atmosphere, researchers say.
"significant impact"

Isn't that a relative comparative statement? Meaning an outliers can form, maybe more recently? 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. Just survey after survey about the number of near Earth doomsday objects. Chicken Little crap.

In general I still have my money on this being the main cause of global warming> www.dnr.mo.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.



On other GW news> www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition"

Says

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


Before that that article says


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.


I thought more energy meant more mixing of the oceans, more convective activity. So are they cooling ya think?


And I can't figure out why NASA is so eager to getting into studying the oceans so recently?

What happen to NOAA? Other government agencies, other than NASA, and administrations along with Universities such as hmsc.oregonstate.edu... for example seem to me more than equipment to competently study and analyze such matters.

Why is NASA so interested in such things? Are they politically motivated in promoting the Cap & Trade agenda? Are they wanting to pirate the FED with E. Rothschild, Immelt and Gore through the Carbon Credit scam to rob the petrol and coal industries, their bottom lines, profits?

There are hundreds of billions annually for the taking if they can cash in on all those carbon credits. I bet NASA is looking for massive kickbacks one day in the form of endless funding, what do you think?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Excerpt from the article...

Which researchers? Not the ones who authored the article which the Space.com article is about, unless they are talking about ionospheric winds (again, not much impact on climate).

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.

www.agu.org...


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.

Are you sure about that? But are you saying that there has been a change in "meteor shower activity". Why do you think that? Still not getting your point about meteors and climate change.


In general I still have my money on this being the main cause of global warming

Not sure it can account for the rapid changes we've been seeing but what does it have to do with meteors and why do you think the article about meteors has anything to do with 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?

NASA has been involved with Earth sciences for a while. They are well equipped to do so.
nasascience.nasa.gov...

But I guess you think learning more about how our world works is a waste of time.

edit on 9/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Well, well, well more evidence that evil man made global warming might have another source,


I guess you didn't read or understand the article you quoted. But don't worry, the mutant star goat will be here soon .....

Seriously, did you have to spoil an interesting science story with religio-political nonsense entirely unrelated to it?





top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join