Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming

[petro]

Nothing could be more stupid than living where it snows ... Lord have mercy ... move where it doesn't snow ...

It's supposed to warm up.
Right?

Tropical in the midwest according to alarmist kooks. No more snow according to Al Gore, the Climate God.
So why move when the warming is supposedly coming to me?

Screw the poor saps on the equator. They can move when it gets too hot for them.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's supposed to warm up.
Right?

Tropical in the midwest according to alarmist kooks. No more snow according to Al Gore, the Climate God.
So why move when the warming is supposedly coming to me?

Screw the poor saps on the equator. They can move when it gets too hot for them.

So when Al Gore moved to Florida, you thought that meant it was safe to move to northern Manitoba? ... ... ... ... okay ...

I've lived near the equator ... it gets hotter in California ...

 

[gfm7175]

Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming​

Astrophysicists say the radical solution may reduce solar radiation by one to two per cent

Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming



Very interesting proposition they're making. Do you believe that it could reduce the solar energy reaching the earth?

Why would we want to reduce the solar energy reaching the Earth?
Are we meddling with things that we shouldn't be meddling with?

 

[gfm7175]

It has been COOLING for 8 years now:

From the NOAA website,

LINK

While I don't accept this data (or any other Earth temperature data for that matter) as valid, I do find it interesting that this agency (NOAA) is vocally crying about "global warming" while their own data is simultaneously showing "global cooling" (at least over the last 8 years). I suppose that the Church of Global Warming could just pick out a different arbitrary set of years and make claim to "global warming" from those.

 

[ReinyDays]

While I don't accept this data (or any other Earth temperature data for that matter) as valid, I do find it interesting that this agency (NOAA) is vocally crying about "global warming" while their own data is simultaneously showing "global cooling" (at least over the last 8 years). I suppose that the Church of Global Warming could just pick out a different arbitrary set of years and make claim to "global warming" from those.

Climatology is the study of weather averages ... and the longer period, the better ... our weather changes so rapidly it's scientifically unpredictable after a week ... year-to-year is just as insane ... and we really need a good hundred years worth of data to get a good solid grasp of what average weather is ... better is thousand year averages, and that does say "cooling" for the next 100,000 years ... carbon dioxide be damned ...

The problem is we only have 140 years of scientifically accurate temperature data ... we have to wait another 60 years to get our trends ... or we can split the data in half and compare, using 70-year time intervals ... and here we clearly see global warming ... it was 13ºC average between 1880 and 1950, and it's 14ºC average between 1950 and 2020 ... by definition, that's global warming ...

NOAA details every aspect of their "global average temperature" data ... it's just one way to measure this, there are others ... every single way will show this trivial amount of change, either up or down, we're at the very limit of the accuracy of the thermometers we have in the field ... in every practical sense, climate isn't changing ... stupid people will still live where it snows every year ...

ETA: Just checked my own forecast ... snow ... good thing boot leather is an acquirable taste ...

 

[ding]

Climatology is the study of weather averages ... and the longer period, the better ... our weather changes so rapidly it's scientifically unpredictable after a week ... year-to-year is just as insane ... and we really need a good hundred years worth of data to get a good solid grasp of what average weather is ... better is thousand year averages, and that does say "cooling" for the next 100,000 years ... carbon dioxide be damned ...

The problem is we only have 140 years of scientifically accurate temperature data ... we have to wait another 60 years to get our trends ... or we can split the data in half and compare, using 70-year time intervals ... and here we clearly see global warming ... it was 13ºC average between 1880 and 1950, and it's 14ºC average between 1950 and 2020 ... by definition, that's global warming ...

NOAA details every aspect of their "global average temperature" data ... it's just one way to measure this, there are others ... every single way will show this trivial amount of change, either up or down, we're at the very limit of the accuracy of the thermometers we have in the field ... in every practical sense, climate isn't changing ... stupid people will still live where it snows every year ...

ETA: Just checked my own forecast ... snow ... good thing boot leather is an acquirable taste ...

The best proxy that exists for global temperature is the rise of sea level. That rate hasn’t materially changed in 6,000 years. If the planet is materially rising in temperature we can expect to see the sea level do the same.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming​

Astrophysicists say the radical solution may reduce solar radiation by one to two per cent

Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming



Very interesting proposition they're making. Do you believe that it could reduce the solar energy reaching the earth?

/——-/ Another hare brained scheme from the loonie left. Hows abouts $35 million for some university research?

 

[ReinyDays]

The best proxy that exists for global temperature is the rise of sea level. That rate hasn’t materially changed in 6,000 years. If the planet is materially rising in temperature we can expect to see the sea level do the same.

Sea levels are rising ... ≈ 3 mm/yr with an acceloeration of 0.084 mm/yr/yr ... two feet in 100 years ... most roadbeds used for Interstate freeways are ten feet thick ... for comparison ...

 

[ding]

Sea levels are rising ... ≈ 3 mm/yr with an acceloeration of 0.084 mm/yr/yr ... two feet in 100 years ... most roadbeds used for Interstate freeways are ten feet thick ... for comparison ...

Is it accelerating though? If we assume that is due entirely to thermal expansion what does that say about the change in temperature? Wouldn’t it also have to be accelerating?

 

[ReinyDays]

Is it accelerating though? If we assume that is due entirely to thermal expansion what does that say about the change in temperature? Wouldn’t it also have to be accelerating?

Absolutely ... why wouldn't sea levels and temperature be constantly changing? ... constantly accelerating ...

Same with continental motion ... except continental motion is generally ten times faster than sea level rise ... Sidney is moving towards the equator at roughly 70 mm/yr, twenty times sea level rise ... for comparison ...

 

[ding]

Absolutely ... why wouldn't sea levels and temperature be constantly changing? ... constantly accelerating ...

Same with continental motion ... except continental motion is generally ten times faster than sea level rise ... Sidney is moving towards the equator at roughly 70 mm/yr, twenty times sea level rise ... for comparison ...

Because temperatures increases aren’t accelerating.

 

[ReinyDays]

Because temperatures increases aren’t accelerating.

Then why is sea level rise accelerating ... {Cite} ...

 

[ding]

Then why is sea level rise accelerating ... {Cite} ...

I don’t believe it is at least not due to CO2.

Acceleration is a really stupid way of describing sea level rise.

 

[ding]

Then why is sea level rise accelerating ... {Cite} ...

Have you seen this data before?

Sea Level Versus Temperature

roperld.com

I think making predictions about sea level rise acceleration rates and linking it to CO2 emissions is as ridiculous as Todd - or anyone else for that matter - arguing that electricity usage warms the surface of the planet like solar radiation does.

Let’s see if you can figure out why.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you seen this data before?

Sea Level Versus Temperature

roperld.com

I think making predictions about sea level rise acceleration rates and linking it to CO2 emissions is as ridiculous as Todd - or anyone else for that matter - arguing that electricity usage warms the surface of the planet like solar radiation does.

Let’s see if you can figure out why.

Electricity is magical.

100 watts of electricity cools the planet compared to 100 watts of sunlight.

 

[ding]

Electricity is magical.

100 watts of electricity cools the planet compared to 100 watts of sunlight.

Your an idiot for arguing electricity usage heats the surface of the planet like solar radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your an idiot for arguing electricity usage heats the surface of the planet like solar radiation.

You're an idiot for feeling the net result is materially different
for the same amount of energy.

A huge idiot for ignoring the extra 35% of solar energy retained by the panels.

 

[ding]

 

[ReinyDays]

I don’t believe it is at least not due to CO2.

Acceleration is a really stupid way of describing sea level rise.

Why wouldn't you use the quadratic ... r = 0.041 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr t^2 + 3.2 (±0.5) mm/yr t [where r=rise in mm and t=time in years] ... I don't know, do you think 84 µm is long distance? ... and as the paper points out, 25 years of satellite altimeter data isn't really enough to predict long term changes ... we can only say it has been accelerating, not that it is still accelerating ... "bdfawdgt6ui9o-[['[" -- Dusty the House Cat ...

Carbon dioxide has normal radiative properties ... so it will have a little effect on surface temperature ... SB says so ... the mistake in AGW Theory is that CO2 has extraordinary radiative properties, something that's not demonstrated ...

All I'm saying is that sea levels are rising ... and accelerating ... by slight amounts ... I don't know the cause, though man's carbon emissions contribute; along with deforestation, asphalt pavements, nuclear tests, commercial jet traffic, house cats, artificial lighting and solar panels ... the combined total of a lousy 1/8 inch per year ... ouch, I'm worried for my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Have you seen this data before?

Sea Level Versus Temperature

roperld.com

I think making predictions about sea level rise acceleration rates and linking it to CO2 emissions is as ridiculous as Todd - or anyone else for that matter - arguing that electricity usage warms the surface of the planet like solar radiation does.

Let’s see if you can figure out why.

David Roper is entitled to his opinion ... it's a shame no one will publish his work ... I think it might be because he's making up shit as he goes along ...

Okay ... I'LL BITE ... what is the current equilibrium temperature of Earth? ... here's a hint ... it's more than 14ºC, our current temperature ... we know this because radiative forcing is measured at 1.8 W/m^2 ... this value will be zero when we reach equilibrium ...