Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Replies: 111   Last Post: Jun 18, 2014 1:15 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Michael J. Strickland

Posts: 20
Registered: 5/22/14
Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Posted: May 29, 2014 9:02 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Greg Goss" <gossg@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:bund2fFg7tkU2@mid.individual.net
> benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > CO2 is clearly wrong, but as for climate disruption being man-made
> > that is another issue. There are LOTS of other credible candidates
> > there. Including, CFCs, Space shuttle chemicals, air pollution (not
> > CO2), the hydrogen bombs set off in space creating new radiation
> > belts, HAARP, and God knows what other classified projects. Weather
> > modification for use in warfare has LONG been under development. No
> > doubt it's coming along quite nicely now.

>
> I love conspiracy theories, though I'm rational enough to set them
> aside when I'm done with them.
>
> My favourite at the moment is that "chemtrails" is a project to
> disperse high altitude sulfates to cancel out some global warming.
> After all, we started departing from the model predictions about 2000.



Some say it's ironic, because when we were "cleaning up" the air in the
sixties (Clean Air Act), our removal of the chemical soot actually
worsened the global warming problems because it was "screening" some of
the incoming solar radiation, but since we neglected to get rid of the
CO2 also, this "screening" was removed, thus increasing the incoming
power flux.

I'm not so sure because the soot would probably just have absorbed
incoming and outgoing heat and shed it to the rest of the air.

When something is perfectly reflected (like light into a mirror), it
delivers twice the momentum (and 4 times the energy, E = p^2/2m) as when
it is absorbed. Any attempt to "screen" out radiation with air chemicals
will just double the energy deposited in the air after the reflector
molecules are accelerated and shed their energy to neighboring
molecules. Absorbing chemicals will only add half as much energy to the
air.

How is this "chemtrail" cancelation supposed to work. If its trying to
increase screening, I don't have much hope for it. If its trying to
react the chemicals with existing greenhouse molecules to precipitate
them out, it might work.

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------------------

Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
michael0658@comcast.net
------------------------------------------------------------





Date Subject Author
5/27/14
Read nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/27/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Peter Percival
5/27/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
5/27/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Mike
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
William December Starr
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Michael J. Strickland
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Don Kuenz
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Michael J. Strickland
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Michael J. Strickland
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Kirby Grant
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Cryptoengineer
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/31/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
William December Starr
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Michael J. Strickland
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
antani
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
R Kym Horsell
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
5/31/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
5/31/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/1/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
5/31/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
cloud dreamer
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Jim G.
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
cloud dreamer
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
2ju
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Lynn McGuire
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Jim G.
6/2/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
William December Starr
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/31/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
R Kym Horsell
5/31/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Bill Steele
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
R Kym Horsell
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Virgil
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Peter Trei
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Virgil
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Lynn McGuire
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
R Kym Horsell
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Lynn McGuire
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
David Hartley
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Greg Goss
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Cryptoengineer
6/7/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/8/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
6/8/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/8/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
6/9/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Peter Trei
6/10/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/13/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/17/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/18/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/7/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/7/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
John F. Eldredge
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/6/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Bill Steele
6/5/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Thomas Heger
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
6/4/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
6/3/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
cloud dreamer
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The Starmaker
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
cloud dreamer
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
kefischer
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Michael J. Strickland
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke
5/28/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
William December Starr
5/29/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Peter Trei
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Michael J. Strickland
5/30/14
Read Re: nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Clarke

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.