Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's right, NASA is funded by God, not the Federal government, which is composed of human beings who need to get elected and collect campaign contributions <sarc>
I never stated NASA is not funded by the government, I stated their funding is not dependent on climate change. They will get funding regardless.
In regards temps and fire-- not really a direct consideration-- flash point of wood is ~560 def F-- whether nite temps go down to 65 or even 75 doesn't make any difference (10 deg is 1.2% difference). Don't confuse effect of temps on fire with effect of moisture on fire-- warm temps usually mean drier fuel- easier to burn.
BTW- it's the sugar content of the apple that make the difference, not the color. And I believe your statement is wrong- it's ethylene that causes the color change- and less is made at cooler temps. OTOH-Fall leaf colors are less impressive with warmer nites.
I know more about forest fires than apples.
I was just posting what the climatologist was saying in the LA Times article. Relative humidity recoveries at night are what everybody talks about on fires. That does make a difference.
But on apples........living in the Apple Capitol of the World I do know that it is was easier to sell a red apple. One reason the apple industry settled in eastern Washington was due to the cool nights in the fall.
Here is part of a technical paper on coloring of apples.
Temperature:
• Again, temperature effects depend on the cultivar and stage of fruit development.
• Reddening of apple fruit is increased by low temperatures such as those encountered on
cold nights. At temperatures below 70 ºF, researchers found that there was and inverse
relationship between anthocyanin content and temperature.
• Researchers found that with 'Mclntosh' apples, low night temperatures were better
correlated with good coloration than either average daily or daylight mean temperature.
Practically no anthocyanin was produced when average night temperatures were above
about 70 °F.
• 'Red Chief apples appeared to color better when night temperatures were about 52 °F
than when night temperatures were about 72 °F.
• Low temperatures need not occur only during the night to induce color development but
can enhance apple coloration if experienced during either the light or dark periods.
• The benefits of tow night temperatures can be completely negated by a subsequent
exposure to even one hot (89 °F) day.
• It has been suggested that low temperatures may reduce the loss of sugars in the skin, by
reducing respiration, which allows more sugar substrate for anthocyanin production.
• Some researchers suggest that one of the main ways that temperature influences
anthocyanin production is by increasing (at low temperatures) or decreasing (at high
temperatures) PAL activity. At high temperatures, the tissue may produce a PAL
inactivator which reduces PAL activity while at low temperatures, this inactivator may
not be as active.
(Lancaster, 1992; Saure, 1990; Blankenship, 1987; Faragher, 1983; Creasey, 1968; Creasy, 1966;
Creasy, ~ 1966 New York State Horticultural Society; Uota, 1952; Arthur, 1932; Magness
1928b)
It think the interesting thing with climate change is we really don't know the total impacts of climate change.
As I noted before I believe that natural climate change is much more important than man caused climate change. It is unfortunate, that we are not paying attention to natural climate change history.
Problem is other places are now getting a taste for SUV’s ....like China....
if 1.4 billion all buy automobiles ...
and other big countries like India...the World could eventially be doomed.
Not true. All people have a right to pursue an excellent life, including cars, good jobs, and a first world life. The planet will do fine, we are very smart at adapting to higher temperatures and higher sea levels. There will be many positives to go along with the negatives. Climate armageddonists are so negative.
I never stated NASA is not funded by the government, I stated their funding is not dependent on climate change. They will get funding regardless.
Not true. To remain relevant and money-sucking, NASA needs to create a need for itself. Climate armageddonism is one such vehicle. I would like to propose that NASA be abolished. The private sector is ready to shortly be blowing NASA out of the water in terms of aerospace advances, and the military can do its own research and development on weaponizing aircraft and spacecraft for our defensive needs. It is time for NASA to go. The federal government has no business stealing tax dollars for space exploration. The private sector can handle this, and can do a better job than a wasteful NASA.
Problem is other places are now getting a taste for SUV’s ....like China....
if 1.4 billion all buy automobiles ...
and other big countries like India...the World could eventially be doomed.
I wouldn't worry abut that too much....You ever see those guys drive?
In regards how much we should trust all those highly decorated scientists, a picture's worth 10,000 words:
Just out of interest I decided to plot the raw temperature data for my home city of Brisbane, Australia from the GISS (ie the raw GHCN data) against the homogenized or adjusted GISS GHCN data. The temperature sensor is located at the Brisbane Eagle Farm Airport which is now our busy main international airport. The data used is the series available from 1950 to 2008. I have animated the result to highlight the difference
Temperature sensor (one single sensor) is at an Eagle farm airport that changed to a busy main international airport.. Its the data from one sensor.. and that refutes everything from real climate scientist. Sort of funny..
Can I smell another conservative blogger with an agenda that doesnt involve actual science?
It would seem that the liberal media deems anyone with a dissenting opinion a radical or conspirator. The questionable facts are all from the people providing the facts-- see posts above about adjustments of data, Climategate, "hide the decline" etc etc.
I'm not looking at liberal media, maybe just some peer-reviewed scientific data. I mean, if climate change is as much of a hoax as you say it is clearly there is an actual scientist somewhere to back that up and not just some guy's wordpress blog.
I did, of course, look up "climategate." Here's the first thing that popped up:
"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming."
Re: heat capacity-- do you boil the water for your morning eggs by holding the fire above the pot of water or underneath.? The oceans control the air temp-- "It will be 88 today; colder near the lake."
There is no comparison. Oceans are not like a pot of water being boiled above a fire. Oceans don't heat up from below, they heat up from above at the surface. When an ocean's surface temperature is rising the consequence is warmer air temperature above the ocean too. And near the surface where there is more light is where the majority of marine life exists because that's where the food is. When the surface water gets too warm that's when marine life dies.
The oceans influence weather and climate and air temperatures, they don't control it, but oceans are not the only thing that influence air temperature. The earth surface does too, the planet's surface absorbs radiant heat and radiates that heat into the atmosphere above it and greenhouse gases prevent that heat from dissipating into space. And wherever there are higher populations of humans on earth there are higher productions of man-made heat radiating from earth's surface into the atmosphere, as well as there being higher productions of greenhouse gases.
In simplest terms what it really all boils down to is that the greenhouse gases that we've been pumping up there into the atmosphere have and still are forming an ever thickening envelope around earth and are increasingly trapping more and more heat inside the envelope. It's kind of like being wrapped up and trapped inside an electric blanket with a faulty safety switch that doesn't turn off the heat when it's supposed to.
Everything inside the envelope of greenhouse gases is getting hotter and is slowly getting cooked.
Temperature sensor (one single sensor) is at an Eagle farm airport that changed to a busy main international airport.. Its the data from one sensor.. and that refutes everything from real climate scientist. Sort of funny..
Can I smell another conservative blogger with an agenda that doesnt involve actual science?
I think you misunderstood: the raw data is that which the same one "sensor" (thermometer) actually read thru the years. Those readings went down over time. The airport grew/got busier over time, so one would expect an "urban heat island effect" but the temps still went down (got even colder, but the UHI effect kept them from falling more)….then after the brains at GISS dealt with the numbers, they wound up showing a warming trend. ???? read the comments section. Others did the same for their own home towns and got similar results. The WUWT site is referenced and an author there did an even more extensive expose of the problem. GISS revised the numbers three times in the past 10 yrs.
I like Babe Ruth. Can we arbitrarily add 100 HRs to his total to keep him first on the list?
Roy Spencer is the climate scientist who runs the UAH program (the satellite program). Here's his site http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ He has remained politically and scientifically neutral on this subject, feeling it is not yet settled on how much co2 contributes to the weather & climate.
Not true. To remain relevant and money-sucking, NASA needs to create a need for itself. Climate armageddonism is one such vehicle. I would like to propose that NASA be abolished. The private sector is ready to shortly be blowing NASA out of the water in terms of aerospace advances, and the military can do its own research and development on weaponizing aircraft and spacecraft for our defensive needs. It is time for NASA to go. The federal government has no business stealing tax dollars for space exploration. The private sector can handle this, and can do a better job than a wasteful NASA.
Climate change is only part of NASA's funding. They receive plenty of funds for space exploration, education, the Europa Clipper mission, etc. If you disagree with their funding, vote accordingly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
