CAMBIAMENTO CLIMATICO

Home Forum PIANETA TERRA CAMBIAMENTO CLIMATICO

Questo argomento contiene 45 risposte, ha 12 partecipanti, ed è stato aggiornato da Pasquale Galasso Pasquale Galasso 11 anni, 1 mese fa.

Stai vedendo 10 articoli - dal 11 a 20 (di 46 totali)
  • Autore
    Articoli
  • #75944

    zret
    Partecipante

    Quanto scrivi è globalmente corretto, Richard, ma sulla Terra, almeno per ora Tecnologia 1, Natura 0: infatti hanno il pressoché totale controllo del clima e dei fenomeni tellurici. I militari stanno tentando anche di influire sui fenomeni solari, bombardando il Sole (vedi sonda Soho) e forse questi blasts, alcuni almeno, potrebbero essere di origine artificiale. Certo che alla fine la Natura trionferà, ma, per ora, almeno qui, se la passa male.

    http://www.tankerenemy.com/2008/07/agli-albori-della-manipolazione.html

    http://www.tankerenemy.com/2008/07/progetto-starfish-il-giorno-in-cui-il.html

    Ciao


    #75945
    Richard
    Richard
    Amministratore del forum

    può essere come dici Zret, ma mi pare esagerato dire che hanno il controllo completo, anche perchè sta cambiando l'energia di fondo..ci manca che bombardano il Sole Zret.. mi scappa da ridere…sicuro quello che possono fare è causare un suicidio dell'umanità, non certo prendere il controllo..se controllare significa causare dei disastri allora va bene.


    #75946

    zret
    Partecipante

    Speriamo che cambi prima che gli apprendisti stegoni agiscano come il Dottor Stranamore.


    #75938
    Richard
    Richard
    Amministratore del forum

    https://www.altrogiornale.org/news.php?item.2060.10

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

    The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from predicted trajectories and velocities of various unmanned spacecraft visiting the outer solar system, most notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.

    Some possible explanations

    * observational errors, including measurement and computational errors, in deriving the acceleration.
    o Approximation/statistical errors
    o Significant errors in computation are not likely since (at current count) 7 independent analyses have shown the effect.[4]
    *

    a real deceleration not accounted for in the current model, such as:
    o gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, an acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle [5] (see modified inertia below).
    o drag from the interplanetary medium, including dust, solar wind and cosmic rays. However, the measured densities are too small to cause the effect.

    o gas leaks, including helium from the spacecrafts' radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs)

    o radiation pressure of sunlight, the spacecraft's radio transmissions, or thermal radiation pressure from the RTGs (See Radioisotope rocket), or asymmetrical radiation of the heat from the spacecraft electronics, reflecting from the back of the spacecraft’s dish-like main antenna, causing a recoil like sunlight striking a solar sail.

    + The pressure of sunlight is too small at this distance, and points into the wrong direction. The same applies to the spacecraft's radio emissions.
    + The others are prime suspects, as presented at the second ISSI meeting in Berne, Feb 2007.
    + A recent presentation at the APS April 2008 meeting suggests that differential heating may account for as much of 1/3 rd of the observed acceleration.[6]
    o electromagnetic forces due to an electric charge on the spacecraft
    * New physics
    o clock acceleration between coordinate or Ephemeris time and International Atomic Time.[7]

    o A modification of the law of gravity. The theory MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) proposes that the force of gravity deviates to a very different force law at very low accelerations of order: 1.0−11 m/s2 from the traditional Newtonian value.[8]
    o Modified inertia. MOND can also be interpreted as a modification of inertia, perhaps due to an interaction with vacuum energy and such a trajectory-dependent theory could account for the different accelerations apparently acting on the orbiting planets and the Pioneer craft on their escape trajectories.

    [9] More recently, a model for modified inertia using Unruh radiation and a Hubble-scale Casimir effect has been proposed to explain the Pioneer anomaly,[10] and a possible test for evidence of modified inertia on Earth has been proposed.[11] It has also been suggested that a modification of inertia can explain the flyby anomaly.[12]
    o Down-scaling of photon frequency as a consequence of integrable Weyl geometry. This connects the Pioneer anomaly with the Hubble parameter via conformal geometry, and in a sense obviates the need for an assumed expansion of space in favor of a local “down-scaling” of photon frequency – an effect similar to “tired light” but originating in the geometry of spacetime rather than as a higher-order gravitational effect.[13]

    o Extending the Hubble law (which relates the increase (redshift) of the wavelength of a photon from another galaxy to the expansion of the universe) to the realm of unbounded massive particles, the particle's associated de Broglie wavelength will be redshifted due to the expansion. This redshift corresponds to a decrease in the particle's momentum over time. Thus, the Pioneer spacecrafts' anomalous accelerations may be a counter example to the hypothesis of dark matter in the Milkyway galaxy.[14]

    ——————————————
    http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/articolo/1306385

    Altri ricercatori, come Robert Sanders dell'Università di Groningen e Mordehai Milgrom del Weizmann Institute of Science a Rehovot, si spingono però più in là: se confermate, le conclusioni di Tangen sarebbero estremamente importanti, ha osservato Sanders: “O l'anomalia del Pioneer non è reale, ossia esiste un altro effetto fisico di cui in qualche modo non si è tenuto conto, o esiste qualche alterazione della gravità che non ubbidisce al principio di equivalenza della relatività generale”.

    Zret , proprio il fatto che siamo arrivati agl inizi della comprensione per il controllo di queste forze, porta alla necessità a mio parere di un “esame” che faccia da filtro

    Il Sole è un “Occhio” dell'Uno O-O
    Il Centro della Galassia è un “Cuore” dell'Uno :cor:


    #75927

    deg
    Partecipante

    Che bel micino che sei Zret!!!!!! #amo


    #75928

    zret
    Partecipante

    Magari fossi così bello, Deg.


    #75929
    Richard
    Richard
    Amministratore del forum

    Guarda lo specchio e vedi il Creatore 😉


    #75930
    farfalla5
    farfalla5
    Partecipante

    io non mi intendo di queste cose…ma non penso che l'uomo possa vincere sulla Natura…non ne ha questa capacità….è meno male 😉


    IL PARADOSSO DELLA NOSTRA ERA: "Abbiamo case più grandi e famiglie più piccole; Piu comodità, ma meno tempo; Piu esperti, ma piu problemi; Piu medicine, ma meno salute;
    E’ un tempo in cui ci sono tante cose in vetrina e niente in magazzino.
    Parliamo troppo, amiamo troppo poco e odiamo troppo spesso.

    #75931
    farfalla5
    farfalla5
    Partecipante

    [quote1233415492=Richard]
    Viste le grandi censure dell'amministrazione Bush e quindi sui dati NASA ecc..è meglio che gli altri si sveglino, ne sono felice, speriamo bene.

    [youtube=425,344]s8F6OSCcB8o

    e a mio parere andiamo ben oltre le motivazioni economiche
    [/quote1233415492]

    ma che dice….in poche parole…?????


    IL PARADOSSO DELLA NOSTRA ERA: "Abbiamo case più grandi e famiglie più piccole; Piu comodità, ma meno tempo; Piu esperti, ma piu problemi; Piu medicine, ma meno salute;
    E’ un tempo in cui ci sono tante cose in vetrina e niente in magazzino.
    Parliamo troppo, amiamo troppo poco e odiamo troppo spesso.

    #75932
    Richard
    Richard
    Amministratore del forum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

    Responsibility for climate change

    Hansen notes that in determining responsibility for climate change, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate is not determined by current emissions, but by accumulated emissions over the lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By this measure the U.K. is still the largest single cause of climate change, followed by the U.S. and Germany, even though its current emissions are surpassed by the Peoples Republic of China.[14]

    On public policy, Hansen is critical of what he sees as efforts to mislead the public on the issue of climate change. He points specifically to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's commercials with the tagline “you call CO2 pollution, we call it life”[15], and politicians who accept money from fossil fuel interests and then describe global warming as “a great hoax.” He also says that changes needed to reduce global warming do not require hardship or reduction in the quality of life, but will also produce benefits such as cleaner air and water, and growth of high-tech industries[citation needed].

    [edit] Coal

    “Burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil and gas, increases the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases and particles in the air. These gases and particles affect the Earth’s energy balance, changing both the amount of sunlight absorbed by the planet and the emission of heat (long wave or thermal radiation) to space. The net effect is a global warming that has become substantial during the past three decades. Global warming from continued burning of more and more fossil fuels poses clear dangers for the planet and for the planet’s present and future inhabitants. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air. Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use”. [16]

    “Practically, I don't see how we can stop putting the oil in the atmosphere, because that's owned by Russia and Saudi Arabia,” he advised the House Committee on Global Warming. “We can make our vehicles more efficient, but that oil is going to get used and it's going to get in the atmosphere . . . and it doesn't really matter much how fast we burn it. But what we could do is stop the coal.” [17]

    In 2007 testimony against the construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking carbon capture and storage technology, he stated “If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.”[18][19][20]

    A 2008 document authored by Hansen and eight other scientists, entitled “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” calls for phasing out coal power completely by the year 2030 [21].

    [edit] Censorship controversy

    In 2005 and 2006, Hansen stated in interviews with ABC News, The Washington Post, and The New York Times that NASA administrators have tried to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[22][23][24] Hansen claims that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

    James Hansen has also appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the White House edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[25] He claimed that he was unable to speak “freely”, without the backlash of other government officials. “In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.”[25]

    Hansen’s claims of censorship by NASA attracted the attention not only of the United States Congress and various media outlets, but also of several legal defense organizations. The 2006 George Soros Foundations Network Report detailed the work of the Open Society Institute (OSI) in conducting a “campaign on Hansen's behalf” run by “the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee.” The report indicated this campaign had “resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy .” The report further stated this campaign was prompted by the experience of Hansen who “protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview”.[26] Hansen addressed this specific issue publicly and in writing, saying he did “accept pro bono legal advice for a while” from GAP but did not receive any direct funds.[27]

    Congressman Darrell Issa questioned Hansen's motivations in criticizing the Bush administration, noting that Hansen supported 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and also received a $250,000 Heinz Environment Award from the Heinz Foundation, run by Kerry's wife, in 2001.[28] Hansen, who describes his political views as “middle-of-the-road conservative”, stated in a 2004 speech at the University of Iowa that he would have preferred to vote for Republican John McCain had McCain been on the ballot, but settled for Kerry because of Kerry's stance on the climate change issue.[29]

    Hansen has said that a global tipping point will be reached by 2016 if the human population is unable to reduce greenhouse gases.[30] Hansen has said that IPCC scenarios for future sea level rise do not take into account ice sheet disintegration, which could cause several meters of sea level rise during the next century with unchanged climate forcings.[31]

    There is a short clip in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth that shows Hansen being questioned by Al Gore on May 8, 1989, at what appears to be a Senate hearing. Gore criticizes Hansen for apparently contradicting himself in a written testimony on global warming. At that point, Hansen reveals that the last paragraph in the testimony was not written by him, but added by someone else.

    Two years after James E. Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general report said “our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public.”[32]

    For a detailed examination of the Hansen censorship controversy, see Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming, by Mark Bowen.

    tradotto da google

    http://translate.google.it/translate?hl=it&sl=en&tl=it&u=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

    Censura
    Nel 2005 e nel 2006, Hansen ha dichiarato nel corso di interviste con ABC News, The Washington Post e The New York Times che la NASA gli amministratori hanno cercato di influenzare le sue dichiarazioni pubbliche in merito alle cause del cambiamento climatico. [22] [23] [24] Hansen crediti NASA che il personale di pubbliche relazioni sono state ordinate per rivedere il suo pubblico di dichiarazioni e interviste dicembre 2005 dopo una lezione presso l'American Geophysical Union di San Francisco.

    Egli ha sostenuto che non era in grado di parlare “liberamente”, senza il contraccolpo di altri funzionari del governo. “In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.” [ 25 ] “Nella mia più di tre decenni al governo non ho mai assistito a tali restrizioni sulla capacità degli scienziati di comunicare con il pubblico.” [25]


Stai vedendo 10 articoli - dal 11 a 20 (di 46 totali)

Devi essere loggato per rispondere a questa discussione.