Please see:

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html

On Mar 24, 4:57*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
Please see:

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html

Too bad our OCO was foiled. Guess that our Big Energy cartels and
cabals get to keep systematically polluting and otherwise losing our
helium as per usual.

It’s like this massive artificial tonnage release of helium per year
along with our failing geomagnetic force is no big deal, so instead
lets all focus on CO2 that’s too heavy to be going anywhere.

Perhaps it’s a good thing that fossil derived energy and its
unavoidable consequences is not necessary on Venus. However, our
unusually wet and icy Eden has become highly dependent or rather
addicted to the stuff regardless of the mostly negative and/or acidic
consequences of wet CO2 and wet NOx within our lower atmosphere and
surface environment, whereas the thinning of our protective upper dry
atmosphere is given loads of extra H2 and He.

One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that from natural
gas) that’s artificially released, is via the whole petrochemical
thing that’s creating essentially a one-way helium ticket to ride. On
a global basis, it seems we dispose of and/or they consume and
otherwise burn off nearly as much natural gas than regular end-use
energy consumers actually use, and as such it is unavoidably polluting
high and low in more invisible ways than most of us would care to
know.

Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff
or just raw venting of crude methane):
If on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as
methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse, 30 m3/
m3), and using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be
unheard of. Thus I’ll suggest 5% per given volume of extracted oil is
helium.

The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and
wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10
barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater
because the industry itself takes at least 10% of its own product in
order to function (an EROEI ratio of 4:1 or 25% is perhaps more
typical, and it gets much worse yet for oily sand whereas the NEG0,
as well as especially cost ineffective whenever the global spot market
for crude oil drops below $45/barrel, not to mention synfuel from
coal), so for this analogy effort we can safely take this volumetric
extraction of oil accounting to at least 5.5e9 m3/year.

5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr

2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr as helium.

I believe that’s taking just about all the natural production of
Earth’s helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings via
radioactive decay, and remember this artificial helium release is just
from our oil extraction process, including the oil industry
consumption of its raw natural gas that simply does not consume the
element of helium. In some instances the surplus of this raw natural
gas is for the moment getting pumped back into the ground, through
requiring considerable process energy in of itself. Oil extraction
and process data w/o obfuscation is next to impossible to come by,
therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s actually much worse
off than we can imagine, and the failed or perhaps foiled OCO mission
would have easily quantified such data independently, with sufficient
resolution as to pinpoint each and every natural and artificial source
of released and/or consumed gas.

Give or take e few numbers here and there, as to the all-inclusive oil
extraction and processing that often utilizes other commercial sources
of natural gas, could easily push their volumetric release of helium
upwards of 100,000 tonnes per year, not to mention whatever mother
nature releases, or the volumetric worth of our global natural gas
industries that do nothing but extract and distribute their methane
laced with the element of helium that only goes up up and away.

Even though we can’t see it, smell it or touch it, it’s still the one
of a kind mass that’s primarily derived from within Earth, and lo and
behold its forever going away from us. Remember, this report is just
focused upon what’s conservatively related to crude oil extraction,
and not of our natural gas which is unavoidably laced with helium, and
there’s other sources including coal, multiple other mining operations
and deep water extraction that’s also continually adding to mother
nature’s flatulence. Basically Eden/Earth has been hemorrhaging its
precious helium, that for the most part doesn’t recombine with
anything.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Please see:

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html


Too bad it's the sun and not evil CO2, eh komrade?



NASA Plot Of Earth's Albedo Correlates Strongly With Global Temperature

This establishes a solar link via cosmic ray variations modulating earth's cloud cover.

23 Jun 2007



Look at the plot of earth's albedo in figure 4 at the following link .



http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthS...2007_JASTP.pdf



The following can be observed



1.. Albedo decreased from 1985 and reached a minimum in 1998 (the hottest year)
This is consistent with the global warming trend over the same period.



2.. Albedo has been increasing since 1998, and this is consistent with the ten year
global cooling trend we are currently undergoing.


3.. This appears to be a complete explanation for our climatic varaitions over the last
40 years.


4.. This strongly suggests a solar link to global climate via cosmic ray variations
which modulate earth's cloud cover..


5.. There is no need for spurious explanations such as CO2.










Warmest Regards



Bonzo

On Mar 24, 4:34*pm, "ooznb" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

Please see:

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html

Too bad it's the sun and not evil CO2, eh komrade?

NASA Plot Of Earth's Albedo Correlates Strongly With Global Temperature

This establishes a solar link via cosmic ray variations modulating earth's cloud cover.

23 Jun 2007

Look at the plot of earth's albedo in figure 4 at the following link .

http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthS...de_Palle_2007_...

The following can be observed

* 1.. Albedo decreased from 1985 and reached a minimum in 1998 (the hottest year)
This is consistent with the global warming trend over the same period.

* 2.. Albedo has been increasing since 1998, and this is consistent with the ten year
global cooling trend we are currently undergoing.

* 3.. This appears to be a complete explanation for our climatic varaitions over the last
40 years.

* 4.. This strongly suggests a solar link to global climate via cosmic ray variations
which modulate earth's cloud cover..

* 5.. There is no need for spurious explanations such as CO2.

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

There is no measurable global cooling, as opposed to a measured degree
of global warming that's entirely objective.

However, CO2 is for the most part just a darn good indicator, at least
more so than a cause.

Dirty or sooty CO2 is however a global albedo dimming agent, though so
is dirty/sooty h2o. We are making our lower atmosphere measurable
dirty/sooty.

The OCO mission would have been our best science yet. Big Energy made
certain it failed.

~ BG

ooznb wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Please see:

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html


Too bad it's the sun and not evil CO2, eh komrade?



NASA Plot Of Earth's Albedo Correlates Strongly With Global
Temperature
This establishes a solar link via cosmic ray variations modulating
earth's cloud cover.

A completely insane lie.

On Mar 25, 6:33*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
ooznb wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
....
Please see:

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html

Too bad it's the sun and not evil CO2, eh komrade?

NASA Plot Of Earth's Albedo Correlates Strongly With Global
Temperature
This establishes a solar link via cosmic ray variations modulating
earth's cloud cover.

* A completely insane lie.

True, as cloud cover has to do with the saturation of h2o that's
increasing because the average surface and ocean temps have been
increasing, not to mention the millions of gallons per ray getting
artificially vaporized, and of course volcanic contributions by no
small measure.

~ BG