No such thing as global warming? Not based on the Arctic circle wars

Chapdog said:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia must stake its claim to a slice of the Arctic's vast resources, the secretary of Russia's Security Council said on Friday at an unprecedented session of the council held on a desolate Arctic island.
Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, is in a race with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States for control of the oil, gas and precious metals that would become more accessible if global warming shrinks the Arctic ice cap.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKLC30090620080912
Click to expand...

Two or three more good winters like last one--and good luck pushing the lie. Facts are facts--and it does not get any more clear than dropping mecury. Numbers don't lie---green liberials and liberial statisticians do.
 
Solitary said:
The fact that you believe it has to do with taxation does not change the effects of significant increases in CO2.

It only addresses your motive for wanting to deny the facts.
Click to expand...

The worl d has had up to 9 times more CO2 than now, and it does not even comprise of 1% of our atmosphere. Methane gas is about 26 times more effective as a green hous gas, and water vapor, by far, is the most effective green house gas. Does the Prius really have harmless emissions? If it actually adds water to the planet, that might not be a great idea--know water vapor is the #1 green house gas.
 
Solitary said:
The fact that you believe it has to do with taxation does not change the effects of significant increases in CO2.

It only addresses your motive for wanting to deny the facts.
Click to expand...

Those are not facts. They are lies. It is not proven that global warming is cause by the greenhouse effect. That's the truth. Get over your agenda.
 
Solitary said:
The fact that you believe it has to do with taxation does not change the effects of significant increases in CO2.

It only addresses your motive for wanting to deny the facts.
Click to expand...

The world has had up to 9 times more CO2 than now, and it does not even comprise of 1% of our atmosphere. Methane gas is about 26 times more effective as a green hous gas, and water vapor, by far, is the most effective green house gas. Does the Prius really have harmless emissions? If it actually adds water to the planet, that might not be a great idea--knowing FOR FACT water vapor is the #1 green house gas.
 
theMAJORITY said:
The worl d has had up to 9 times more CO2 than now, and it does not even comprise of 1% of our atmosphere. Methane gas is about 26 times more effective as a green hous gas, and water vapor, by far, is the most effective green house gas. Does the Prius really have harmless emissions? If it actually adds water to the planet, that might not be a great idea--know water vapor is the #1 green house gas.
Click to expand...

Methane and water vapor are both far more efficent at producing a greenhouse effect. That is why, methane and water vapor, in sufficient quatities would be considered pollutants (provided you could show that the water vapor would remain water vapor)
 
Solitary said:
Methane and water vapor are both far more efficent at producing a greenhouse effect. That is why, methane and water vapor, in sufficient quatities would be considered pollutants (provided you could show that the water vapor would remain water vapor)
Click to expand...

Any given substance can be harmful in enough quantities. That doesn't mean everything should be labelled a pollutant.

But thanks for the new irrelevant topic. Focus like a lazer beam. (M.E.D. V as in vagina. E. D.)
 
AssHatZombie said:
Those are not facts. They are lies. It is not proven that global warming is cause by the greenhouse effect. That's the truth. Get over your agenda.
Click to expand...



I have said all along that there is no proof that the greenhouse effect has caused any change in the climate.

Let me say it again, since reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit....

I have said all along that there is no proof that the greenhouse effect has caused any change in the climate.



As for my agenda, I have none here. Apparently you do. But your success rate is abysmal.

I was providing a little scientific data to the argument. I was not saying that global warming is real or that the greenhouse effect has anything to do with it.

I did say that the greenhouse effect is real. But what that means, for those of you who flunked science, is that there is actually a measureable phenomenon called "the greenhouse effect", in which certain gasses are shown to trap heat.




Ok, have I cleared things up enough for you? Or did I use too many big words?
 
Solitary said:
Ok retread, if you are going to jump into the middle of the debate, you might at least want to read what everyone has said before.

I have said all along that there is no proof that the greenhouse effect has caused any change in the climate.

Let me say it again, since reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit....

I have said all along that there is no proof that the greenhouse effect has caused any change in the climate.



As for my agenda, I have none here. Apparently you do. But your success rate is abysmal.

I was providing a little scientific data to the argument. I was not saying that global warming is real or that the greenhouse effect has anything to do with it.

I did say that the greenhouse effect is real. But what that means, for those of you who flunked science, is that there is actually a measureable phenomenon called "the greenhouse effect", in which certain gasses are shown to trap heat.




Ok, have I cleared things up enough for you? Or did I use too many big words?
Click to expand...

So then co2 should not be labelled a pollutant, even according to your criterion. Are you on something?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Any given substance can be harmful in enough quantities. That doesn't mean everything should be labelled a pollutant.

But thanks for the new irrelevant topic. Focus like a lazer beam. (M.E.D. V as in vagina. E. D.)
Click to expand...

I have tried to explain it to you as clearly as I can. Butyou are being intentionally obtuse.


Let me give you the facts:

1. CO2 allows the sun's energy in but does not allow the heat (energy) from the earth to escape.

2. The process described in #1 is called "The Greenhouse Effect".

3. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a significant amount would cause more heat to be trapped inside our atmosphere.

4. A sgnificant increase in CO2 fits the scientific definition of "pollutant".




Thoise facts are what I have argued. I have not said that the greenhouse effect is responsible for anything. I have not said that mankind is responsible for global climate change.


Are you clear now?
 
AssHatZombie said:
So then co2 should not be labelled a pollutant, even according to your criterion. Are you on something?
Click to expand...

You are truly retarded.

Go back and reread the definition of "pollutant". Now look at what happens when there is a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

In order for you to deny that CO2 is a pollutant you have to:

A) Deny that CO2 lets energy in but does not let heat out. (greenhouse effect)

or

B) Deny that increasing the amount of CO2 would increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere

or

C) Deny the definition of "pollutant" as stated by The American Heritage Science Dictionary. (at which point I would like you to provide me with a definiton from a documented source

or

D) Ignore the truth and the scientific facts in order to continue your argument.
 
Solitary said:
You are truly retarded.

Go back and reread the definition of "pollutant". Now look at what happens when there is a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

In order for you to deny that CO2 is a pollutant you have to:

A) Deny that CO2 lets energy in but does not let heat out. (greenhouse effect)

or

B) Deny that increasing the amount of CO2 would increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere

or

C) Deny the definition of "pollutant" as stated by The American Heritage Science Dictionary. (at which point I would like you to provide me with a definiton from a documented source

or

D) Ignore the truth and the scientific facts in order to continue your argument.
Click to expand...

A) According to this brainlessness anything can be a pollutant.

i reject your retardation on that grounds alone.

B) You admit yourself there is no proof co2 is harmful to the planet.

Yet another reason to reject your retardation.

You're putting an awful lot of effort into being stupid.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
A) According to this brainlessness anything can be a pollutant.

i reject your retardation on that grounds alone.

B) You admit yourself there is no proof co2 is harmful to the planet.

Yet another reason to reject your retardation.

You're putting an awful lot of effort into being stupid.
Click to expand...

Where in the fuck do you see that I said there is no proof that co2 is harmful to the planet?

I have explained in every way I possibly can that significantly increasing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat held in the atmosphere.

NOw how hard is that to understand???

I am not saying we have done that. I am just stating facts that if you increase the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere you will increase the heat held there.

YOu cannot deny that.
 
Ok, lets try this one more way.

Asshat, do you agree that CO2 lets the energy of sunlight in and does not let the heat of the earth out??

Asshat, do you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the amount of CO2 held in the earth's atmosphere?

Asshat, do you agree that a significant increase in CO2 in the earth's atmosphere would be detrimental or cause harm?




Ok, try answering those 3 simple questions.
 
Solitary said:
Corrupt science? Ok asshat, lets pretend that you are in a room alone. And its ventilated at the top, like many rooms are. If I put a towel under the door and emptied a few CO2 fire extinguishers into the room, what do you think would happen to you?



CO2 passes the visible lightthru, and absorbs the light that has longer wave lengths. These with longer wave lengths are the heat being radiated off the earth.

If there were no gases that absorbed the longer wave lengths, then there would be as much energy lost from the earth as there is energy gained from the sun. This means we would be freezing.

However, since some gases allow the short wave lengths to pass thru (sun light) and absorb the longer wave lengths (heat energy from the earth (Infrared and similar bands) the net is a gain of heat and therefore, a gain of energy.

If you increase the amount of CO2 gas in our atmosphere by a significant amount, you are trapping more heat. And trapping more heat means a rise in the temperatures.





Now, whether any atmospheric changes in the climate are manmade or part of a natural cycle has not been proven conclusively.

But CO2, in significant amounts, should be considered a pollutant.
Click to expand...

But that's the question. Is it really a signifcant increase? The extra radiative effect of increasing concentration is a logorithmicly decreasing figure. 90% of the radiative effect of CO2 concentration is reached by 10PPM (that's 10 parts per million... we are at close to 400PPM). The natural cycles of ocean warmth and cooling such as the PDO and the AMO are being shown to account for the climate shifts as well as the recent low in sunspots and the late solar cycle 24 are sending the global average temps lower than the 1998 el nino peak in temps.
http://icoads.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf


The science is far from over. The Svensmark Cosmic Ray Flux/ cloud seeding theory will be put to the test at CERN in 2012 I think. We'll see what the science brings us. The data seem to fit the cosmic ray theory. Solar cycle 24 is late by 2 years if I'm not mistaken. We've continued to see global temps stall in the face of increases in CO2. It's hard to accept CO2 as the grand driver of the climate in the face of this data. It's easy to see that natural climate variations will continue to drive things. Every day new findings are showing that biomass increases in response to CO2 and in some cases they iincrease their abilities to be carbon sinks thus providing natural mitigation to runaway global warming. More science is needed.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3124

ampr94.jpg
 
Last edited:
LOL

Someone will pop in and call me a flat earther. This could get fun.
here's the source pic for the cosmic ray flux/ cloud cover graph at the bottom of my pic.
shaviv_3.jpg



Here's the source for the sunspot graph
zurich.gif
 
Last edited:
Not at all Tinfoil. Excellent data.

The first study you referenced is fascinating.

The fact that the latest experiments show the increases of CO2 above 10ppm having negligible effects on retaining heat is news to me. I was unaware that the radiative effect of increasing concentration of CO2 is a logorithmicly decreasing figure. The models I recall in my college days did not show any of this.

Very interesting. I stand corrected. Thank you Tinfoil.



And asshat, don't go along like you knew this all along. If you had had a clue about the info tinfoil has provided here you would have posted it.

You were just going on about them wanting to tax us for breathing.
 
Solitary said:
Not at all Tinfoil. Excellent data.

The first study you referenced is fascinating.

The fact that the latest experiments show the increases of CO2 above 10ppm having negligible effects on retaining heat is news to me. I was unaware that the radiative effect of increasing concentration of CO2 is a logorithmicly decreasing figure. The models I recall in my college days did not show any of this.

Very interesting. I stand corrected. Thank you Tinfoil.



And asshat, don't go along like you knew this all along. If you had had a clue about the info tinfoil has provided here you would have posted it.

You were just going on about them wanting to tax us for breathing.
Click to expand...

I did know all your hokum was a lie. The political reason of wanting to tax us for breathing is the reason they insist on the greenhouse lie despite proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top