# Scientists Suggest Earth Could Be Uninhabitable In 300 Years



## rdean (May 15, 2010)

The Scientists say simply that Earth will become too hot for human habitation.
Research done by the University of NSW has also forecasted the effect of climate change over the next three centuries to be devastating. It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind's activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent by 2300. 
The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday. 

Scientists Suggest Earth Could Be Uninhabitable In 300 Years

But hey, that's a long way off.  Who cares?


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TDqvD34hEA]YouTube - Gloom Despair[/ame]


----------



## California Girl (May 15, 2010)

In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000. 

Key word: 'Suggest'.


----------



## random3434 (May 15, 2010)

Who cares? The world is going to end in 2012 anyway!

2012 Official Countdown: Must Read News About December 21, 2012


----------



## tommywho70x (May 15, 2010)

mutate or die. simple.


----------



## Angelhair (May 15, 2010)

_Ho-hum - more global warming stuff......wonder how many people are going to jump from buildings or drink the kool-aid just before 2012????????_


----------



## random3434 (May 15, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> _Ho-hum - more global warming stuff......wonder how many people are going to jump from buildings or drink the kool-aid just before 2012????????_



Probably the ones without a sense of humor.



Be careful!


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 15, 2010)

Wait a minute. I thought the whole 6% of scientists thing was a slam. I didn't know it was a compliment, 'cuz the other 94% are loony enough to believe this hogwash.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2010)

Does anyone know what happened to the Ice Age that was coming because of the pollution levels? Did all those filters on the smokestacks cause global warming?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2010)

Yet more hocus bogus to suppoert the Cap and Tax insanity and scam.  For you folks who think that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread I give you a nice little article excerpted here and the link for the whole article is below.

The global temperature savings of the Kerry-Lieberman bill is astoundingly small0.043°C (0.077°F) by 2050 and 0.111°C (0.200°F) by 2100. In other words, by centurys end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be. That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.

The American Power Act: A Climate Dud &#8212; MasterResource

So there you go.  For the priviledge of enriching criminals like Gore and the rest of the conspiritaors...you get to be poor, your children get to be reduced to indentured servitude....and it will have no measurable impact....brilliant like most of the policies you clowns promote!!


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2010)

California Girl said:


> In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.
> 
> Key word: 'Suggest'.


I thought we were supposed to be living on Mars, the Moon, and under the ocean by now too


----------



## Angelhair (May 15, 2010)

_But of course....back to ya._


----------



## California Girl (May 15, 2010)

hortysir said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.
> ...



Thus proving one thing.... these scientists that rdean worships are more often wrong than they are right. 

Damn.... that's probably why only 6% of them are Republicans. The rest of them are wrong.


----------



## syrenn (May 15, 2010)

Scientists HATE being wrong and LOVE being right. Making predictions that are based on a scientific fact are great for pats on the back for being right.

Shall I publish my findings? 

The earth like a pendulum will swing from one extreme to the other. Furnace to frozen back to furnace.The magnetic polls will flip. The oceans will rise and fall. Europe and Africa will some day be touching the east coast of the Americas. 

Do I get my degree now, huh do I, huh, huh. huh?

Anyone take anatomy? See the resemblance of the geriatric skull to an infant skull? The earth is not much different, it is only aging in geologic time.


----------



## L.K.Eder (May 15, 2010)

i heard that the magnetic rearrangement is overdue.

then we will be unprotected from cosmic rays.

then we will bruzzle sprouts, and die.

most of us. especially you.


----------



## random3434 (May 15, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> i heard that the magnetic rearrangement is overdue.
> 
> then we will be unprotected from cosmic rays.
> 
> ...



Even me?


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 15, 2010)

And here i was going to cut down this big old shade tree........


----------



## L.K.Eder (May 15, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > i heard that the magnetic rearrangement is overdue.
> ...




yes. you have a chance of 0.000000000000000000000----°12-----00000666! of surviving.


----------



## random3434 (May 15, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


, 
I wonder if I'll have to walk on the _Road _and take a _Stand _to_ Journey to the Center of the Earth?_


----------



## Samson (May 15, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> Who cares? The world is going to end in 2012 anyway!
> 
> 2012 Official Countdown: Must Read News About December 21, 2012



Yes, shortly after Palin wins over Obama.


----------



## Samson (May 15, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Echo Zulu said:
> ...



_All Mods Go To Heaven._

You won't be _Left Behind._


----------



## random3434 (May 15, 2010)

Samson said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares? The world is going to end in 2012 anyway!
> ...


----------



## L.K.Eder (May 15, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Echo Zulu said:
> ...



but but but, they look not outrageously hideous. and that is what counts.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2010)

rdean said:


> The Scientists say simply that Earth will become too hot for human habitation.
> Research done by the University of NSW has also forecasted the effect of climate change over the next three centuries to be devastating. It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind's activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent by 2300.
> The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

If we kill ourselves off the earth will rebound and life will appear again. BFD.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Uh huh....

The problem with their hypothesis is, we don't have enough fossil fuels to burn for more than a hundred years.... So.... What will be the problem once we stop burning fossil fuels? its just silly...... Seriously.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 15, 2010)

The earth can shake us off like so many unwanted fleas. Or simply correct itself and allow us to remain. Or of course it could go spinning off into the heavens.........


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> The earth can shake us off like so many unwanted fleas. Or simply correct itself and allow us to remain. Or of course it could go spinning off into the heavens.........



Yep... We are but one small blink of an eye in planetary terms....


----------



## Thinman (May 15, 2010)

All life adapts to a changing environment, as long as, it's not a 2 mile diameter asteroid.  Global warming is just one of those emergencies used to fleece the peasants.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The earth can shake us off like so many unwanted fleas. Or simply correct itself and allow us to remain. Or of course it could go spinning off into the heavens.........
> ...



And we're as arrogant as they come if we believe we have any say in the fate of the planet.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Amanda said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yep, and I know arrogant... LOL, I have my moments ya know? BUT I do not entertain notions of my supremacy over something so vast and incredible as the very reason I even exist at all....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2010)

Of course something as humble as bluegreen algea could not have totally altered the atmosphere, now, could it.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course something as humble as bluegreen algea could not have totally altered the atmosphere, now, could it.



Simplify much? You think the conditions now and then are the same? What we have a new blank slate to work with?


Freaking ignorant....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2010)

Freakin' ignorant is your trademark, Suckee....   The climate has been changed several times in the past by a rapid infusion of GHGs. The laws of physics do not care whether the GHGs are the result of Trapp volcanics, or the result of a specie burning fossil fuels, the result is the same.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 15, 2010)

bunch of crap


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Freakin' ignorant is your trademark, Suckee....   The climate has been changed several times in the past by a rapid infusion of GHGs. The laws of physics do not care whether the GHGs are the result of Trapp volcanics, or the result of a specie burning fossil fuels, the result is the same.



Well then you can explain how we can get between 13,000 and 43,000 gigatons of CO2 from only enough fossil fuels to create 5,000 gigatons? Thats what it took in the past according to your scientists... Been waiting on you to show that is possible for a while now and all you have done is either avoid it or post more of the same drivel....


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 15, 2010)

Are these the same Scientists who have presented Manipulated Data on Global Warming.. err..Climate Change?


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Are these the same Scientists who have presented Manipulated Data on Global Warming.. err..Climate Change?



YEP....Kinda says it all huh......

BTW, My son and I love those Dos Equis commercials....

Is it true your mother has a tattoo that says "son" ?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 15, 2010)

300 years huh?

Then it's not our problem is it.


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Are these the same Scientists who have presented Manipulated Data on Global Warming.. err..Climate Change?
> ...



Indeed it does..

Who doesn't? 

She does actually..  How did you know?


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...



We smell our own....


----------



## konradv (May 17, 2010)

California Girl said:


> In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.
> 
> Key word: 'Suggest'.



LOL!!!  The keywords here are actually "No Cite"!  You haven't actually proved that what "they said" the 70s isn't true!!!  Are you saying that ALL parts of the world that were inhabitable in the 70s are inhabitable now?  You better get busy, if you expect to prove that.


----------



## konradv (May 17, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Freakin' ignorant is your trademark, Suckee....   The climate has been changed several times in the past by a rapid infusion of GHGs. The laws of physics do not care whether the GHGs are the result of Trapp volcanics, or the result of a specie burning fossil fuels, the result is the same.
> ...



Sounds like a gross underestimation of the amount of fossil fuels.  Besides, it wouldn't have to get to the peak of past concentrations to have an effect on climate.


----------



## konradv (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> _Ho-hum - more global warming stuff......wonder how many people are going to jump from buildings or drink the kool-aid just before 2012????????_



I'm wondering how to make money off those who do.  Missed the Y2K opportunity to fleece the idiots.  Don't want to miss this one!


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2010)

Algore already figured it out....Scam people with gullible warming doomsday prophecies.


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> Algore already figured it out....Scam people with gullible warming doomsday prophecies.



You forgot the part about making millions doing it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2010)

[youtube]sP-4KemxrPk[/youtube]

The Sky is fallin, human race that we are
Has left me crawlin, staring straight at the sun
All in a moment, I notice
Every dog has his day
I paid attention cost me so much to hate

Bridge:
For so long I saw only wrong
But now to remind its a waste of time.

CH:
Close your eyes and see the sky is fallin.

VS2:
I wanted something, nothin, blank, I dont know
Its hard deflecting, stones are easy to throw
All in a moment I noticed
Hours days left behind
One wasted, useless, selfless
None of a kind

Bridge 2:
For so long I saw only wrong
Now to remind not to go back
To the low that has drained
My life so long

CH:
Close your eyes and see the sky is fallin.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2010)




----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2010)




----------



## boedicca (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Algore already figured it out....Scam people with gullible warming doomsday prophecies.
> ...




Correction: Billions.

That's why Goldman Sachs is one of his partners.


----------



## boedicca (May 17, 2010)

As to the OP, I'm of the mind that we should encourage the elite political class to believe it's true.

With a hat tip to "Hitchhiker's Guide":

Knowing the craven attitude of our political class, if they really believe the earth will become inhabitable, they will manipulate their power to ensure that any space colonization programs benefit them and their cronies.   Let's hope they leave, taking their looting cronies with them.  Actually, let's actively recruit them for the effort!

Then the rest of us can reform things to prevent such a class from developing ever again.


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists HATE being wrong and LOVE being right. Making predictions that are based on a scientific fact are great for pats on the back for being right.
> ...



Oh well then mr. first post  can enlighten us all as to how that is when even the scientists from the warmers say 300 years.....

we growing weary of this sock army attack. And do not send me to free server and expect me to take it seriously.... 8k.com sites are free...Also those free server/hosting sites are know to carry malware...


----------



## editec (May 17, 2010)

gslack said:


> Uh huh....
> 
> The problem with their hypothesis is, we don't have enough fossil fuels to burn for more than a hundred years.... So.... What will be the problem once we stop burning fossil fuels? its just silly...... Seriously.


 
Assuming that we haven't kicked off something untoward, like for example, the reintroduction of the enormous amounts of CO2 currently trapped in the permafrost.

Face it, nobody can predict what the climate will be in 300 years.

_NO_body.


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

editec said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh....
> ...



But the warmer scientists in the OP article did just that.....Better tell them that.....


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists HATE being wrong and LOVE being right. Making predictions that are based on a scientific fact are great for pats on the back for being right.
> ...



Very possibly true, but that does not negate the FACT the the earth warms and cools all of its own accord, regardless if it kills everything or not.  What you are really saying is your worried that humans will not survive. 



Seer Travis said:


> Global warming is real, but only the tip of the iceberg.



I cant help myself   If global warming is real then there wont be a tip of the iceberg. 



Seer Travis said:


> Sure, science is not always right, but it gets better, especially with modern computing. You cannot dismiss science because it was wrong before. For example, are we to dismiss the telegraph or the improved light-globe because Edison made so many failures? Do we suggest that modern electronics wont work because of a previous electrical device that didn't? Of course not. We can only judge each case by its own merit, NOT by the successes and failures of other scientific endeavours.



I am not suggesting the models are wrong. I am suggesting that global warming and cooling are a geologic fact that has nothing to so with the poor humans that inhabit it for a mere breath of time.


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...





correction noted, thank you


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists HATE being wrong and LOVE being right. Making predictions that are based on a scientific fact are great for pats on the back for being right.
> ...







Of course global warming is real..just as global cooling is real.  Man hasn't the power to destroy the planet yet.  We can sure screw it the hell up and make it uncumfortable for humanity that is true but destruction is far, far from our ability.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2010)

There is quite a collection of denier cult retards on this forum. Too bad you dingbats are so freaking ignorant and clueless about all this. Maybe if you all weren't as dumb as a bag of retarded rocks and had some education beyond the fourth grade, you wouldn't be such foolish dupes of the fossil fuel industry. Your denial of reality and scientific evidence is really pathetic. 

Scientists are starting to look more closely at the long range effects of rising CO2 levels/global warming/climate change beyond just the end of the 21st century. If we continue with a 'business-as-usual' course, the results are extremely disastrous for mankind and all of the other life forms sharing this planet with us.


*Climate change could make half the world uninhabitable

Climate change could make half of the world uninhabitable for humans as a rise in temperature makes it too hot to survive, scientists have warned.*

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
The Telegraph
Published: 7:30AM BST 12 May 2010
(excerpts)

Researchers from the University of New South Wales in Australia and Purdue University in the US said global warming will not stop after 2100, the point where most previous projections have ended. In fact temperatures may rise by up to 12C (21.6F) within just three centuries making many countries into deserts.

The study, published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said humans will not be able to adapt or survive in such conditions. Professor Tony McMichael, one of the authors, said if the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate it will cause catastrophic warming.

"Under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more," he said. "If this happens, our current worries about sea level rise, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties will pale into insignificance beside a major threat - as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there."

***

But he said there was a good chance temperatures could rise by at least 7C (12.6F) by 2300, that would also make much of the world inhabitable.

***

"It needs to be looked at," he said. "There's not much we can do about climate change over the next two decades but there's still a lot we can do about the longer term changes."

***

They urge instead the use of carbon tax revenue to develop technologies that can supply clean energy to everyone and provide 'human dignity'. 

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2010

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
*****

*An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress*

Steven C. Sherwood and Matthew Huber
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencies
 Published online before print May 3, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913352107

*Abstract*

Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31&#8201;°C. Any exceedence of 35&#8201;°C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7&#8201;°C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11&#8211;12&#8201;°C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12&#8201;°C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.

*Full Text (PDF)*

Copyright ©2010 by the National Academy of Sciences

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

editec said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh....
> ...



You have that right. Not even thirty years. 

Look at the predictions from the Alarmists ten years ago. They spoke of the Arctic Ice disappearing at that time. We will be lucky if there is any ice in the summer by 2050, considering to current rate of thinning. They spoke of the glaciers gone in Glacier National Park by 2030. Now there are only 25 left that qualify by being a patch of ice larger than 23 acres.

All the reports from the Arctic speak of methane bubbling out of the lakes, vast changes in the vegitation in the tundra and tiaga. Changes that are strong positive feedback loops. And, thus far, no negative loops in sight.

Now some seem to take solace from the fact that we cannot accurately predict the speed of the climatic changes, nor what it will do to specific areas. A rather pollyanna attitude at best.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

Rolling Thunder, your second article is from the National Academy of Sciences. That automatically excludes it from considerations from the drooling baboons on this board.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Seer Travis said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Would you care to back you suggestions with some real science? From real peer reviewed journals?


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Would you care to back you suggestions with some real science? From real peer reviewed journals?



Instead of diging up links  for you, how about you just think about this. 

Ever hear of the different ice ages? Global warming is what thawed them.

It doesn't get much simpler then that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 17, 2010)

Ah yes the history of the earth.

Hot

Cold

Hot

Cold

Hot

Cold


Did I miss any?


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ah yes the history of the earth.
> 
> Hot
> Cold
> ...



Yep, one more 
Hot
Warm
Cold

You forgot  about the warm in the middle


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Would you care to back you suggestions with some real science? From real peer reviewed journals?
> ...



Yes, I have. In fact, here are the people that I have heard such things from, since college days in the 60s.

A23A


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Would you care to back you suggestions with some real science? From real peer reviewed journals?
> ...


He ignores the fact that Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich were dead wrong, too.

Blind faith is like that.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

Hmmmm....... ol' Dooodeee........ That particular lecture has nothing at all to do with any of those people.


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2010)

They were wrong and so are you and your "scientists".

Deal with it, pink boy.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> They were wrong and so are you and your "scientists".
> 
> Deal with it, pink boy.



Your proof of which is?


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes the history of the earth.
> ...



Ah yes, should read:
Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm

That better?


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



   

Yes, that is much better.  

I am not sure how much easier or simpler it gets then that.  Hot,Warm, Cold, Warm Hot.


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > They were wrong and so are you and your "scientists".
> ...


The proof is that you'll not accept any evidence short of the hoaxers coming out and admitting as much...And you're such a blind warmerist cargo cultist nutbar that you probably wouldn't even believe that.


----------



## Samson (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I'm simple, easy, and hot.



oh, and I forgot: cheap.


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

Ok so which is it warmers? 100 or 300 years? Which batch of your scientists are lying this time? Are the 100 years guys lying or the 300 years guys lying?

Also, if we will out of fossil fuels in the next 60-70 years and when we burn them all we will contribute 5,000 gigatons of CO2; how could we match the 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 it took in the past to create acidic oceans and out of control warming?

Come on douchebags stop re-posting the same garbage. man up for once and stand up with your claims when they take fire.... Unbelievable how you guys operate.... Are you guys under the command of a 13 year old or what?

Seriously you are the most ill-informed and unprepared warmers I have met.....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



You confusing 'simple' with 'simple-minded', which is what you and your half-witted analysis are. You denier cultists barely qualify as half-wits so it is not very surprising that your take on things is so very simple-minded and moronic. 

You are like some idiot claiming that because in the past there have been forest fires caused by natural causes, like lightening strikes, then all the forest fires now can't possibly be caused by humans. You are quite frankly much too stupid to understand how illogical and naive your BS claims are. 

Crawl back in your holes, little retards, you don't know your asses from your elbows.


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



And you are confusing fact with fantasy socko....

I showed you the truth using your own sources and you still chant the mantra.... 

Face it your pseudo-science is only as solid as its premise. The premise is bullshit and its been proven by your own scientists... Therefore the pseudo-science is equally bullshit....

just like coming in here under several identities and or proxies....


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> You confusing 'simple' with 'simple-minded', which is what you and your half-witted analysis are. You denier cultists barely qualify as half-wits so it is not very surprising that your take on things is so very simple-minded and moronic.
> 
> You are like some idiot claiming that because in the past there have been forest fires caused by natural causes, like lightening strikes, then all the forest fires now can't possibly be caused by humans. You are quite frankly much too stupid to understand how illogical and naive your BS claims are.
> 
> Crawl back in your holes, little retards, you don't know your asses from your elbows.



Sometimes the simple answers are the hardest to understand or accept. 

I don't believe anyone would  argue or discredit that ice ages are thawed by global warming.

However please feel free to try


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> You confusing 'simple' with 'simple-minded', which is what you and your half-witted analysis are. You denier cultists barely qualify as half-wits so it is not very surprising that your take on things is so very simple-minded and moronic.
> 
> You are like some idiot claiming that because in the past there have been forest fires caused by natural causes, like lightening strikes, then all the forest fires now can't possibly be caused by humans. You are quite frankly much too stupid to understand how illogical and naive your BS claims are.
> 
> Crawl back in your holes, little retards, you don't know your asses from your elbows.


"Simple" as in Occam's razor, Mr. Elbowhole.


----------



## Samson (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You confusing 'simple' with 'simple-minded', which is what you and your half-witted analysis are. You denier cultists barely qualify as half-wits so it is not very surprising that your take on things is so very simple-minded and moronic.
> ...




Ice ages should be thawed by running cold water over them.


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> "Simple" as in Occam's razor,



 LOL, is see you see.


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Don't give him that kind of fuel.... he will back with a thread about running water stirring up the oceans causing faster global warming....


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

gslack said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Actually to much running water ie: fresh water rivers and streams running into the ocean, will cause global cooling


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



yes, Yes quite right.... much more scientifical sounding that way... And we all know how them warmers love them some sciency stuff.....

Wow I was nearly as sciencier as oldrocks himself there.....


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

how about that?

The Science of Abrupt Climate Change : Weather Underground


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> how about that?
> 
> The Science of Abrupt Climate Change : Weather Underground



Dang you done went and got all scienctificalous on us.You got you some edumacaton dint you..... Thats okay I aint sceered....


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dang you done went and got all scienctificalous on us.You got you some edumacaton dint you..... Thats okay I aint sceered....



Ayyup I show did!  Sceered? Naww cant have that now can we?


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dang you done went and got all scienctificalous on us.You got you some edumacaton dint you..... Thats okay I aint sceered....
> ...



Smart girls is sexy not sceeery..


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2010)

Now you've done it, outed me!


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Now you've done it, outed me!



nah I think most people with sense already knew that....


----------



## PixieStix (May 17, 2010)

Yes, I know, it will surely be uninhabitable by me


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





Note from the "simple minded" to the "superior being"...you should have used YOU ARE or if you prefer the contraction YOU'RE would have been equally proper..."YOU CONFUSING..."
on the other hand places you on the same level as the 'stupid' and 'illogical' you claim superiority over

GOOD JOB


----------



## gslack (May 17, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> Yes, I know, it will surely be uninhabitable by me



Don't worry pixies are magical... you have nothing to fear...


----------



## konradv (May 18, 2010)

[/quote]
"Simple" as in Occam's razor, Mr. Elbowhole. [/QUOTE]

Occam's razor it is.  The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.  Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.


----------



## Gatekeeper (May 18, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> mutate or die. simple.



I have chosen to mutate. 

I have the internet embedded in my ear.

'Viagra eyeglasses', so things appear bigger than they really are.

Silicone injections in my feet, so I can always put my _breast_ foot forward. 

A new version of depends, with odor eaters and scrubbing bubbles, so I can wear them for 3 months before changing.

A tin hat to repel alien transmissions and protect against cell phone transmission brain cell over heating, keeps me from being a 'hot head'.

Okay, this is enough 'stupid' for one reply, someone else ad what their using.


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

"Simple" as in Occam's razor, Mr. Elbowhole. [/QUOTE]

Occam's razor it is.  The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.  Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.   [/QUOTE]

And if it takes 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 and a million years to make a scenario of acidic oceans and devastating planetary warming, and we can only burn enough fossil fuels to make 5,000 gigatons of CO2 we cannot do it with burning fossil fuels....

Thank you for making it so clear.....


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

konradv said:


> Occam's razor it is.  The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.  Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
> 
> Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.


Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how much superfluous information with which you attempt to cloud the subject.

But I suppose real logic is just to *ahem* simple for ya, huh?


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2010)

"Simple" as in Occam's razor, Mr. Elbowhole. [/QUOTE]

Occam's razor it is.  The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.  Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Thanks for telling it like it is and settling the matter.   [/QUOTE]




This is an EPIC FAIL konradv old chum.   CO2 has NEVER been proven to raise temperatures in the controlled confines of the lab....never.  On the other hand we know that the Earth has been both much warmer and much colder throughout it's history, including very warm periods just a mere 700-800 years ago.  Occams razor tells us that man has had no impact in this go round because he very clearly had no impact the last time around.

Try taking a science class some day.  You'll be amazed at what you can learn.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2010)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Occam's razor it is.  The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.  Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
> ...


Yeah, it's your epic fail, you flaming retard.



westwall said:


> CO2 has NEVER been proven to raise temperatures in the controlled confines of the lab....never.


Oh, you silly and very ignorant denier cultists just love your old myths and delusions, don't you? LOLOLOLOL.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).





westwall said:


> On the other hand we know that the Earth has been both much warmer and much colder throughout it's history, including very warm periods just a mere 700-800 years ago.


You denier cultist 'know' a lot of things that are not true because you're so brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry pseudo-science propaganda. The scientific evidence shows that the Medieval Warm Period was not global and the Earth's average temperature then was not higher than the current temperatures. However it would make no real difference if they were the same or higher because the evidence for AGW is not dependent on this.




westwall said:


> Occams razor tells us that man has had no impact in this go round because he very clearly had no impact the last time around.


It's "Occam's razor", nitwit, and you obviously have no idea what it means or how to apply it logically. You are like someone claiming that because there have always been forest fires that started naturally, then somehow all forest fires happening now must be natural and cannot possibly have been started by people. You are a moron. 





westwall said:


> Try taking a science class some day.  You'll be amazed at what you can learn.


Good advice, you should take it yourself since you obviously don't know your ass from your elbow in science (or logic).


----------



## syrenn (May 18, 2010)

So rollingthunder

Have we or have we not been though ice ages before?


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






Trolling Blunder,

Answer the question.  Was there a MWP?,   Was there a Roman Warming Period?  I will answer those questions for you, yes and they are well documented.  Now according to Occam's Razor which hypothesis should you follow?

Show me where in a LAB EXPERIMENT the scientists involved have been able to get the atmosphere in the box to rise.  The "experiments you gave us are mathematical "thought Experiments".  At no time was there ever a controlled atmosphere in a box that you could measure.  At no time has a AGW proponent EVER BEEN ABLE TO GENERATE HEAT IN AN ENCLOSED BOX WITH CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERES.  SHOW ME THE MONEY YOU CLOWN!
OTHERWISE CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK AND SHUT UP BECAUSE YOU HAVE ZERO ADDED VALUE TO THE DISCUSSION YOU FOUL MOUTHED MALODEROUS TWIT!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2010)

syrenn said:


> So rollingthunder
> 
> Have we or have we not been though ice ages before?



Are you really silly enough to think that this question has any relevance to the current abrupt warming? LOL.

Yes, the Earth has been through a number of ice ages. So what? Scientists have figured out the probable natural causes and mechanisms involved in producing an ice age and in ending them and none of those factors are involved in the current abrupt warming except for rising CO2 levels.

*Causes of ice ages*

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacialinterglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).

Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.[34][35]

*Changes in Earth's atmosphere*

There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect (see the notes above on the role of weathering). Greenhouse gas levels may also have been affected by other factors which have been proposed as causes of ice ages, such as the movement of continents and volcanism.

The Snowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the late Proterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and some supporters of Snowball Earth argue that it was caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. The hypothesis also warns of future Snowball Earths.

The August 2009 edition of Science provides further evidence that changes in solar insolation provide the initial trigger for the Earth to warm after an Ice Age, with secondary factors like increases in greenhouse gases accounting for the magnitude of the change.[36]

William Ruddiman has proposed the early anthropocene hypothesis, according to which the anthropocene era, as some people call the most recent period in the Earth's history when the activities of the human race first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the 18th century with the advent of the Industrial Era, but dates back to 8,000 years ago, due to intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors. It was at that time that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stopped following the periodic pattern of the Milankovitch cycles. In his overdue-glaciation hypothesis Ruddiman states that an incipient ice age would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of that scheduled ice age was forestalled by the activities of early farmers.[37]

*Position of the continents*

The geological record appears to show that ice ages start when the continents are in positions which block or reduce the flow of warm water from the equator to the poles and thus allow ice sheets to form. The ice sheets increase the Earth's reflectivity and thus reduce the absorption of solar radiation. With less radiation absorbed the atmosphere cools; the cooling allows the ice sheets to grow, which further increases reflectivity in a positive feedback loop. The ice age continues until the reduction in weathering causes an increase in the greenhouse effect.

There are three known configurations of the continents which block or reduce the flow of warm water from the equator to the poles:

    * A continent sits on top of a pole, as Antarctica does today.
    * A polar sea is almost land-locked, as the Arctic Ocean is today.
    * A supercontinent covers most of the equator, as Rodinia did during the Cryogenian period.

Since today's Earth has a continent over the South Pole and an almost land-locked ocean over the North Pole, geologists believe that Earth will continue to endure glacial periods in the geologically near future.

Some scientists believe that the Himalayas are a major factor in the current ice age, because these mountains have increased Earth's total rainfall and therefore the rate at which CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere, decreasing the greenhouse effect.[35] The Himalayas' formation started about 70 million years ago when the Indo-Australian Plate collided with the Eurasian Plate, and the Himalayas are still rising by about 5 mm per year because the Indo-Australian plate is still moving at 67 mm/year. The history of the Himalayas broadly fits the long-term decrease in Earth's average temperature since the mid-Eocene, 40 million years ago.

*Fluctuations in ocean currents*

Another important contribution to ancient climate regimes is the variation of ocean currents, which are modified by continent position, sea levels and salinity, as well as other factors. They have the ability to cool (e.g. aiding the creation of Antarctic ice) and the ability to warm (e.g. giving the British Isles a temperate as opposed to a boreal climate). The closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[38]

Analyses suggest that ocean current fluctuations can adequately account for recent glacial oscillations. During the last glacial period the sea-level has fluctuated 2030 m as water was sequestered, primarily in the northern hemisphere ice sheets. When ice collected and the sea level dropped sufficiently, flow through the Bering Strait (the narrow strait between Siberia and Alaska is ~50&#8201;m deep today) was reduced, resulting in increased flow from the North Atlantic. This realigned the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic, increasing heat transport into the Arctic, which melted the polar ice accumulation and reduced other continental ice sheets. The release of water raised sea levels again, restoring the ingress of colder water from the Pacific with an accompanying shift to northern hemisphere ice accumulation.[39]

*Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snowline*

Matthias Kuhle's geological theory of Ice Age development was suggested by the existence of an ice sheet covering the Tibetan plateau during the Ice Ages (Last Glacial Maximum?). According to Kuhle, the plate-tectonic uplift of Tibet past the snow-line has led to a c. 2.4 million km² ice surface with a 70% greater albedo than the bare land surface. The reflection of energy into space resulted in a global cooling, triggering the Pleistocene Ice Age. Because this highland is at a subtropical latitude, with 4 to 5 times the insolation of high-latitude areas, what would be Earth's strongest heating surface has turned into a cooling surface.

Kuhle explains the interglacial periods by the 100 000-year cycle of radiation changes due to variations of the Earth's orbit. This comparatively insignificant warming, when combined with the lowering of the Nordic inland ice areas and Tibet due to the weight of the superimposed ice-load, has led to the repeated complete thawing of the inland ice areas.[40][41][42]

*Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)*

The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in characteristics of the Earth's orbit around the sun. Each cycle has a different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other and at other times they (partially) cancel each other.

It is very unlikely that the Milankovitch cycles can start or end an ice age (series of glacial periods):

    * Even when their effects reinforce each other they are not strong enough.
    * The "peaks" (effects reinforce each other) and "troughs" (effects cancel each other) are much more regular and much more frequent than the observed ice ages.

Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude.

In contrast, there is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. The present ice ages are the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume. Within this period, the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milankovi&#263; orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. The combined effects of the changing distance to the Sun, the precession of the Earth's axis, and the changing tilt of the Earth's axis redistribute the sunlight received by the Earth. Of particular importance are changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, which affect the intensity of seasons. For example, the amount of solar influx in July at 65 degrees north latitude varies by as much as 25% (from 450 W/m² to 550 W/m²). It is widely believed that ice sheets advance when summers become too cool to melt all of the accumulated snowfall from the previous winter. Some workers believe that the strength of the orbital forcing is too small to trigger glaciations, but feedback mechanisms like CO2 may explain this mismatch.

While Milankovitch forcing predicts that cyclic changes in the Earth's orbital elements can be expressed in the glaciation record, additional explanations are necessary to explain which cycles are observed to be most important in the timing of glacialinterglacial periods. In particular, during the last 800,000 years, the dominant period of glacialinterglacial oscillation has been 100,000 years, which corresponds to changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity and orbital inclination. Yet this is by far the weakest of the three frequencies predicted by Milankovitch. During the period 3.00.8 million years ago, the dominant pattern of glaciation corresponded to the 41,000-year period of changes in Earth's obliquity (tilt of the axis). The reasons for dominance of one frequency versus another are poorly understood and an active area of current research, but the answer probably relates to some form of resonance in the Earth's climate system.

The "traditional" Milankovitch explanation struggles to explain the dominance of the 100,000-year cycle over the last 8 cycles. Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald [1] [2] [3] and others have pointed out that those calculations are for a two-dimensional orbit of Earth but the three-dimensional orbit also has a 100,000-year cycle of orbital inclination. They proposed that these variations in orbital inclination lead to variations in insolation, as the earth moves in and out of known dust bands in the solar system. Although this is a different mechanism to the traditional view, the "predicted" periods over the last 400,000 years are nearly the same. The Muller and MacDonald theory, in turn, has been challenged by Jose Antonio Rial [4].

Another worker, William Ruddiman, has suggested a model that explains the 100,000-year cycle by the modulating effect of eccentricity (weak 100,000-year cycle) on precession (26,000-year cycle) combined with greenhouse gas feedbacks in the 41,000- and 26,000-year cycles. Yet another theory has been advanced by Peter Huybers who argued that the 41,000-year cycle has always been dominant, but that the Earth has entered a mode of climate behavior where only the second or third cycle triggers an ice age. This would imply that the 100,000-year periodicity is really an illusion created by averaging together cycles lasting 80,000 and 120,000 years (Nature 434, 2005, [5]). This theory is consistent with a simple empirical multi-state model proposed by Didier Paillard [6]. Paillard suggests that the late Pleistocene glacial cycles can be seen as jumps between three quasi-stable climate states. The jumps are induced by the orbital forcing, while in the early Pleistocene the 41,000-year glacial cycles resulted from jumps between only two climate states. A dynamical model explaining this behavior was proposed by Peter Ditlevsen [7]. This is in support of the suggestion that the late Pleistocene glacial cycles are not due to the weak 100,000-year eccentricity cycle, but a non-linear response to mainly the 41,000-year obliquity cycle.

*Variations in the Sun's energy output*

There are at least two types of variation in the Sun's energy output:

    * In the very long term, astrophysicists believe that the sun's output increases by about 10%, every 1-billion (109) years.
    * Shorter-term variations such as sunspot cycles, and longer episodes such as the Maunder minimum, which occurred during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age.

The long-term increase in the Sun's output cannot be a cause of ice ages.

*Volcanism*

Volcanic eruptions may have contributed to the inception and/or the end of ice age periods. One suggested[who?] explanation of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is that undersea volcanoes released methane from clathrates and thus caused a large and rapid increase in the greenhouse effect. There appears to be no geological evidence for such eruptions at the right time, but this does not prove they did not happen.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

300 years? Not bad. 

The environmentalists have been telling us 10-20 for decades. I guess it means we are winning the war against the earth.

Or it means their full of crap.

Occam's Razer and all.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > So rollingthunder
> ...






Hey Blunder,

No one knows what causes the ice ages.  There is lots of theory but no one knows.  Instead of acting like old fraud, are you sure you're not the same person?  How about answering the more relevant question about the RWP and the MWP and for your information the hockey stick graph has been proven fraudulent so you can stop with the "unprecedented warming" non-sense.  It is simply not true.  Cultists and profiteers will still believe/push your BS but as you can see the rest of the world has figured out your scam and no longer believe anything you say so just go back under your rock.  You'll stay cooler there you know...


----------



## syrenn (May 18, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > So rollingthunder
> ...



im not wasting band with on a wiki answer that any idiot can add comments to.  Next time try a link

Next simple question. What thawed the ice ages of the past?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Too bad you won't "waste" time reading something that might relieve your abysmal ignorance. In the material I just quoted is a partial answer to your question, with a citation to the appropriate scientific paper.

_"The Snowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the late Proterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere...

The August 2009 edition of Science provides further evidence that changes in solar insolation provide the initial trigger for the Earth to warm after an Ice Age, with secondary factors like increases in greenhouse gases accounting for the magnitude of the change.[36]

36 - ^ Clark, Peter U.; Dyke, Arthur S.; Shakun, Jeremy D.; Carlson, Anders E.; Clark, Jorie; Wohlfarth, Barbara; Mitrovica, Jerry X.; Hostetler, Steven W. et al. (2009), "The Last Glacial Maximum", Science 325 (5941): 710714, doi:10.1126/science.1172873"_

I've got a question for you, little denier cultist. Is whatever "thawed the ice ages of the past" causing the current abrupt global warming? Show me some scientific evidence for your answer.


----------



## syrenn (May 18, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> I've got a question for you, little denier cultist. Is whatever "thawed the ice ages of the past" causing the current abrupt global warming? Show me some scientific evidence for your answer.



I read your post I said I wouldn't wast bandwith on it. I guess I should have been more clear. I read your post and I wont wast band with on quoting it, try a link

Increased Co2 levels thawed the many past ice ages we have had. So you idiot we agree. Try being honest for a change and a little less thin skinned and defensive. Where do I say that the Globe is not warning?

I said Hot Warm Cold. Cold Warm Hot. 

Global warming is a natural occurrence and nothing new in geologic time. Try looking up abrupt climate change. It happens, deal with it. The ice age we are currently in is over. The earth is warming again. Nothing new there. 

The Science of Abrupt Climate Change : Weather Underground


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

trolling blunder still refuses to answer my simple question..... Not surprised....

Answering it or acknowledging shows the holes in his theory.....

Once again... If it took 13,000-43,000 gigatons of CO2 to create the conditions in the past your side keeps claiming will happen soon. And we can only put 5,000 gigatons of CO2 even if we burn all of the fossil fuels on the planet... How can we create such a devastating warming burning fossil fuels....

I will keep asking this question until one of you or your sock/proxy army grows a pair and addresses it.....


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2010)

rdean said:


> The Scientists say simply that Earth will become too hot for human habitation.
> Research done by the University of NSW has also forecasted the effect of climate change over the next three centuries to be devastating. It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind's activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent by 2300.
> The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday.
> 
> ...



Surely we can increase our efficiencies and get it done sooner than 300 years?


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The Scientists say simply that Earth will become too hot for human habitation.
> ...






Absolutely, and we should do it.  But all that is being proposed is a massive theft from those who could change the way we do things.  The twits pushing AGW theory don't care about the environment.....they care about getting rich.


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

The Algorian army has lost its bluster.... They have resorted to repeating already busted material and ignoring challenges....... LOL


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2010)

westwall said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



And no one gets rich off of what is messing up our air?


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Thats your excuse? Its okay they are lying because other people make money from the cause? What the fuck man?


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > So rollingthunder
> ...



Translation: If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with copy-n-pasted bullshit from Wiki.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a question for you, little denier cultist. Is whatever "thawed the ice ages of the past" causing the current abrupt global warming? Show me some scientific evidence for your answer.
> ...



Well, yes there is something new there. This time the warming is the result of the actions of a supposedly sentient species. Although one could not make that judgement from many of the posts here. 

By natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, we should be cooling slowly, not warming rapidly.

And there have been periods in our past when there were rapid infusions of GHGs from natural sources into the atmosphere. And they were periods of extinction.


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Still trying to simplify the entire thing to milankovic cycles? GOing to forget the longer cycles and greater overall cycles, the position of the sun tracking the constellations and other bodies and all the rest of it...

yeah Mr. its about the science....... Busted you on this before, want to do it again?


----------



## syrenn (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, yes there is something new there. This time the warming is the result of the actions of a supposedly sentient species. Although one could not make that judgement from many of the posts here.
> 
> By natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, we should be cooling slowly, not warming rapidly.
> 
> And there have been periods in our past when there were rapid infusions of GHGs from natural sources into the atmosphere. And they were periods of extinction.




 We are currently experiencing an ice age. We are in the warm middle now. Earth normal so to speak. Global warming is the next stage not cooling. 

I am not arguing  the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove that it is_ the _cause of global warming.  Global warming is a natural process of the earth.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes there is something new there. This time the warming is the result of the actions of a supposedly sentient species. Although one could not make that judgement from many of the posts here.
> ...



Save your breath syrenn hes a tried and true blind faither algorian... you could sooner educate my beagle on this.....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes there is something new there. This time the warming is the result of the actions of a supposedly sentient species. Although one could not make that judgement from many of the posts here.
> ...



Absolutely can prove that CO2 causes warming. It was done in 1858 by Tyndal.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is an American Institute of Physics site, not a political one.

If you go to scientific sites such the National Academies of Sciences sites, you can get real information, not the crud from Cato or the other political sites.

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions ? PNAS


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Come on, Suckee........ Post something from a real scientist.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...







At least the people getting rich off of what pollutes our air (and it's no longer as bad as they would like you to believe except in the third world) give you something for the money you spend.  Just imagine paying 50% more for the energy you use and getting nothing for it.  Then imagine paying on average 30% more for every commodity you buy, paying at a minimum 15% more for whatever medical care you use.  The list goes on and on.  And you get nothing for it other than the priviledge of opening your pocket so the fraudsters can take your money....sounds like a wonderful deal to me.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







None of this is true.  Please give a cite for any of it.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...







You first old fraud!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

Sounds like ol' Walleyed is yapping again.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Sounds like ol' Walleyed is yapping again.





Yep, chasing you back into your hole....where you belong.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



LOL, nah I will wait for you to do that and then I will explain what it means to you again.... Remember how this works? You post your twisted blogs take on what scientists say, and I take the data or their own words you post and explain it without the twisted BS your blogs add in.....

So... Whats up? Run out of new headlines to cry over? You been letting your socks and pals do all the work lately and they fail worse than you do...

I think you lost your heart for it... I think deep down you are questioning this.... kinda hard not to when you have had so many of your own posted articles shown for the propaganda and twisted agenda driven exaggerated nonsense they are.... kinda hard to fight it when your own aces in the hole show their agenda...

its okay buddy, i feel for ya.. Tough admitting you been lied to and taken...


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

_I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming._
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming.  CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting.  That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth.  To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming._
> ---------------------------
> 
> Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming.  CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting.  That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth.  To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.



You got that from a script or what? Seriously it has been said almost identically by you several times on this board now.....

Once again as was stated previously and you ignored it, prove it..


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming._
> ...



I have to repeat it, because so many have yet to understand it.  You have anything to add?  Your posts are becoming more and more worthless as you refuse to discuss the issues, preferring to make useless, snarky comments that add NOTHING to the discussion!


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Uh huh, sure pal as i said before to you reading is a good thing.... i do pretty fair job of smashing you and your daddy oldsocks posts...

Cornholev you have been oldsocks parroting little bitch since the day you started here.... you have yet to post anything of value yet.... All you do is come in and play oldsocks yes bitch...


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

_ i do pretty fair job of smashing you and your daddy oldsocks posts..._
-------------------------------

You do NOTHING of the sort.  We have you at every turn.  All you have is distractions and lies.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _ i do pretty fair job of smashing you and your daddy oldsocks posts..._
> -------------------------------
> 
> You do NOTHING of the sort.  We have you at every turn.  All you have is distractions and lies.



How am I lying cornhole? I take what your daddy posts and show the truth in it... If I was lying it would show.... If there is any distracting going on its from a guy who parrots another and shadows him....


----------



## konradv (May 19, 2010)

_How am I lying cornhole?_
----------------------------

I don't know.  I never said it, but since you brought it up, why is that???


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2010)

Ol Suckeee.....  You have never addressed the issue at all. Just name calling and the posting of idiocy.


----------



## syrenn (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



And there is the problem. I do understand it. _All _of it. I am not just grasping at or cleaving to, one small part of what global warming truly is.  Human contribution to the C02 is nothing but adding to the  normal geologic process of Hot Warm Cold. 

Now if you say we MAY be accelerating global warming that is a total different thing. Human contribution is not the single cause of global warming. The globe of is own accord, as science proves, will  dramatically change temperature in a VERY short span of time.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Occam's razor it is.  The simplest presentation involves the knowledge that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.  Their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
> ...



You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming._
> ---------------------------
> 
> Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming.  CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting.  That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth.  To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.






konradv,


Theoretically CO2 has been proven to absorb IR radiation.  In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled  atmosphere because of it.  Do you understand the difference?
Even with all of the parameters controlled and with the scientists able to play with all of the variables to their hearts content...they STILL havn't been abe to scientifically prove the theory.  They have been trying for 100 years and still no joy.  In real science that means the theory is a failure.  Time to move on.

I can't make it any more simple than that buddy.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Sorry Blunder but in the pantheon of trolldom you are way, way, way near the top.  Take a bow old buddy


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2010)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming._
> ...



That's total bullshit, walleyed. Do you get your science info from comic books?

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 43007000 cm&#8722;1  Toth et al. (2008) A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence  Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values. [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment  Miller et al. (2005) The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions  Miller & Brown (2004) High-resolution near-infrared (40009000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMathPierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported.  This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537]. [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 &#956;m. I: model and laboratory measurements  Niro et al. (2004) Temperature (200300 K) and pressure (70200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm&#8722;1.

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes  Boulet (2004) The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by retrieval technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the perturbers are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2  Benech et al. (2002) Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas  Teboul et al. (1995) Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 101000 cm&#8722;1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 101000 cm&#8722;1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10470 cm&#8722;1 are compared.

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition  Rothman et al. (1987) A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide  Tubbs & Williams (1972) An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters &#947;0 for lines in the R branch of the &#957;3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of &#947;0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section &#963;.

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases  Burch et al. (1970) From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines  Burch et al. (1969) The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm&#8722;1.  New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2  Ludwig et al. (1966) Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 &#956; band of CO2  Winters et al. (1964) Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm&#8722;1 to 2575 cm&#8722;1.

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ  Davies (1964) The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared  Burch et al. (1962) The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared  Burch et al. (1962) Total absorptance has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm&#8722;1.

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths  Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide  Martin & Barker (1932) The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental &#957;1 appears only in combination bands, but &#957;2 at 15&#956; and &#957;3 at 4.3&#956; absorb intensely.

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red  Barker (1922) Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 &#956;.  New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 &#956; region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 &#956; and 2.767 &#956;. The 4.3 &#956; band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 &#956;. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 &#956; region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a head in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 &#956; band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets. [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre  Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum  Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near &#955; = 14.7 &#956;.  The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 &#956; to 16 &#956;, with the maximum at 14.7 &#956;. [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

The Bakerian Lecture  On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction  Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database  The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Of course you would be wrong about this too, like everything else you're deluded and confused about. No wispywalleyed, you and the slack-jawed-idiot have me beat hands down when it comes to sheer moronic trolling. You guys are the champs.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _How am I lying cornhole?_
> ----------------------------
> 
> I don't know.  *I never said it*, but since you brought it up, why is that???



LOL, just going to lie huh.... Okay... Your own words....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2321836-post129.html



			
				konradv said:
			
		

> You do NOTHING of the sort. We have you at every turn. All you have is distractions and lies.



Uh yeah.... Keep lying junior...


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Okay so then how much would it take? How long did it take before? Over a million?....

Your fucking done fraud.... post all the garbage you want, and it will not change what you did here... YOU posted garbage that dammed your entire theory.... Nice work, between you and oldsocks you just killed the AGW bullshit here.....LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



No, you're just too retarded to comprehend what you read. I marvel that you're able to type on a computer but I would bet that tying your own shoes is still beyond your abilities.


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Hmm so whats that say about you? After all all of it was from your post you even said as much....

So then smart guy how long did it take to produce the pre-cambrian extinction? Over a million years according to your one post.... So how much CO2 did it take? Well according to your post it took 13,000-43,000 gigatons... And how much can we produce if we burn up all the fossil fuels on the planet? Well again according your source we would contribute a total of 5,000 gigatons if we burn all the fossil fuels on the planet.....

Hmm? So if we cannot even reach over 40% of that on the short end, and only about 1/9 th of that on the high end, how in the hell could we recreate that scenario?

Come on smart guy answer it once......


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


The article did not say how long it took to produce the extinction. It talked about how long the CO2 was being released by volcanic activity but it said nothing to indicate that the extinction happened only at the end of that time period.




gslack said:


> So how much CO2 did it take? Well according to your post it took 13,000-43,000 gigatons...


No, that's just your retarded lack of reading ability. The article did not say it took that much to cause the extinction, it said that the amount released was in that range.

Because you're so retarded, slack-jawed, you insert your own insanity into the stuff you read. It is not what the article said though.

You have the comprehension level of a brain damaged lab rat.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Great, now show the class where the temperature was raised by CO2 in an enclosed box.
Nowhere in any of these studies was that accomplished.  You keep dancing around the basic problem...now answer the problem.   I can show you IR absorbtion properties of several rocks and mineral types as well but they don't make the temperature rise either.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Yep that's the MO of the unwashed, denigrate and insult the people who disagree with you instead of answering basic questions.  You be da champ Blunder!


----------



## gslack (May 19, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Okay then tell me how much it took and how long it took then.... We can create at most 40% of the low estimate and 1/8 th of the high estimate.. So are you saying that 40% or 1/8th (either or) will cause massive extinction or out of control deadly warming and acidic oceans....

please tell us how much it will take then smart guy LOL.... BTW it was your article made the claims pal, don't cry and bullshit about it...


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

California Girl said:


> In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.
> 
> Key word: 'Suggest'.



And they were correct....


----------



## syrenn (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.
> ...



Not necessarily. The earth does not care about us in any way. Wildlife is coming back and thriving. Contrary to popular belief it is becoming a wildlife sanctuary.

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

BBC NEWS | Europe | Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation

Chernobyl Area Becomes Wildlife Haven - washingtonpost.com


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> From your own posting...
> 
> "Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."
> 
> ...



My posting? Where is the link for that claim? 

Again try to be honest chris..... Show the link to me posting this article... If I did post it I do not remember it so please enlighten me if I did... Remember though me commenting on someone else posting it is not me posting it.....

Now I also fail to see the relevance of this article to this debate.... Again enlighten me....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > From your own posting...
> ...



I was referring to the previous post by syrenn.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Well if you plan on debating two people at once please use the quote feature.....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I would not be at all surprised to learn that you live in an enclosed box all the time (it would explain a lot) but most of us live on the surface of a planet with a big atmosphere filling the sky overhead and out to all sides. That fact makes your question, in light of the papers I showed you, very silly and rather pointless for reasons of physics that are probably beyond you. Those papers I cited are very relevant to the warming effect that CO2 has on our atmosphere but, like a good little brainwashed denier cult troll, you want an enclosed box. LOL. So I'll deal with your question as is. I'm not sure why you are denying the existence of this experiment as it has been performed tens of thousands of times. Is this fallacious belief that the experiment has never happened like some sort of religious dogma of your cult or something? It is a standard experiment in many high school and college physics classes. I googled up lots of sites like this in a half a second so if you don't like this one, try another one. Since you have such dogma inspired doubts about this experiment, I thought it would be nice to give you the chance to perform it yourself just so you can be sure. LOL

Simple experiment showing that more CO2 in an atmospheric mix absorbs more energy from light and heats the air. I hope you can stand the shock of watching one of your cherished myths get blown away like a house of cards in a hurricane. LOL.

This is a standard educational website, done, I think, by the Virginia K-12 educational system, here.
It is a cached HTML version of a PDF document. Here is the lab part, which starts about a third of the way down the page.

EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 195

GREENHOUSE EFFECTLAB ACTIVITY 

Materials and Equipment Required 

 Xplorer GLX  beaker, 500-mL

 PASPORT Temperature Probe 

 1/8 vinyl tubing (0.5 m) 

 PASPORT CO2 Sensor  Erlenmeyer flask, 125-mL

 Small Tripod Base & Rod  1-hole stopper (for flask)

 Three Finger Clamp  foam insulating lid

 black construction paper 

 dry ice (50 g)

 clamp or clothes pin 

 insulated mitt

 150-W incandescent light source 

 protective gear

 plastic tubing connector nib (2) 

Safety Notes Wear protective gear at all times (gloves, goggles, etc.).

                        Avoid contact of dry ice with skin and eyes. Handle the dry ice with an insulated mitt. Dry ice can burn your skin. 

Pre-Lab

Question 

Which test situation will cause heat from the lamp to be retained longerwith air only or with air plus added CO2? 

Procedure GLX Setup

                            1.  Plug the PASPORT Temperature Probe and the PASPORT CO2 Sensor into the Xplorer GLX. 

2.  Use the arrow keys (  ) to highlight the Flash folder, select the Flash folder (press ), use the arrow keys to highlight the file, and then open (press F1) the GLX configuration file entitled 

                                          15 Greenhouse Effect CF 

                        3.  Open the Table display (press  , F1). 

Note: The file has been configured to collect data once every second. 

196 EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

GREENHOUSE EFFECTLAB ACTIVITY 

Procedure,

continued 

Equipment Setup 

                              CO2 Sensor 

Temperature

Probe 

                                                            plastic tubing

                                                            connector nib 


                        foam insulating lid 

beaker with

                        black construction paper 

tubing 

                        Air Without Added Carbon Dioxide Gas 

                        1.  Cut a piece of black construction paper so it fits in the 1-L

                    beaker. 

                        2.  Place the foam insulating lid on the top of the beaker. 

                              3.  Cut a hole in the top of the lid so the CO2 Sensor makes a snug fit. 

                              4.  Press the Temperature Probe through the lid, creating another hole. 

                            5.  Create a third hole in the foam insulating lid for the plastic tubing connector nib. 

                              6.  Support the GLX with the Three Finger Clamp on the rod stand to maintain the proper positioning of the GLX above the setup. 

                        7.  Using a ruler, place the light source 6 inches from the beaker. 

                        Record Data 

                        1.  Turn on the light, wait for 30 seconds, and press the Start/Stop 

                              ( ) key to begin recording data. 

2.  Collect data for 5 minutes. Turn off the light. Continue recording data for 20 minutes. Press the Start/Stop key to stop recording data. 


EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 197

GREENHOUSE EFFECTLAB ACTIVITY 

Procedure,

continued 

Air With Added Carbon Dioxide Gas 

Equipment Setup 

      1.  Carefully take the rubber stopper out of the Erlenmeyer flask, put several pieces of dry ice into the flask, and put the stopper back into the flask. 

    Important: Use the insulated mitt to handle the dry ice. Important: Do not move or bump the rest of the equipment setup. 

Record Data 

      1.  Turn on the light, wait for 30 seconds, and press the Start/Stop 

      ( ) key to begin recording data. 

      2.  When the carbon dioxide concentration levels off, put the clamp on the tubing to prevent any further addition of CO2. Note: The purpose of this step is to isolate the beaker from the cold flask. 

      3.  Collect data for 5 minutes. Turn off the light. Continue recording data for 20 minutes. Press the Start/Stop key to stop recording data. 

      Note: You can rename your runs to reflect the test situation using the following process:

      1. Press the select key, use the arrow keys to navigate to the Run label, and select it.

      2. On the Run menu, use the down-arrow key to navigate to Rename Run, and select it. Key in the appropriate label, such as with added CO2, and press the OK key (F1).

      3. To rename the next data run, select the Run label and select the next run you want to rename. Repeat the renaming process. 

    4.  Follow your teachers directions for cleaning up your work space. 

Analyze 

      1.  Open the Graph display (press , F1).

      Result: The Graph display opens displaying Temperature for 2

      runs. 

2.  Press the select key ( ), use the arrow keys (  ) to highlight the first Run #, select it ( ), use the down arrow to highlight the run for the air-only test situation, and select it. 

198 EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

GREENHOUSE EFFECTLAB ACTIVITY 

Procedure,

continued 

      Repeat for the second Run #, and select the run for the air plus

      CO2 test situation.

    Result: The Temperature vs. Time graphs for your 2 runs of data will be displayed. 

3.  Make a sketch of the graphed data and label your graph. 

4.  Press the select key ( ), use the arrow keys (  ) to highlight the Temperature on the x axis, select it, use the arrow key to highlight CO2 Concentration, and select it. Result: The CO2 Concentration vs. Time graphs for your 2 runs of data will be displayed. 

5.  Make a sketch of the graphed data and label your graph. 

6.  Save your GLX file (press , select Data Files, press F2).

      Result: Your GLX file will be saved in the RAM folder. 

      Note: Your teacher may ask you to rename your file so you can find it later. If so, use the following procedure:

      1. Select the Files menu (press F4) and select Rename.

      2. Key in the new name, and press the Save key (F2). 

Analysis/ Synthesis Questions





westwall said:


> Nowhere in any of these studies was that accomplished.  You keep dancing around the basic problem...now answer the problem.   I can show you IR absorbtion properties of several rocks and mineral types as well but they don't make the temperature rise either.


So you're wrong again, CO2 does indeed "make the temperature rise".


----------



## syrenn (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> From your own posting...
> 
> "Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."
> 
> ...




Yes, but the point is life. I did not say human life. In geologic time humans have only been a here for an instant. Humans will not be here till the end of time. However Life will go on.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > From your own posting...
> ...



Hey sy would you look at the endless list of crap that troll posts? LOL, looks like a recipe for bullshit pasta with nonsense sauce... he is one of oldsocks proxy army..... Trying to debate the idiot is not possible....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > From your own posting...
> ...



Are you fucking insane, you delusional pinhead? You're OK with the extinction of the human race as long as "life" survives? Who the hell cares about "geological time" when it comes to the deaths of billions of people? Is it because you're already brain dead that you just don't care about dying or the death and suffering our energy choices are creating for future generations? In a long list of dumbfuck denier cultists, you have got to be one of the most idiotic and deranged. You and the slack-jawed-idiot are a matched set, I guess.


----------



## syrenn (May 20, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Are you fucking insane, you delusional pinhead? You're OK with the extinction of the human race as long as "life" survives? Who the hell cares about "geological time" when it comes to the deaths of billions of people? Is it because you're already brain dead that you just don't care about dying or the death and suffering our energy choices are creating for future generations? In a long list of dumbfuck denier cultists, you have got to be one of the most idiotic and deranged. You and the slack-jawed-idiot are a matched set, I guess.



The earth will become to hot for humans with or without our help. How hard is that to understand? Changes in earths temperature will occur no matter what we do or don't do.

So am I alright with the extinction of humans. NO. But is an eventuality we cannot escape.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






Blunder, 

It's the AGW crowd's proposed energy controls that will certainly result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.  The control of electricity is now a control on life.  Electricity allows the pumping of clean water, the treatment of sewage etc.  Eliminate that and the population must fall because it will no longer be able to sustain itself.  The rapidity of its fall is what we are talking about now.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2010)

westwall said:


> In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it.



So, pinhead, did you do the experiment I showed you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it.
> ...






No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp.  Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box.  I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the *difference* in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.


----------



## gslack (May 21, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LIAR!!!!!

If you really do have the brains you claim to have, you wouldn't have tried that little lie asshole.... You're pseudo-science bullshit is busted, and so are you...

only a complete idiot propagandist would attempt to pretend the black construction paper would not contribute to the radiation levels.... You are a dishonest hack....


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Yeah right clown.  Tell me again how black body radiation works?  How about trying it with white paper...or better yet no paper.  How about using the ambient (regulated of course)room temperature instead of a 150 watt heat source.  You are a fool, it is really simple to make up a experiment that will give you the result you want.  Any fraud can do that, they are called psychics, it's hard though, to set up a lab experiment that has no OUTSIDE influences.  

Your fraudulent little experiment would make the temperature rise no matter what you put in the box....but you're not bright enough to figure that one out because you very clearly didn't even graduate high school.

It requires real talent to figure out how to back out all of the variables that will negatively or positively influence your experiment (remember cold fusion numbskull?).  Yeah your experiment is real "scientific" allright.  


What a tool.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You are a retarded troll so it is no wonder that you are incapable of understanding this bit of science, slack-jawed-idiot. Crawl back in your hole.


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






blunder,

That is not science...that is charlatanism.  I know......it's a big word...look it up.


----------



## Toro (May 21, 2010)

The OP seems a tad alarmist.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Did I say you were retarded, wispywalleyed. Oops, I meant *SUPER-RETARDED!!!*. LOL. You denier cultists and your pretensions of scientific understanding are such a joke.

You obviously are still unable to comprehend that experiment. It doesn't matter what color the paper is because it is the same in both cases. You use a lamp because the whole point is to observe the increased absorption of the energy in the light by the CO2 enriched flask as compared to the same setup with a flask of ordinary air. The experiment is *designed* to make the temperature rise in the two flasks. It demonstrates that the temperature rises more in the flask with extra CO2 in it. Same light source, same conditions, except for the extra CO2 in one flask.

I told you there were many such experiments that you could google up if you didn't like that one but as I expected, you aren't about to do anything that would demonstrate how wrong you are. Like a good little cultist, you are wedded to your dogmas and you don't want to see any evidence that would upset your fallacious cultic belief systems.

Here's another one of these standard experiments that they do in schools everywhere, this one from England.

*The carbon dioxide greenhouse - is it effective?: a lab ICT test (teachers notes)*

This exercise relates to the following sections of the English National Curriculum

English National Curriculum reference 3.3.2i, 3.2.5a, 3.4.5a, 4.2.5b, 4.2.5c, 4.3.2q

*Topic*

This activity aims to teach students about the thermal properties of carbon dioxide  the properties that make it a greenhouse gas.

*Description*

The activity consists of a demonstration in which a data logger is used to record the changing temperature of air and of carbon dioxide in plastic bottles as they are heated using electric lamps, and then allowed to cool. If a data logger is not available, then thermometers (0° -100°C range) can be used instead and monitored by pupils. The activity allows students to compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide with those of air, and can be extended to compare water vapour as well. The gas which absorbs the most heat (infrared radiation) is the most effective greenhouse gas as in the atmosphere it would absorb more infrared coming from the Earths surface.

*Context*

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and associated global warming are often in the news  for example, coverage of an international environment summit (like that held in Johannesburg in 2002) or of local initiatives to cut carbon dioxide emissions (like Walk to School Week), or energy-saving initiatives in school. So, pupils are probably quite familiar with the main issues at stake in the global warming debate such as where the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from, what might be done to reduce emissions, and that the climatic consequences for Earth could be devastating. However, it is difficult to understand quite why a colourless, odourless gas like carbon dioxide should be such a villain. It is abundant in the air, plants need it to photosynthesise and we breathe it out  how can it be so damaging to have large amounts of it in the atmosphere? This activity demonstrates the invisible, thermal properties of carbon dioxide which are what makes it into such an effective greenhouse gas and thus contributes greatly to global warming.

*Teaching points*

Since the Industrial Revolution various industrial processes, including the combustion of fossil fuels, have led to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is considered by many scientists to be linked to an increase in the Earths average temperature. Since 1896 it has been known that the gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide) help to stop the Suns infrared radiation being transmitted straight back into space again once it has been re-radiated by the Earths surface.

Much of the Suns radiation arrives as the Earths surface as light radiation. There much of it is absorbed and re-transmitted as infrared (heat) radiation. By letting most of the Suns light radiation through, and only letting a smaler amount of the resultant infrared radiation out again, these gases help to maintain the relatively warm temperatures that allow the oceans to exist and life to flourish on Earth. Because they act in a similar way to the glass panes of a greenhouse (ie letting in more light radiation from the Sun than they let infrared radiation out), they have been nicknamed greenhouse gases. So we need our greenhouse around the Earth to allow life to survive here. The problem is that human activities have disrupted the natural balance, pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than there would be naturally: levels have been raised measurably over the last century. What will be the effect on the Earth of increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? An enhanced greenhouse effect will probably lead to elevated global temperatures (a trend that may have already begun). This can lead to major climatic changes such as a change in rainfall patterns, changes in ocean circulation patterns, warming in some areas, dramatic cooling in others, rising sea levels and coastal flooding, due to melting ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater. All of these will have serious implications for agricultural productivity.

*Apparatus*

Data logger connected to a PC

Two external temperature probes or thermometers (0°C-100°C range) if data loggers and PC are not available

Two 2-litre plastic pop bottles

Two clamp stands, bosses and clamps

Carbon dioxide eg from a Soda Stream

Two heat lamps or flexible spot lights (at least 60 W)

Plasticine

*Safety*

    * Do not place the light bulbs too close to the plastic bottles as they will melt.

*Activity and preparation*

   1. Prepare plastic pop bottles by removing the labels and drilling holes in the tops big enough to allow the temperature probes or thermometers to pass through
   2. Set up clamp stands and heat lamps as shown in Figure 1.
   3. Fill one of the bottles with carbon dioxide, screw the top on (with temperature probe / thermometer in place) and plug any gaps with Plasticine.
   4. Prepare the other bottle full of air by screwing on the top (with temperature probe / thermometer in place) and plug any gaps with Plasticine.
   5. Monitor the temperatures of both bottles until they are approximately the same. At this point switch on the heat lamps and start the recording.
   6. After 20 minutes switch the heat lamps off but continue recording the temperatures for a further 20 minutes
   7. Plot a graph of temperature against time for each bottle and compare the two results.






Figure 1 The experimental set up

*Typical results*

*Even over a small time period such as 20 minutes we are still able to get a difference of 4°C in temperature between the two samples, the carbon dioxide warming more and faster than the air, see Figure 2. Students may not be impressed with such a small temperature difference in the laboratory. However it should be stressed that scientists are in general agreement that an average increase of just 2°C across the planet could have catastrophic effects on crop production and cause sea levels to increase significantly resulting in major flooding.*





Figure 2 Typical results


----------



## saveliberty (May 21, 2010)

Check out the experiment.  The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle.  The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle.  The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle.  The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle.  Only a two degree difference.  I'm surprised it isn't more.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Check out the experiment.  The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle.  The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle.  The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle.  The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle.  Only a two degree difference.  I'm surprised it isn't more.



Are you insane? This is a guide for classroom experiments where it has been performed thousands of times. It is designed to create equal conditions for both bottles. The picture is an *example*, not a picture of the only time the experiment was performed or whatever the hell you think it is, Dufus. I'm looking at the picture and there is a black "stand" under both bottles. They are both two liter bottles. The temperature probes are inside the bottles, as you would know if you had actually read the experiment. That you did not read it is further illustrated by the fact that the difference in temperatures was 4°C, not 2°. You are an idiot.


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Check out the experiment.  The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle.  The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle.  The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle.  The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle.  Only a two degree difference.  I'm surprised it isn't more.
> ...






And it is NOT a robust experiment...look that one up too if you wish.   These are all experiments that fail at the basic level of control of outside influences.  Please take this photo to a university physics professor and see what he or she says.   I dare you.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 22, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'm afraid all that is just your ignorant and very unscientific opinion and has nothing to do with reality. The experiment is very simple and straightforward. There are no "outside influences" because there is just the two bottles and the same light passing through both of them. One bottle has more CO2 in it and consequently absorbs more of the infrared portion of the light and gets hotter. Your pretense that you know anything about physics or what physics professors would say is really pathetic.

In fact the physicists are pretty clear about their position.

*Scientific opinion on climate change *
(very partial list)

*American Institute of Physics*

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[30]

    The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

*American Physical Society*

In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

    Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earths climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[31]

*Australian Institute of Physics*

In 2005, the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) issued a science policy document in which they stated:

    Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal.

    Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earths climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth.[32]

*European Physical Society*

In 2007, the European Physical Society issued a position paper regarding energy:

    The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.[33]

*European Science Foundation*

In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

    There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

    While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[34]

*Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies*

In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:

    Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years.

    Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.

    The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[35]

Earth sciences

*American Geophysical Union*

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[36] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

    The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






And yet they forget  Gay-Lussac's Law: The temperature of a gas is directly proportional to its pressure.  So when you take a gas in solid form and allow it to change phase it increases the pressure in the container and raises the temperature inside.  DUH!

To do a legit experiment like you wish you need approximately 4,000 cubic feet of controlled atmosphere (this mitigates the above gas law).  It needs to be walled in by a fixed thickness of optically neautral glass or lexan.  It needs to have direct access to sunlight (thus in a perfect world the boxes would both be outside with no overhead cover of any kind) there can be NO outside influence so the boxes must have the atmosphere introduced then hermetically sealed.  The experiment must run for at least a month with temperature being checked every minute 24 hours a day.  There are a whole host of other factors that need to be considered to make it a robust and verifiable experiment but this is a good start.

Your little high school "experiments" are cute but they are not valid.  You could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result...that's why they are not valid.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Hmmm, lets see....I take what you post and show what it actually says and means using sound logic and reason... And you search for anything you can find with a scientific body behind it and a scary headline, and post it without reading what it actually says.....

yeah sure sounds scientific to me.... Please continue Mr. Science wizz.....


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2010)

Trolling blunder takes what Oldsocks does and tries to go bigger... Same nonsense, same misleading and generalized claims disregarding the truth in the data fro the sensationalism in the headlines.... Only this idiot thinks overloading with bullshit changes it somehow....

Well propaganda pushers like these two need to read a bit more of the Bernays PR manual.... They didn't understand much of it...


----------



## saveliberty (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Check out the experiment.  The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle.  The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle.  The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle.  The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle.  Only a two degree difference.  I'm surprised it isn't more.
> ...



The conditions are not equal and I showed several reason why that is the case.  The stands are not the same color.  The CO2 one is definitely darker.  While they may both be two liter bottles.  The CO2 bottle is closer to the edge of the table (closer to the camera) yet is shorter.  That means the bottle must be wider and thus closer to the heat source.  Notice the light angle as well.  This experiment is FUBAR from step one.  Also, do we know that both bulbs are 60W?  The directions say at least that wattage, but doesn't specify that both bulbs are the same.  If you were smart, the idiot comment might have a bearing here.


----------



## GHook93 (May 22, 2010)

...is you will be long dead before you can be proven wrong! Then at that point it won't matter to ya!


----------



## editec (May 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ah yes the history of the earth.
> 
> Hot
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure...did you remember to mention hot?

How about cold?

You got them?

Well then, that's a pretty good summary.

So far mankind has been around for mostly not too hot with a few minor incidences of_ damn! it's too cold._

That last _"damn it's too cold_" incident (about 20,000 years ago) just about finished us off as a species, too.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 22, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Duh! indeed. You are such a phony. What "solid form", nitwit? They are not putting dry ice in the bottle, they are using a source of CO2 gas. The pressures in the bottles are the same.



westwall said:


> To do a legit experiment like you wish you need approximately 4,000 cubic feet of controlled atmosphere (this mitigates the above gas law).  It needs to be walled in by a fixed thickness of optically neautral glass or lexan.  It needs to have direct access to sunlight (thus in a perfect world the boxes would both be outside with no overhead cover of any kind) there can be NO outside influence so the boxes must have the atmosphere introduced then hermetically sealed.  The experiment must run for at least a month with temperature being checked every minute 24 hours a day.  There are a whole host of other factors that need to be considered to make it a robust and verifiable experiment but this is a good start.
> 
> Your little high school "experiments" are cute but they are not valid.  You could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result...that's why they are not valid.


That is total horseshit, retard. You have no idea what you're talking about. These experiments, and there are many of them summarized on various educational websites, each one with slightly different procedures and setups, demonstrate a simple principle. Certain gases absorb infrared radiation and, BTW, argon is not one of them (so you're wrong about that too). Thousands of physics teachers in many countries at the high school level and college and university level, have used these experiments in their classes. But you're the only one to spot the "flaws". LOL. You are an ignorant little shithead with no real knowledge of science or physics, despite your ridiculous pretensions to the contrary. 

Here's another similar experiment from Arizona State University with a different setup.

*GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN THE CLASSROOM: A PROJECT- AND LABORATORY-BASED CURRICULUM *


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






I chose argon specifically because it is inert you dolt.  The CO2 in experiment one was generated by the introduction of oh let's see what was it????  Oh yeah dry ice!  A SOLID form of CO2 you dimwit!  When it vaporises it increases the pressure of the container and increases the heat.....simple high school physics which you neglected to take.  The second was introduced by now what was it???? Oh yeah A SODA STREAM in other words a LIQUID form you pinhead!  If you are going to try and BS your way through a science discussion best not to do it with a real scientist moron, you only look even more stupid than you probably are....probably....you really may be this stupid based on your pathetic ability to reason....maybe you are just a real smart Australopithecine?


----------



## saveliberty (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



The biggest flaw of all is the closed system is not a model of the Earth idiot.  Also your system and experiment allow for no time to balance the CO2 cycle.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 22, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You said you "_could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result_" and that is not true. CO2 demonstrably absorbs more energy from the light source and gets hotter.



westwall said:


> The CO2 in experiment one was generated by the introduction of oh let's see what was it????  Oh yeah dry ice!  A SOLID form of CO2 you dimwit!  When it vaporises it increases the pressure of the container and increases the heat.....simple high school physics which you neglected to take.


You are such a ridiculous bluffer, moron. In the first experiment I showed you in post #153, the dry ice is placed in the 125-mL Erlenmeyer flask and conveyed through a tube to the 500-mL beaker as the experiment procedure clearly states and which you would understand if you were capable of understanding science which you're not. 
"_Equipment Setup

1. Carefully take the rubber stopper out of the Erlenmeyer flask, put several pieces of dry ice into the flask, and put the stopper back into the flask.

2. When the carbon dioxide concentration levels off, put the clamp on the tubing to prevent any further addition of CO2. Note: The purpose of this step is to isolate the beaker from the cold flask._" 

And moreover, nitwit, when dry ice evaporates it cools off, not heats up. They are using beakers with foam insulating lids that are not pressure sealed so there is no pressure increase "increasing the heat" as you so idiotically claim. 




westwall said:


> The second was introduced by now what was it???? Oh yeah A SODA STREAM in other words a LIQUID form you pinhead!


Your insults are so ironically humorous because you're always wrong and obviously the pinhead yourself. LOL. In the second experiment I showed you in post #167, the CO2 is introduced to the bottle with a piece of commercially available equipment called a Soda Stream that is sometimes used in school labs as a source of fairly pure CO2. They did not add a liquid, "pinhead", they added a gas.




westwall said:


> If you are going to try and BS your way through a science discussion best not to do it with a real scientist moron,


That would be good advice for you to follow. 

You've certainly made it quite obvious that you are not a real scientist or even close. You are poseur trying desperately to give credence to your pathetic denier cult pseudo-science by claiming to have some knowledge of science that you very clearly lack.

I notice you didn't even try to nitpick that last experimental outline from U of Arizona website. Are you running out of idiotic objections to standard science practices?


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





OK pinhead I will make it simple enough that you can understand.  The CO2 is forced into the flask thereby increasing the pressure inside said flask via thermal expansion as the CO2 bubbles off of the dry ice it first fills the parent flask then is forced into the next flask increasing the pressure inside.  This in turn doubles or triples the amount of molecules inside BOTH flasks and the resultant increase in pressure causes the temp to rise....you are putting more matter into the CO2 system than into the regular system...do you not see that?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 22, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOL...you just won't give up your idiotic cult myth no matter how much evidence you see. LOL. A true cultist just like the 'flat earthers'. 

Second experiment - they fill the bottle with CO2 from a dispenser and then put the lid on the bottle. "Fill one of the bottles with carbon dioxide, screw the top on." No extra pressure.

Moreover in the first experiment the containers were not tightly sealed. There is no way that the pressure is higher than normal. You are grasping at straws. You are an idiot.

In the third experiment, they suggest trying the experiment with no lids on the fish tanks if there is no turbulence in the air in the room to stir up the CO2 which pooled in the bottom of the fish tank because it is heavier than air.

You fail again. Give it up. You know nothing about this subject.


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






I know enough that every one of your experiments has an outside influence.  Experiments are supposed to have no outside influence in order to be robust and valid.  Arguing with you is futile...but fun!!


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2010)

Classic pseudo-science manipulative experiment...

They created that experiment to show a desired outcome. They twist the steps and methods until the desired result is achieved, and they call it science......

Why so much BS? Why not just take an air tight aquarium filled with regular air and two or so inches of soil. Then take another and fill it with the same amount of soil and an equivalent amount of air in the first one, only with the second have the CO2 content 40% higher PPM. place both in the Sun for a day and then take temperature readings of the inside air and soil and compare the results....

Why all the nonsense that does nothing but complicate a very simple concept? I can tell you why, because that does not give the desired result...

We ask you several times point blank to show us something like that... And after all this time this is what you come up with? An obvious biased and twisted experiment?

THe fucking nerve of you people now... You have no fucking shame at all... Its not about truth or anything anymore, its about getting your agenda pushed.. Soulless POS's..


----------



## saveliberty (May 22, 2010)

I see rolling Thunder switched science experiments since I totally trashed his first one.  Nice job on taking his second attempt to the dumpster westwall and gslack.

States of Matter
There are five main states of matter. Solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and Bose-Einstein condensates are all different states of matter. Each of these states is also known as a phase. Elements and compounds can move from one phase to another phase when special physical forces are present. One example of those forces is temperature. The phase or state of matter can change when the temperature changes. *Generally, as the temperature rises, matter moves to a more active state*. 

Phase describes a physical state of matter. The key word to notice is physical. Things only move from one phase to another by physical means. If energy is added (like increasing the temperature or increasing pressure) or if energy is taken away (like freezing something or decreasing pressure) you have created a physical change.

Chem4Kids.com: Matter: States of Matter

Just in case Rolling Turd think we made it up.  Note source, chem4kids.  We'll try to keep it at his level.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You keep saying that stuff but when you try to name the "outside influences", I've pointed out that you have been wrong in every case. So go ahead and list the "outside influences" in those three experiments that have escaped the notice of thousands of high school and college physics teachers. LOL. You are a nonsensical fruitcake of a troll who doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to actual science. Your cult myth has been destroyed by facts and you are in denial, much the way you are still in denial about the reality of AGW, despite the overwhelming evidence.


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No trolling blunder you have shown your dishonesty and bullshit all too clearly... You fucked up google boy...... You did a google search for experiments to show a desired outcome in this case CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

You didn't even realize the give away... Your Highlighted words in the article.... yeah when you do a search like that they highlight your keywords..... Nice try google man.... HAHAHAHAHAHA! busted again!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOL...jeez, you are soooooo retarded, slack-jawed. I did a search for "greenhouse effect laboratory", like I mentioned before to walleyed. The only thing that is "busted" is your brain, you incredible cretin. You can't refute the experiment that destroys one of your denier cult myths and demonstrates the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared energy, just like the scientists have been saying for over a century, so you grasp for a non-existent straw like this. You are pathetic.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

None of the people that you are argueing with has shown themselves to have the slightes scientific education. Rolling Thunder, they will say the most nonsensical things, and then call you a fool for calling them on it. Just trolls, defending their willful ignorance.


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



What happened? i thought you were in the know on this? You tell us we are uninformed and use google to battle actual science all the time.... Yet here you are googling your ass off and trying to pretend its some kind of irrefutable evidence.... 

Busted! Fucking fraud.....


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> None of the people that you are argueing with has shown themselves to have the slightes scientific education. Rolling Thunder, they will say the most nonsensical things, and then call you a fool for calling them on it. Just trolls, defending their willful ignorance.



Really? Than have you been routinely shown for the liar and propagandist you are? If we are so ignorant, how in the hell are we able to show repeatedly and with such little effort how full of shit your bullshit is?

You got caught lying too many times so you went ands got your propaganda pal to try and save your ass... Well he is failing as bad as you did... nice job, idiot fails so you go get an even bigger idiot....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > None of the people that you are argueing with has shown themselves to have the slightes scientific education. Rolling Thunder, they will say the most nonsensical things, and then call you a fool for calling them on it. Just trolls, defending their willful ignorance.
> ...



LOLOLOL...slack-jawed is such a silly delusional troll without a clue. In his own little fantasy world he always is winning every debate but in the real world, he is continually being shown up as a total idiot blowing smoke out of his ass.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



uh-huh.... So...Plan on talking to me or just trying to defend your BS to the rest of the board? Trust me douchebag socko trolls like you get very little attention anyway... They don't care, and only a coward would seek their approval instead of facing his opposition....


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 24, 2010)

If our planet is going to* FRY* than maybe we should be working on ways to survive instead of trying to pull a rabbit out of our asses, and trying to control something we can't possibly start to control, or understand to be able to control. 

How about putting more money into nasa planet finders to find us some earth like planets. Just in case our star starts to grow outwards a little early?
How about going to nuclear, which has no green house gas besides water and is many times more efficient then coal or oil. In which would allow us to go to hydrogen for our fuel. Possibly work on advance fuels and work on making them cost effective. 
How about thinking about it and not going crazy about it. Some smart mother fucker will come around and lead us.

How about think of the benefits of opening up a larger percentage of land to food growth than we have now. 

If we are smart and our possibly crazy friends in the NOAA are right than we should live through it with flying colors, but instead liberals went to kill our economy and blow our money on stupid idea's that won't do anything towards our betterment.

Time to pull head out of ass and think.


----------



## westwall (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> None of the people that you are argueing with has shown themselves to have the slightes scientific education. Rolling Thunder, they will say the most nonsensical things, and then call you a fool for calling them on it. Just trolls, defending their willful ignorance.










Hey old faud this is one of the funniest yet!  Thanks for the laugh!

BTW on a more serious note what about your hero Dr. Jones declaring there has been no warming for 12 years.   What do you have to say about that old man?

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online


Seems to me the leading proponent of AGW theory (and the recipient of 22 MILLION US TAXPAYER dollars) is backpedalling a bit don't you think?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> None of the people that you are arguing with has shown themselves to have the slightest scientific education. Rolling Thunder, they will say the most nonsensical things, and then call you a fool for calling them on it. Just trolls, defending their willful ignorance.



Yes, I agree, most of them are the standard trolls culled from the ranks of the ignorant uneducated morons who've been brainwashed by Rush and FauxNews. I'm coming to think some of them however are paid agents of disinformation, probably getting some money from an Exxon secret slush fund. The way a lot of their denier cult blogs and 'think tanks' are funded through anonymous 'donations'. Either way, their pattern is to claim some ridiculous falsehood to be fact and then when scientific evidence is posted debunking their delusion, they either stupidly stick to their lie by posting more opinionated nonsense or they change the subject then, often totally off-topic, but come back later and make the same already debunked claim again, over and over. 

I've noticed some of the more insane trolls have a pathological fixation on socks. It doesn't seem possible that they all could have been molested as a child by someone with a sock on their hand but it certainly sometimes seems that way. Even when the mods on some forums get tired of it and tell them that the forum posters are different people posting from different geographical locations, some of the really crazy ones, like the slack-jawed-idiot, won't let it go and still keep muttering about socks. It is hilarious to watch but after a while you realize that it is another one of the tactics the professional trolls are taught and the rest pick up, to divert the thread from the actual topic and spin people out on meaningless inconsequentialities. They have a lot of tactics like that that add nothing to the debate but do waste a lot of time and energy. 

I think the funniest thing about the all these trolls is that they are perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and are always convinced that they are smarter than they actually are and imagine that they know something about science when they are so totally ignorant, but they are too stupid to recognize their own limitations and their glaring intellectual and educational deficiencies. Which explains why they remain convinced that they are smarter and are seeing things clearer that the PhD scientists who've been studying global warming/climate changes for decades.

These trolls in general are a sobering reflection of the sad state of the American educational system and the enormous propaganda influence of broadcast media and the internet.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > None of the people that you are arguing with has shown themselves to have the slightest scientific education. Rolling Thunder, they will say the most nonsensical things, and then call you a fool for calling them on it. Just trolls, defending their willful ignorance.
> ...



Yeah, yeah, idiotic trolls from Fauxnews got it..... So done making excuses and pleading to everyone else yet?

let me know when you plan on defending your posts socko...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Defend them against what, troll? You've certainly never been able to refute anything, gsock.


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

These faither trolls can't come up with a plausible retort to any of my observations (sciency word huh) about the problems in their "experiments".  I can only conclude it is because they have no science background and simply don't see the truth.

All of the critical thinking skills seem to be used by gslack, saveliberty and westwall.  Everything from the faithers are talking points.


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> All of the critical thinking skills seem to be used by gslack, saveliberty and westwall.



 

All?  Where have you been?


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

syrenn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > All of the critical thinking skills seem to be used by gslack, saveliberty and westwall.
> ...



I can tell you I haven't been in a lab with a flawed CO2 experiment.  I have been in places where people understand CO2 doesn't raise temperatures, energy does.  These same people seem to realize that H20 vapor holds heat too.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I see rolling Thunder switched science experiments since I totally trashed his first one.  Nice job on taking his second attempt to the dumpster westwall and gslack.
> 
> States of Matter
> There are five main states of matter. Solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and Bose-Einstein condensates are all different states of matter. Each of these states is also known as a phase. Elements and compounds can move from one phase to another phase when special physical forces are present. One example of those forces is temperature. The phase or state of matter can change when the temperature changes. *Generally, as the temperature rises, matter moves to a more active state*.
> ...



LOLOLOL...you've never been able to refute anything, retard.

This post of yours is even more retarded and pointless than most of your drivel. It has no bearing on the experiments demonstrating the fact that higher CO2 concentrations absorb more energy from light than do lower CO2 levels. That you bozos would even imagine that your ignorant objections to one aspect or another of these experiments are meaningful when these experiments have been created by physics professors and are performed tens of thousands of times yearly by science and physics teachers in high schools and colleges and universities, just shows how intellectually deficient and clueless you are.


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I see rolling Thunder switched science experiments since I totally trashed his first one.  Nice job on taking his second attempt to the dumpster westwall and gslack.
> ...



So does water vapor and about anything else you put into your pop bottle dimwit.  Your lack of critical thinking skills and science knowledge is appalling.  Pretty easy to see why your a faither.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I don't really see where he says water vapor doesn't absorb infrared.

It isn't "just about anything", either. Nitrogen and oxygen, for instance, are transparent to infrared radiation.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


That's what I figured. Unless you're working as a janitor in one.





saveliberty said:


> I have been in places where people understand CO2 doesn't raise temperatures, energy does.


Where would those places be? Places like Rush Limbaugh's asshole?
Pretty much everyone with any intelligence or education understands that CO2 traps more of the heat  energy given off by the Earth after solar radiation heats the surface of the planet. Your statement is actually pretty stupid since CO2 does indeed "raise temperatures" by the mechanism I just described, by retaining more of the energy originally coming from the sun.

You fail again, you silly retard.





saveliberty said:


> These same people seem to realize that H20 vapor holds heat too.


So if you and "these same people" in Rush's ass all realize that H2O vapor "holds heat", why don't you understand that CO2 "holds heat" too?


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I will give you credit for more science background than Rolling Thunder ST.


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

syrenn said:


> I will thank you NOT to be changing my posts RT.  Very bad form! If you quote me, quote me. DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS  FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES!



Well don't have a hissy fit there, siren. I only changed the smilies, not your words. But since you have no sense of humor, I'll stop.


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

Quote function fart alert!


----------



## elvis (May 24, 2010)

I agree the earth will be uninhabitable in 300 years.  does anyone know the odds of a nuclear war occurring in the next 50 years, let alone 300?


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

Syrenn, anything look funny about the quotes above?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Quote function fart alert!



Denier cult troll brain fart alert!!!


----------



## Richard-H (May 24, 2010)

Fucking lunatic liberals - 

Next thing you know these idiots will be saying that offshore oil drilling might result in huge under water oil leaks causing catastrophic damage to the environment!

What a bunch of bullshit!


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Syrenn, anything look funny about the quotes above?



LOL, yeah i saw that he SHRUNK it. But ill let that one pass.


----------



## saveliberty (May 24, 2010)

syrenn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syrenn, anything look funny about the quotes above?
> ...



No...you might want to check who is the stated party in each quote.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

same old nonsense from the troll army..... Nice work trolling blunder, make sure you ruin all your credibility as quick as you can....LOL


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Naw, he got it right, he just shrunk it.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

gslack said:


> same old nonsense from the troll army.....



Yeah, that's what I say every time I see one of your posts, slack-jawed-idiot. All hail the king of the trolls. LOL.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > same old nonsense from the troll army.....
> ...



Sure you SAY it, but I can show it about you.... LOL repeat, repeat, repeat.... How many times you going to re-post that same already busted article?

What you guys run out of new crap and just going the overload tactic? LOL, re-posted garbage busted in another thread is still garbage moron... And repeating it makes you look desperate and ignorant...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


LOL. A repeat serial spammer who is the king of the trolls is complaining because he thinks somebody is repeating something. LOLOLOL. You are really funny, slack-jawed, and not in a good way. 

You have shown yourself unable to post anything but worthless garbage and irrelevant drivel, gsock. You are a troll and a really stupid one at that. You belong to a manipulated cult of moronic dupes that has the intellectual standing of the 'flat earth society'. You are a joke, dimwit, but you are too brainless to get it so you keep making a fool out of yourself and keep getting laughed at by all the smart people you meet. It must really suck to be you.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



so then produce evidence of this so-called repetition... Show us a link to my re-posting an already beaten article... Come on man show us that just one time...... You realize every single time you have made a lying claim like that against me, all I have to do is ask for a link you immediately change the subject... Why is that?

And in reality its pretty dam fun being me.. I slap you around daily and all you can do is cry....


----------



## saveliberty (May 25, 2010)

Obviously Rolling Thunder hangs out with people who think he is smart.  Thank God I live far far away.  Maybe not though, I've had about five people blow through stop signs here in the last two weeks.


----------



## konradv (May 25, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Obviously Rolling Thunder hangs out with people who think he is smart.  Thank God I live far far away.  Maybe not though, I've had about five people blow through stop signs here in the last two weeks.



No one lives that far away.  You can't stick your head in the sand, just because it doesn't fit your political slant.


----------



## saveliberty (May 25, 2010)

konradv, did you even stop to read how many wiggle room words were in the article title?  Suggest, could be and 300 years.  It isn't politics, its science.


----------

