Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser
239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No clue. Moron.
You are merely trolling without adding anything to the debate. Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood. Yes, it is a somewhat sloppy shorthand, it also doesn't reflect that the sun's radiation (shortwave) is different from the radiation of an object at -18°C (longwave), but that's all not worth having a days-long pissing contest over it. Except, of course, if a pissing contest is what you are bent on having.
Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood.
That's SSDD saying that. And it's clear he doesn't understand, because he tried to equate the 2 inputs, solar and atmospheric, to 2 ice cubes warming a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.
If he understood that doubling the flux results in a higher surface temperature, he wouldn't have commented.
Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature.....you can prove it with any two radiating objects....including ice cubes....Using the SB equation, you subtract the fluxes to get the radiating temperature of two objects...you do not add...
Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood.
That's SSDD saying that. And it's clear he doesn't understand, because he tried to equate the 2 inputs, solar and atmospheric, to 2 ice cubes warming a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.
If he understood that doubling the flux results in a higher surface temperature, he wouldn't have commented.
Todd very correctly and succinctly answered your post.Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature.....you can prove it with any two radiating objects....including ice cubes....Using the SB equation, you subtract the fluxes to get the radiating temperature of two objects...you do not add...
OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.
And virtually all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.
You're so needy a guy, you have to assume, for the sake of your self-aggrandizement, I'd need to google Kenny boy? Really...
Of course, Gore denies Ken has had anything to do with the carbon tax, and the late Ken himself cannot defend himself. Whatever, this is infowars-, Alex Jones-grade stuff, just like your World-Wide Grand Conspiracy for population control and 97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme, probably with fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Grand Caymans.
97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme
75 out of 77.....sounds serious!!!
And virtually all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.
You're so needy a guy, you have to assume, for the sake of your self-aggrandizement, I'd need to google Kenny boy? Really...
Of course, Gore denies Ken has had anything to do with the carbon tax, and the late Ken himself cannot defend himself. Whatever, this is infowars-, Alex Jones-grade stuff, just like your World-Wide Grand Conspiracy for population control and 97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme, probably with fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Grand Caymans.
97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme
75 out of 77.....sounds serious!!!
OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.
You need salt to live. Without it, your body will die. So, knowing that, you can go ahead and just consume a quart of it, right? At that level, salt is a pollutant to your body.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax is there to discourage pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.
I really think what concerns you is the pay you get for lying on this board. For the individual scientist, there is far more money in becoming a shill for big energy corporations than doing real science. Lindzen and Singer have proven that.And virtually all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.
You're so needy a guy, you have to assume, for the sake of your self-aggrandizement, I'd need to google Kenny boy? Really...
Of course, Gore denies Ken has had anything to do with the carbon tax, and the late Ken himself cannot defend himself. Whatever, this is infowars-, Alex Jones-grade stuff, just like your World-Wide Grand Conspiracy for population control and 97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme, probably with fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Grand Caymans.
97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme
75 out of 77.....sounds serious!!!
Who all get millions of dollars by perpetuating the fraud. Not a compelling argument on your part, dude.
I really think what concerns you is the pay you get for lying on this board. For the individual scientist, there is far more money in becoming a shill for big energy corporations than doing real science. Lindzen and Singer have proven that.And virtually all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.
You're so needy a guy, you have to assume, for the sake of your self-aggrandizement, I'd need to google Kenny boy? Really...
Of course, Gore denies Ken has had anything to do with the carbon tax, and the late Ken himself cannot defend himself. Whatever, this is infowars-, Alex Jones-grade stuff, just like your World-Wide Grand Conspiracy for population control and 97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme, probably with fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Grand Caymans.
97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme
75 out of 77.....sounds serious!!!
Who all get millions of dollars by perpetuating the fraud. Not a compelling argument on your part, dude.
You need salt to live. Without it, your body will die. So, knowing that, you can go ahead and just consume a quart of it, right? At that level, salt is a pollutant to your body.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax is there to discourage pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.
CO2 at 180 ppm to 280 ppm is not a pollutant. CO2 at 800 ppm is not a pollutant. CO2, increased from 280 ppm to 800 ppm in the space of three centuries is a pollutant, in that the rate of change is much faster than the biosphere can keep up with. Especially a biosphere with over 7 billion humans living off of it. There may be a very rapid reduction of that number if the changes proceed rapidly enough.
That wealthy person being compensated for his pollution is already a fact. And they are taxing every person on the planet for the pollution that they do by the increasing extreme weather events.OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.
And let's take it a step further, the wealthy person gets compensated for his pollution, and gets to tax every poor person on the planet for their "pollution". Who wins? Oh yeah, the wealthy dude. Who gets to make billions and billions and billions of dollars for doing nothing more than shuffling a pile of paperwork from one side of his room to the other.
That wealthy person being compensated for his pollution is already a fact. And they are taxing every person on the planet for the pollution that they do by the increasing extreme weather events.OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.
And let's take it a step further, the wealthy person gets compensated for his pollution, and gets to tax every poor person on the planet for their "pollution". Who wins? Oh yeah, the wealthy dude. Who gets to make billions and billions and billions of dollars for doing nothing more than shuffling a pile of paperwork from one side of his room to the other.
The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. Kind of like the orange clown's statements.
As stated, the carbon tax goes into a fund that is equally distributed to all US Citizens. So, the fellow that rides a bike almost everywhere, makes a good profit off of it. And someone like me, that goes on frequent road trips, will lose money on it. But it will provide an incentative to use less fuel for most.
On the contrary, it is exactly what we have seen in paleontology. Sloths, three species of buffalo, and a great many other large mammals survived quite well in North America through several cycles of the ice ages. But, in the rapid change of the Younger Dryas, went extinct.You need salt to live. Without it, your body will die. So, knowing that, you can go ahead and just consume a quart of it, right? At that level, salt is a pollutant to your body.[
The person being manipulated is you jillian. Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world. Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them? That's right, and actual stop to pollution. EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?
You are a lawyer. Think like one.
The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax is there to discourage pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.
CO2 at 180 ppm to 280 ppm is not a pollutant. CO2 at 800 ppm is not a pollutant. CO2, increased from 280 ppm to 800 ppm in the space of three centuries is a pollutant, in that the rate of change is much faster than the biosphere can keep up with. Especially a biosphere with over 7 billion humans living off of it. There may be a very rapid reduction of that number if the changes proceed rapidly enough.
Non sequitur out the wazoo dude. Try coming up with an argument that actually makes sense.
That wealthy person being compensated for his pollution is already a fact. And they are taxing every person on the planet for the pollution that they do by the increasing extreme weather events.OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...
The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.
And let's take it a step further, the wealthy person gets compensated for his pollution, and gets to tax every poor person on the planet for their "pollution". Who wins? Oh yeah, the wealthy dude. Who gets to make billions and billions and billions of dollars for doing nothing more than shuffling a pile of paperwork from one side of his room to the other.
The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. Kind of like the orange clown's statements.
As stated, the carbon tax goes into a fund that is equally distributed to all US Citizens. So, the fellow that rides a bike almost everywhere, makes a good profit off of it. And someone like me, that goes on frequent road trips, will lose money on it. But it will provide an incentative to use less fuel for most.
increasing extreme weather events.
Sounds scary! Tell me more.
What the hell do you care about pollution in any case? You clown has just made is legal to pollute streams, rivers, and watersheds to mine dirty coal. The rate of change of the GHGs does make CO2 and CH4 a pollutant. And it is already having a negative effect on our environment.[
Aren't we?
I was talking pollutants. You're talking CO2
So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?
Because a rapid increase or rapid decrease leads to rapid climate change. Which in not at all good for the biosphere. That is clearly seen in past extinction periods.[
So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?
Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?
Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?
That wealthy person being compensated for his pollution is already a fact. And they are taxing every person on the planet for the pollution that they do by the increasing extreme weather events.OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.
And let's take it a step further, the wealthy person gets compensated for his pollution, and gets to tax every poor person on the planet for their "pollution". Who wins? Oh yeah, the wealthy dude. Who gets to make billions and billions and billions of dollars for doing nothing more than shuffling a pile of paperwork from one side of his room to the other.
The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. Kind of like the orange clown's statements.
As stated, the carbon tax goes into a fund that is equally distributed to all US Citizens. So, the fellow that rides a bike almost everywhere, makes a good profit off of it. And someone like me, that goes on frequent road trips, will lose money on it. But it will provide an incentative to use less fuel for most.
increasing extreme weather events.
Sounds scary! Tell me more.
Extreme weather events – Signs of climate change? | Munich Re
Loss trends
“Our database clearly indicates a sharp rise in the number of weather-related natural catastrophes per year, in terms of overall and insured losses. For instance, there has been a threefold increase in floods since 1980. There has also been a rise in the number of windstorm losses, Atlantic hurricanes being particularly destructive.”
“In Germany, extreme precipitation resulting in floods is becoming increasingly common. This affects not only people living on rivers: there are more and more cases of heavy rain and flash floods. Anyone may be affected.”
“Both the hundred-year flood in 2002 and the current flooding on the River Neisse were caused by what are referred to as Vb weather conditions, that is to say, a low-pressure system from the Mediterranean region which passes to the east of the Alps and then heads south again. This produces extreme precipitation on the northern slopes of the Alps and low mountain ranges. This situation has occurred much more often in recent years – and explains a substantial proportion of the many floods in Poland, the Czech Republic, eastern Germany and parts of the Alpine Foreland.”
Current weather extremes and climate change
“Climate change cannot be identified from individual events but our figures, backed by verifiable changes in meteorological data, indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change.”
“The current state of knowledge leaves no doubt about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Whether the current weather extremes are caused or intensified by climate change is uncertain, but there is considerable evidence indicating that climate change is involved at least to some extent.”
Swiss RE calls for adaptation drive as extreme weather events rise | Climate Home - climate change news
Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)
The people who insure the insurance companies have a very good grasp on the increase in extreme weather events. That chart is number of events, not the cost of the events.
Because a rapid increase or rapid decrease leads to rapid climate change. Which in not at all good for the biosphere. That is clearly seen in past extinction periods.[
So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?
Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?
Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?
What the hell do you care about pollution in any case? You clown has just made is legal to pollute streams, rivers, and watersheds to mine dirty coal. The rate of change of the GHGs does make CO2 and CH4 a pollutant. And it is already having a negative effect on our environment.[
Aren't we?
I was talking pollutants. You're talking CO2
So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?
