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.
Now that is a silly statement. What is being discussed is the rapid increase in GHGs. Without any GHGs, there would be glaciers at sea level at the equator.However, too fast of an increase in GHGs, and the climate changes too fast for the biosphere to adjust. And that equals periods of extinction.CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.
Yup, because an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses would be better........DERP!
Todd, you are not that stupid. We have had a really remarkable period of fairly constant climate since the end of the Younger Dryas. Even the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were minor changes. We have already surpassed, by far, on a global level, the changes experianced during those periods.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?
Because a rapid increase or rapid decrease leads to rapid climate change.
And no increase or decrease leads to no climate change.....wait, what?
Yes, he did. And then the energy corporations squealed like stuck pigs.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?
You clown has just made is legal to pollute streams, rivers, and watersheds to mine dirty coal.
When did Obama make it illegal to do those things?
That you ask such a question either shows that you are vastly ignorant, or a purposeful liar. Water vapor is only in the atmosphere for ten days or less, and is then rained out. The temperature of the atmosphere determines how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere, worldwide. A warmer atmosphere will have more water vapor in it. As there are 3 square meters of water for every meter of land, there is a constant addition of water vapor to the atmosphere, and a constant raining out of that water vapor. It is the GHGs with longer resident times, CO2 and CH4 that determine the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.[
So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?
Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?
Water vapor is THE dominant GHG. Is it a pollutant?
Todd, you are not that stupid. We have had a really remarkable period of fairly constant climate since the end of the Younger Dryas. Even the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were minor changes. We have already surpassed, by far, on a global level, the changes experianced during those periods.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?
Because a rapid increase or rapid decrease leads to rapid climate change.
And no increase or decrease leads to no climate change.....wait, what?
Yes, he did. And then the energy corporations squealed like stuck pigs.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?
You clown has just made is legal to pollute streams, rivers, and watersheds to mine dirty coal.
When did Obama make it illegal to do those things?
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.
The extinctions seem to have occurred both at the beginning and the end of the Younger Dryas. In other words, in the periods of rapid climate change.
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.
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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseStill talking that lie. No class and no backup! LoserErrors?I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.
I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!
LOL.. That is all you have..
Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseStill talking that lie. No class and no backup! LoserErrors?I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!
LOL.. That is all you have..
Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
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.
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...
The subtraction in the S-B equation is a difference: output radiation from a surface minus input radiation to the same surface.
Thinking that you can plug in two ice cubes in that equation and get anything better than insanity is, for lack of a better word.... WOW.
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleepingI don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseStill talking that lie. No class and no backup! LoserErrors?
LOL.. That is all you have..
Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleepingI don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseStill talking that lie. No class and no backup! LoserYes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
For the eleventh time , the university do you know what that is.I don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseStill talking that lie. No class and no backup! LoserErrors?
LOL.. That is all you have..
Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
The university claimed it, it's posted over multiple timesThe university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleepingI don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseStill talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser
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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now.
Wrong. SSDD said the following.
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
The university never said this. So unless you can produce a link where the university did, your lie is noted.
The university claimed it, it's posted over multiple timesThe university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleepingI don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw lioseYes, 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.
I don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now.
Wrong. SSDD said the following.
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
The university never said this. So unless you can produce a link where the university did, your lie is noted.
Too funny! Sure it did read their equations derpThe university claimed it, it's posted over multiple timesThe university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleepingI don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw liose
I don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now.
Wrong. SSDD said the following.
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
The university never said this. So unless you can produce a link where the university did, your lie is noted.
Every time it was posted, it was SSDD.
The university never made that claim.
Learn how to read. Moron.
Too funny! Sure it did read their equations derpThe university claimed it, it's posted over multiple timesThe university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleepingI don't see how since he never made that claim!
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
^
Who made that claim?
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now.
Wrong. SSDD said the following.
so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees
The university never said this. So unless you can produce a link where the university did, your lie is noted.
Every time it was posted, it was SSDD.
The university never made that claim.
Learn how to read. Moron.
