More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[mamooth]

If I see this thread active, I know a newcomer got lured into it.

ralfy, this is regarded as a worthless shit thread. It's sort of a denier-preserve. In this thread, we let the deniers post all the abusive trash and spam and outright lies that they want, in the hopes they'll get it out of their systems and not post it in threads that people actually read. At least that's the theory.

What is means is that you shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread, as it just encourages the deniers into believing that people are paying attention to them.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL it's not just farts it's also pollution? Maybe you exhale pollution, but the stuff I exhale is called plant food.

Burning fuel causes air pollution.

So does no burning fuel.

Yes, but that doesn't disprove what I wrote.

So?

Burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. That will happen whether or not CO2 is plant food or other sources cause pollution.

Not burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. CO2 is not pollution, never has been pollution and never will be pollution. CO2 is what we exhale. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem.

 

[skookerasbil]

If I see this thread active, I know a newcomer got lured into it.

ralfy, this is regarded as a worthless shit thread. It's sort of a denier-preserve. In this thread, we let the deniers post all the abusive trash and spam and outright lies that they want, in the hopes they'll get it out of their systems and not post it in threads that people actually read. At least that's the theory.

What is means is that you shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread, as it just encourages the deniers into believing that people are paying attention to them.

Or how about the bulldog came on today and AGAIN saw the epic thread on top of the page, stripped her teeth and thought............... "How come the AGW climate crusader threads die inside a week?"


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/ark-1.jpg.html'][/URL]




379 pages of wIn

 

[ralfy]

Burning fuel causes air pollution.

So does no burning fuel.

Yes, but that doesn't disprove what I wrote.

So?

Burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. That will happen whether or not CO2 is plant food or other sources cause pollution.

Not burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. CO2 is not pollution, never has been pollution and never will be pollution. CO2 is what we exhale. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem.

I am referring to pollution, not CO2.

The problem with CO2 concentrations that they may act as a forcing factor that contributes to more heat being trapped.

Finally, the point isn't that CO2 isn't plant food or a natural part of the ecosystem. It's that the earth is not like some laboratory where more CO2 is better.

 

[ralfy]

If I see this thread active, I know a newcomer got lured into it.

ralfy, this is regarded as a worthless shit thread. It's sort of a denier-preserve. In this thread, we let the deniers post all the abusive trash and spam and outright lies that they want, in the hopes they'll get it out of their systems and not post it in threads that people actually read. At least that's the theory.

What is means is that you shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread, as it just encourages the deniers into believing that people are paying attention to them.

Good point. Will stop participating in this thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

So does no burning fuel.

Yes, but that doesn't disprove what I wrote.

So?

Burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. That will happen whether or not CO2 is plant food or other sources cause pollution.

Not burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. CO2 is not pollution, never has been pollution and never will be pollution. CO2 is what we exhale. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem.

I am referring to pollution, not CO2.

The problem with CO2 concentrations that they may act as a forcing factor that contributes to more heat being trapped.

Finally, the point isn't that CO2 isn't plant food or a natural part of the ecosystem. It's that the earth is not like some laboratory where more CO2 is better.

ROFL didn't you take science in elementary school?

more co2=bigger healthier plants.. cause co2 actually is plant food.

 

[IanC]

So does no burning fuel.

Yes, but that doesn't disprove what I wrote.

So?

Burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. That will happen whether or not CO2 is plant food or other sources cause pollution.

Not burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. CO2 is not pollution, never has been pollution and never will be pollution. CO2 is what we exhale. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem.

I am referring to pollution, not CO2.

The problem with CO2 concentrations that they may act as a forcing factor that contributes to more heat being trapped.

Finally, the point isn't that CO2 isn't plant food or a natural part of the ecosystem. It's that the earth is not like some laboratory where more CO2 is better.

plants grown in an actual greenhouse often have extra CO2 pumped in.

CO2 does retard the escape of IR radiation. principally at the surface bottleneck but also at the cloudtop boundary. heat loss at the surface is primarily by convection and phase change (latent heat/evaporation). any reduction in radiation escape is easily shunted to other pathways. once past the surface bottleneck most of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is transformed into (less than perfect) blackbody radiation by kinetic interaction. the amount of surface temperature increase is hypothetically ~1C per doubling IF everything else stays the same. but everything else does not stay the same and the effect is subject to negative feedbacks as well as positive ones. whenever actual observations are collected the results are smaller than 'expected'.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, but that doesn't disprove what I wrote.

So?

Burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. That will happen whether or not CO2 is plant food or other sources cause pollution.

Not burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. CO2 is not pollution, never has been pollution and never will be pollution. CO2 is what we exhale. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem.

I am referring to pollution, not CO2.

The problem with CO2 concentrations that they may act as a forcing factor that contributes to more heat being trapped.

Finally, the point isn't that CO2 isn't plant food or a natural part of the ecosystem. It's that the earth is not like some laboratory where more CO2 is better.

plants grown in an actual greenhouse often have extra CO2 pumped in.

CO2 does retard the escape of IR radiation. principally at the surface bottleneck but also at the cloudtop boundary. heat loss at the surface is primarily by convection and phase change (latent heat/evaporation). any reduction in radiation escape is easily shunted to other pathways. once past the surface bottleneck most of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is transformed into (less than perfect) blackbody radiation by kinetic interaction. the amount of surface temperature increase is hypothetically ~1C per doubling IF everything else stays the same. but everything else does not stay the same and the effect is subject to negative feedbacks as well as positive ones. whenever actual observations are collected the results are smaller than 'expected'.

I believe the mistake they make (probably on purpose) is in assuming increased CO2 is a net increase in particles/volume of green house gases. But if you think about it logically, atmosphere is only contained by gravity and equalizes to a given pressure at a given altitude and thus any increase in CO2 ppm would have to have a reduction in ppm of water vapor where measured. Water vapor being a greenhouse gas as well... well you get the idea. All you are really doing is swapping a very small amount of one gas (CO2) for a very small portion of water vapor (H2O) at the locations in the atmosphere where CO2 lies.

 

[RKMBrown]

Apparently my guess was obvious, as there is a paper here that talks about same...

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf

For example:

The flux can be estimated as the product of a gas transfer coefficient, the solubility of CO2, and the partial pressure difference of CO2 between air and water. The gas transfer coefficient incorporates effects of many physical factors but is usually expressed as a non-linear function of wind speed alone. There is considerable uncertainty about this function (Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Wanninkhof, 1992; Watson et al., 1995). Improvements in the ability to measure CO2 transfer directly (e.g., Wanninkhof and McGillis, 1999) may lead to a better knowledge of gas transfer coefficients.

page 197.

Interesting though that they only mention said pressure in reference to H20 in water form such as the oceans, and not water in vapor form. Omission? Mistake? Intentional? Or am I missing something...

 

[jc456]

One more added link for those interested in reading about CO2 and kinetic energy....Why It s Not Carbon Dioxide

abstract:
"But to maintain a certain temperature there must be an input of thermal energy (usually called "heat") which balances the natural heat losses. James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface. But radiation mostly transfers thermal energy out of the warmer surface, not into it. The actual process involves energy being transferred during molecular collisions, as with conduction. You are familiar with this diffusion process which can be observed if your car is left in the Sun and then driven into your garage. Close the garage door and open the car doors and gradually you will feel the temperature of the air in the garage warming and that of the air in the car cooling. Warm air molecules (with more kinetic energy than cooler ones) have shared that extra energy with others from outside the car. You may not feel the air moving out of the car, but some of the thermal energy is being transferred by diffusion and maybe some net air movement away from the hotter source inside the car. The overall process is called convective heat transfer in physics, whether or not you can detect actual air movement."

 

[skookerasbil]

Electricity Price Index Hit Record Again--in January CNS News


or why renewables continue to be a joke!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

If I see this thread active, I know a newcomer got lured into it.

ralfy, this is regarded as a worthless shit thread. It's sort of a denier-preserve. In this thread, we let the deniers post all the abusive trash and spam and outright lies that they want, in the hopes they'll get it out of their systems and not post it in threads that people actually read. At least that's the theory.

What is means is that you shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread, as it just encourages the deniers into believing that people are paying attention to them.

Speaking of a piece of shit, why are you here? you have no facts and all you spew is hatred because we dont buy into your socialist/Marxist control agenda.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So does no burning fuel.

Yes, but that doesn't disprove what I wrote.

So?

Burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. That will happen whether or not CO2 is plant food or other sources cause pollution.

Not burning fuel leads to pollution, which is harmful. CO2 is not pollution, never has been pollution and never will be pollution. CO2 is what we exhale. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem.

I am referring to pollution, not CO2.

The problem with CO2 concentrations that they may act as a forcing factor that contributes to more heat being trapped.

Finally, the point isn't that CO2 isn't plant food or a natural part of the ecosystem. It's that the earth is not like some laboratory where more CO2 is better.

You are learning that CO2 is not POLLUTION.. Good!! Now dont listen to mampuke as its only job is to deflect and stop discussion by any means.. It never has anything to contribute, ever. Do yourself a favor and ignore that left wing pile of puke..

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy.............JC..........threads gonna be at 4,000 posts soon!!!

The k00ks re going to be pissed you know??!!!!!


So much winning..........one day, I want to go through here and see how many links weve posted up on this thread? Clearly though, the number of links can be described as "volumes" for sure..........and together make it very, very clear........

The science isn't mattering for dick.........which means, who's not winning?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, what a win for the skeptics. Massive costs from the exceptional warmth in the West because of what this will do to the agriculture in the summer. Massive costs to the East because of the amount of snow and disruption to business it has causes. Wilder and wider swings, with an overall warming. More warm records in the US in January than cold records by a factor of five. February looks to be another month in which the warm records will exceed the cold records for the US, in spite of the snow in the East.

When this blocking ridge finally moves, hope that the result is not a sudden warmup with a lot of rain. Wider and wilder.

 

[jc456]

Oh my, what a win for the skeptics. Massive costs from the exceptional warmth in the West because of what this will do to the agriculture in the summer. Massive costs to the East because of the amount of snow and disruption to business it has causes. Wilder and wider swings, with an overall warming. More warm records in the US in January than cold records by a factor of five. February looks to be another month in which the warm records will exceed the cold records for the US, in spite of the snow in the East.

When this blocking ridge finally moves, hope that the result is not a sudden warmup with a lot of rain. Wider and wilder.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh my, what a win for the skeptics. Massive costs from the exceptional warmth in the West because of what this will do to the agriculture in the summer. Massive costs to the East because of the amount of snow and disruption to business it has causes. Wilder and wider swings, with an overall warming. More warm records in the US in January than cold records by a factor of five. February looks to be another month in which the warm records will exceed the cold records for the US, in spite of the snow in the East.

When this blocking ridge finally moves, hope that the result is not a sudden warmup with a lot of rain. Wider and wilder.

Natural Variation is a crisis to the uninformed fear-monger...

 

[polarbear]

Electricity Price Index Hit Record Again--in January CNS News


or why renewables continue to be a joke!!!!

Hi, long time no see....because I`ve been too busy with my 3 boys, making toys
that use renewable ammo.

Just so that the warmist cooks don`t jump to any conclusions how "warm" it is in Manitoba because my boys are running `round in shorts and no shirt...outside it`s bitter cold and we haven`t had a break.
It`s been a deep freeze sine October last year.
Say hi from me to the rest of the guys

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh my, what a win for the skeptics. Massive costs from the exceptional warmth in the West because of what this will do to the agriculture in the summer. Massive costs to the East because of the amount of snow and disruption to business it has causes. Wilder and wider swings, with an overall warming. More warm records in the US in January than cold records by a factor of five. February looks to be another month in which the warm records will exceed the cold records for the US, in spite of the snow in the East.

When this blocking ridge finally moves, hope that the result is not a sudden warmup with a lot of rain. Wider and wilder.

Actually..........February in the US was the 2nd coldest ever recorded >>

February One of the Coldest Months on Record



not mattering though either way..........this link below sort of sums up the entire thread right HERE following the Obama EIA release of energy projections to 2040 >>>


IEA Coal Will Continue to Dominate World Electricity RealClearEnergy

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing_1.jpg.html][/URL]