Green says that CO2 is good for plants. The more the better.
kdt...@yahoo.com
Here is a link that is good for many laughs.
You send in your money and get 'certified retired carbon credits'. What
you are buying is credit on CO2 someone else didn't emit, which gives
you the right to emit plenty extra without feeling guilty. Don't worry,
they have all kinds of procedures to verify that the carbon has really
been 'retired'. And you are not just buying a little plastic card.
Woops, plastic is CARBON. Maybe they use paper.
http://www.e-bluehorizons.com/help.php?section=FAQ
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
GoMavs
quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. The
more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the ice
caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169425030.1...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
GoMavs
Roger Dewhurst
"GoMavs" <ma...@mavs.net> wrote in message
news:ZsTsh.3346$uL6.164@trnddc03...
> Natural C20 is good for earth. Adding 10 times the amount is not good.
It's
> quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
The
> more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the
ice
> caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
ancestors generate all that CO2?
R
GoMavs
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ep1177$2k7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
> ancestors generate all that CO2?
>
> R
That's completely pointless to bring up. I don't what kind of major volcanic
activity was happening during that time or anything else for that matter. We
know what causes the earth to warm. We know we are unaturally pumping tons
of co2 into the air each day...
Define insanity. Doing something you know will lead to your death. It's like
an alcoholic. He knows hes going to die eventually but its worth the
drinking in his mind. Many of you are in denial...
Roger Coppock
Green says that CO2 is good for plants. The more the better.
Nope,
at about 4 or 5X concentrations, ~1000ppmv, some plants
begin to find CO2 levels toxic, especially when other variables
are held constant. Some plants show toxic reactions well
before animals do. Showing differing reactions to increasing
CO2 concentrations is a very common science fair project.
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
[ . . . ]
kdt...@yahoo.com
So how did those plants survive when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 that
supposedly absorbed all the CO2 in the first place? What is the effect
of the burning of the Amazon rainforest on CO2 levels?
CO2 has supposedly increased about 40% in 150 years or total increase
of 100 ppm. What part of this is from volcanoes.? This is about 8 ppm
per 10 years. US part of this maybe 3ppm total CO2 from all sources.
Depending on if we can ever get that figuring on how much the burning
of the Amazon has affected levels. Or how much is naturally released
from the natural warming trend that has melted some polar ice.
In the meantime, Al Gore recommends flourescent bulbs and his brand of
corncobs (the kind you shove up your ass). And if you are really
feeling guilty for your extravagance or to compensate for the cow farts
from the steak you ate,, you can buy some free market credits for
"guaranteed third party confirmed carbon retirement"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
I planted some trees last week. You should be able to drive your car 28
thousand miles to feed one tree. You want to by some driving credits to
avoid that feeling of guilt? Guaranteed to be verified by third party
eyewitness that I planted the trees and retired this tree from it's
carbon absorption from being sold again.
Man this "GREEN' thing might be fun. Just think of all the GREEN we
can all make exercising our right to be insane and strangle ourselves
to death because we are scared our breathing and farts might be
overheating the atmosphere and cause us to die or something. Anyway it
will be fun having the CO2 police in charge running around with their
little CO2 detectors making the world safe from CO2 by taking bribes
and shaking down businesses that they don't like or don't cough up the
GREEEN.
GoMavs
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1169429693....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
we are only a few decades from that.. especially with how china is building
a a coal plant per week for the next 7 years and the earths population will
add a 3rd in 50 years.
Roger Dewhurst
>
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ep1177$2k7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
> > ancestors generate all that CO2?
> >
> > R
>
> That's completely pointless to bring up.
It is not pointless to bring up. There were many warming and cooling
episodes long before mankind could have had any influence in these matters.
>I don't what kind of major volcanic
> activity was happening during that time or anything else for that matter.
You would not know if your arse was on fire, bozo.
>We know what causes the earth to warm.
You do not. Innumerate politicians like Gore, academics and bureaucrats
looking for the next pay cheque tell you what to believe, and you like the
original sucker, swallow the garbage hook, line and sinker.
We know we are unaturally pumping tons
> of co2 into the air each day...
Yes.
>
> Define insanity.
You are a good model.
R
Roger Dewhurst
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1169429693....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Childrens' science fairs are about your limit Coppock.
R
Sam Wormley
> Natural C20 is good for earth. Adding 10 times the amount is not good. It's
> quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. The
> more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the ice
> caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
>
>
Eventually the ocean temperatures increases significantly, causing
dissolved oxygen levels to plummet. Anaerobic conditions in the
oceans promoted the growth of bacteria that produced hydrogen sulfide,
a toxic gas. Large amounts of hydrogen sulfide accumulated in the
oceans and atmosphere, killing most plants and animals.
GoMavs
> It is not pointless to bring up. There were many warming and cooling
> episodes long before mankind could have had any influence in these
> matters.
Warming and cooling are natural. No one questions that. However the facts
are that the current trends are being influenced by man. The changes in CO2
are durastic and can only be attributed to the thousands of tons of CO2
being pumped into the air by coal burning and others.
> You do not. Innumerate politicians like Gore, academics and bureaucrats
> looking for the next pay cheque tell you what to believe, and you like the
> original sucker, swallow the garbage hook, line and sinker.
Greenhouse gasses were long defined before every person with a brain started
chanting that global warming is being influenced by men.
> We know we are unaturally pumping tons
>> of co2 into the air each day...
>
> Yes.
Glad you agree.
>> Define insanity.
>
> You are a good model.
More of the same. Insult the messenger, discredit him at all cost.
GoMavs
More of the same. personal attacks.
Roger Coppock
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > Title:
> > Green says that CO2 is good for plants. The more the better.
> >
> > Nope,
> > at about 4 or 5X concentrations, ~1000ppmv, some plants
> > begin to find CO2 levels toxic, especially when other variables
> > are held constant. Some plants show toxic reactions well
> > before animals do. Showing differing reactions to increasing
> > CO2 concentrations is a very common science fair project.
>
> So how did those plants survive when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 that
> supposedly absorbed all the CO2 in the first place?
Evolution
The last time CO2 levels were this is was well over 1,000,000
years ago, possibly 60,000,000 years ago. There's more than
enough time for evolution to work, here.
>
> CO2 has supposedly increased about 40% in 150 years or total increase
> of 100 ppm. What part of this is from volcanoes.?
Less than one percent. Please see:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
[ . . . ]
Roger Coppock
all adult volunteers involved. It takes a village to raise a scientist.
kdt...@yahoo.com
BR549
The only problem is we need to anlayze how much natural CO2 is being
released as the natural warming trend of the earth melts permafrost and
liberates the organic material to decomposition. There has been mention
of ice core records. I wonder what caused CO2 fluctuation in the past??
The Phobiacs claim that we are at record levels and such. 10 parts per
million is all it takes,, and then poof,,,,we all REALLY need an air
conditioner only now we can't afford the electricity,,, You guys were
right,,,, global warming is upon us,,,,with no A/C.
Does Al Gore give his speeches with no A/C, so people can get used to
lifestyles of the future where we all must make sacrifices combating
global warming by not using their air conditioners????
Then you guys can start your bitching campaign at China to get them to
quit trying to modernize and use energy or anything like that. You need
to convince them that they need to destroy their economy and all that
productivity that makes CO2, so they can live happy and COOL lives. You
can use your same old stale slogans about Exxons conspiracy and the
coal companies conspiracy to sell people energy to conduct their lives,
as just the guise they use to further their real intent of causing
global warming.
davee
When its dark dont plants revert back to breathing in oxygen and
expelling CO2 like we do 24/7 so do we halve or proportion somewhere
lower depending on dark hours?
GoMavs
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169440391.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The only problem is we need to anlayze how much natural CO2 is being
> released as the natural warming trend of the earth melts permafrost and
> liberates the organic material to decomposition. There has been mention
> of ice core records. I wonder what caused CO2 fluctuation in the past??
Volcanic activity can be the only plausible reason at that day and age.
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create
Confusion
D Smith
>"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:ep16kd$c4j$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> It is not pointless to bring up. There were many warming and cooling
>> episodes long before mankind could have had any influence in these
>> matters.
>Warming and cooling are natural. No one questions that. However the facts
>are that the current trends are being influenced by man. The changes in CO2
>are durastic and can only be attributed to the thousands of tons of CO2
>being pumped into the air by coal burning and others.
Dewhurst appears to be of the mindless sort that thinks "if climate
changed in the past because of X and Y, then it is impossible for humans
to come along and do Z and change the climate".
I wish I had access to his bank account. When I'm charged with theft,
my defence will be "his bank balance went up and down for years,
naturally, without me doing anything. Therefore it is impossible for
anything I do to have any effect on his bank balance. Thus, there is no
proof I stole anything.
Unfortunately, the defence makes no sense, so I'd probably end up in
jail.
>> You do not. Innumerate politicians like Gore, academics and bureaucrats
>> looking for the next pay cheque tell you what to believe, and you like the
>> original sucker, swallow the garbage hook, line and sinker.
>Greenhouse gasses were long defined before every person with a brain started
>chanting that global warming is being influenced by men.
Roughly 180 years and counting....
>> We know we are unaturally pumping tons
>>> of co2 into the air each day...
>>
>> Yes.
>Glad you agree.
Dewhurst probably also is of the mindless sort that thinks there some
magic Ouija carbon sink that can remove every last bit of carbon that is
added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, but can't remove the
"natural" carbon that is added from some unnamed, unknown, unmeasureable,
undefined "natural" source that we don't know about.
>>> Define insanity.
>>
>> You are a good model.
>More of the same. Insult the messenger, discredit him at all cost.
It's part of the secret code....
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
we got it!
Morton Davis
"D Smith" <maji...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:45b45e2f$1...@news.accesscomm.ca...
> "GoMavs" <ma...@mavs.net> writes:
>
>
> >"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:ep16kd$c4j$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >> It is not pointless to bring up. There were many warming and cooling
> >> episodes long before mankind could have had any influence in these
> >> matters.
>
> >Warming and cooling are natural. No one questions that. However the facts
> >are that the current trends are being influenced by man. The changes in
CO2
> >are durastic and can only be attributed to the thousands of tons of CO2
> >being pumped into the air by coal burning and others.
>
> Dewhurst appears to be of the mindless sort that thinks "if climate
> changed in the past because of X and Y, then it is impossible for humans
> to come along and do Z and change the climate".
>
There exists no credible proof to support your bulllshit.
kdt...@yahoo.com
Well according to Copack, they've been real busy evolving away from
liking CO2. Kind of like cows evolving towards being allergic to grass.
In the meantime, no concentrations at all of CO2 has any property of
retaining heat in the atmosphere. Every known laboratory analyses of
the CO2 has demonstrated this fact.
IF THIS IS NOT TRUE, PHOBIACS, HERE IS A BLANK SPACE FOR YOU TO REFER
THE EXPERIMENT IN WHICH CO2 CAUSES ANY DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE
IN ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS, THE HEAT CAPACITY IS ALSO ALMOST IDENTICAL
TO O2 AND N2. AT ANY MINOR PROPORTION THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TIME
EITHER TO REACH FINAL TEMPERATURE
Lloyd Parker
No it didn't. Glaciers that had been in place for thousands of years have
started melting this century.
>R
>
>
Joern Abatz
> at about 4 or 5X concentrations, ~1000ppmv, some plants
> begin to find CO2 levels toxic, especially when other variables
> are held constant. Some plants show toxic reactions well
> before animals do.
Google for: greenhouse-plants co2-level
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-646X(198509)101%3A1%3C103%3ANOPDCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
| Abstract
|
| Plants were grown in chambers with CO2 enrichment (1000 mu l l^-1) and
| with or without the addition of 0.85 mu l l^-1 nitrogen oxides (NOx).
| The following species were tested: Lactuca sativa (lettuce), Cucumis
| sativus (cucumber), Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato), Saintpaulia
| ionantha, Rosa, Kalanchoe blossfeldiana, Chrysanthemum x morifolium,
| Helxine soleirolii, Hedera helix, and Nephrolepis exaltata. All species
| responded positively to an increase in CO2 level from 330 to 1000 mu l
| l^-1. The dry weights of tomato, roses and Saintpaulia responded
| negatively to the addition of NOx. In tomato, the reduced dry weight was
| due to reduction in shoot length and leaf area. In roses the stem was
| shorter and in Saintpaulia the leaves smaller when NOx was added.
| Furthermore, the time to flowering increased and number of
| flowers/flower buds decreased in Saintpaulia.
> Showing differing reactions to increasing
> CO2 concentrations is a very common science fair project.
Google for: common science fair project
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/project446_37.html
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects/37/446/75966cee9afefc70750a7f6c9706183b.html
| Background: Scientists have been testing complicated models to measure
| the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the past thousands of
| years. Their conclusion is that CO2 levels are now at their highest
| level in centuries. (For CO2 emissions charts, click HERE).
|
| The reasons for this increase in CO2 are several-fold. Most scientists
| agree that the increase is mainly due to humans and their industrial
| revolution, which release stored CO2 from underground deposits.
| Processes like the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and the use
| of cement are the most direct causes.
|
| The problem with increased CO2 is its affect on global warming. CO2 is
| not a pollutant but it does trap infrared heat from radiating back into
| space. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. This global
| warming then affects global ecosystems by having effects on water vapor
| and other climate features.
|
| If CO2 levels continue to rise, the results to the planet are difficult
| to gauge. Some scientists believe that ocean levels may rise, ice caps
| could melt, droughts could occur, climates may change, and that life in
| general would be greatly affected.
(That's not science, it's propaganda.)
| Materials:
|
| o 2 large soda bottles with the top removed (or large beakers)
| o 2 peat cups (or some other means of germinating plants)
| o 1 small cup or dish
| o Several crop seeds (i.e. barley, wheat, corn, peas, etc.)
| o Potting soil
| o 10 grams of baking soda
| o 20 ml of vinegar
| o thermometer
| Procedure:
|
| 1. Germinate the seeds in moist potting soil in the peat cups.
| 2. Next to the peat cups place the small dish with the baking
| soda in it. Add the vinegar to this dish. This produces a
| chemical reaction that will produce carbon dioxide.
| 3. Place a thermometer next to the system
| 4. Cover the system with a soda bottle and place it in a
| well-lighted area.
| 5. Make a control experiment using the same seeds and
| procedures but with out the dish of baking soda and vinegar.
10 grams of baking soda give 5 grams of CO2 (= 1/9 mol = 2.5 litres under
normal pressure). Compared to the volume of a soda bottle, that is about
10 million ppm added.
Joern
Roger Dewhurst
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ep2q26$95p$7...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <ep1177$2k7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >"GoMavs" <ma...@mavs.net> wrote in message
> >news:ZsTsh.3346$uL6.164@trnddc03...
>> >
> >
> >ancestors generate all that CO2?
> >
>
> No it didn't. Glaciers that had been in place for thousands of years have
> started melting this century.
Most of these glaciers are merely remnants of the ice sheet which has
largely melted. Or don't you believe that there were any glaciations? A
fan of Bishop Ussher perhaps? Glaciers advance and recede. It has as much
to do with rain/snowfall as temperature. Some are advancing and some are
retreating. Most we do not know very much about! Most of us are quite
happy to accept that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age though
the warming appears to have stopped in the northern hemisphere about eight
years ago. In New Zealand it stopped about 50 years ago!
R
Danzig
> Here is a link that is good for many laughs.
> You send in your money and get 'certified retired carbon credits'. What
> you are buying is credit on CO2 someone else didn't emit, which gives
> you the right to emit plenty extra without feeling guilty. Don't worry,
> they have all kinds of procedures to verify that the carbon has really
> been 'retired'. And you are not just buying a little plastic card.
> Woops, plastic is CARBON. Maybe they use paper.
>
> http://www.e-bluehorizons.com/help.php?section=FAQ
>
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
>
Well Done
>Adding 10 times the amount is not good.
>
We are not capable of adding "10 times the amount" of CO2.
CO2 is not a threat. Lefties are looking for someone to focus their
hatred upon.
>It's quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. The
>more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the ice
>caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
>
CO2 is responsible for a small percentage of the greenhouse effect.
Man's emissions are a small percentage of the total CO2 in the air.
Therefore, all the fuss about CO2 is over a small percentage change in
a minor greenhouse gas.
AGW is an argument of convenience, put forth by the anti-corporate,
one-world-gov't socialists out there. Make no mistake, the academic
world is infested with such folks.
The argument about "scientific consensus" (when consensus was never
remotely relevant to science) and about how "the debate is over"
(there is nothing scientific about that) are two key items that help
me realize that blaming man for climate changes is politics, not
science.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Well Done
>That's completely pointless to bring up. I don't what kind of major volcanic
>activity was happening during that time or anything else for that matter.
>
activity is related to seismic events on Earth? Do you know how the
Sun's electromagnetic influence causes the Earth's N and S magnetic
poles to switch?
>We know what causes the earth to warm.
>
Correction: we think we have some idea of some things that cause
climate change. Period.
>We know we are unaturally pumping tons
>of co2 into the air each day...
>
Man is a natural occurrence on Earth. CO2 does NOT explain the
weather the last few years, any more than it explains the increasingly
obvious volcanic activity.
>Define insanity. Doing something you know will lead to your death. It's
>like an alcoholic. He knows hes going to die eventually but its worth the
>drinking in his mind. Many of you are in denial...
>
If you think that cutting man's emissions to 10% of what they are now
will cause the climate to behave the way we think it should, you ARE
insane. Wise up. That would make NO difference.
Know what the proposed world government - you know, the one that will
limit each and every person's CO2 output and preside over carbon
trades - will do if emissions are so reduced and climate continues to
do its thing (which it will) ? I do. They would cast around for
someone to blame.
Lloyd Parker
Well Done <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
>"GoMavs" <ma...@mavs.net> wrote:
>>Natural C20 is good for earth.
>>
>Mankind is a natural occurence on Earth.
>
>>Adding 10 times the amount is not good.
>>
>We are not capable of adding "10 times the amount" of CO2.
>CO2 is not a threat. Lefties are looking for someone to focus their
>hatred upon.
OOh, and up and coming challenger for "Idiot of the Week!"
>
>>It's quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the
atmosphere. The
>>more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the ice
>>caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
>>
>CO2 is responsible for a small percentage of the greenhouse effect.
Liar.
>Man's emissions are a small percentage of the total CO2 in the air.
Liar. 36% isn't small.
>Therefore, all the fuss about CO2 is over a small percentage change in
>a minor greenhouse gas.
>
>AGW is an argument of convenience, put forth by the anti-corporate,
>one-world-gov't socialists out there. Make no mistake, the academic
>world is infested with such folks.
>
And what are you fascists pushing?
>The argument about "scientific consensus" (when consensus was never
>remotely relevant to science) and about how "the debate is over"
>(there is nothing scientific about that) are two key items that help
>me realize that blaming man for climate changes is politics, not
>science.
You don't understand science or politics, Gump.
Lloyd Parker
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:ep2q26$95p$7...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <ep1177$2k7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
>> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >"GoMavs" <ma...@mavs.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ZsTsh.3346$uL6.164@trnddc03...
>>> >
>> >
>> >The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
>> >ancestors generate all that CO2?
>> >
>>
>> No it didn't. Glaciers that had been in place for thousands of years have
>> started melting this century.
>
>Most of these glaciers are merely remnants of the ice sheet which has
>largely melted.
The glaciers themselves were there and stable for centuries, until now.
In the news today:
"In the 13 years spanning 1991-2004, twice as much glacial ice melted away in
Europe than in the 30 preceding years from 1961-1990, climatologists say."
"ut data collected by aircraft and satellites since 2002 has shown that many
of Earth's estimated 160,000 glaciers from the Rocky Mountains to the
Himalayas have been shrinking.
Scientists say the phenomenon has been occurring for more than a century,
suggesting that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are combining with purely
natural factors, such as a shift in jet streams pumping warmer air into
traditionally cooler northern climes."
>Or don't you believe that there were any glaciations? A
>fan of Bishop Ussher perhaps? Glaciers advance and recede. It has as much
>to do with rain/snowfall as temperature. Some are advancing and some are
>retreating.
Almost all are retreating.
>Most we do not know very much about! Most of us are quite
>happy to accept that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age though
>the warming appears to have stopped in the northern hemisphere about eight
>years ago.
OK, Liar of the Week front-runner.
Roger Dewhurst
What science is taught in that religious fleepit you inhabit?
R
Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Clifford
hanson
your posting to and with my nym for our splendid vacations.
Thanks again, Leon... ahahaha... Z'ya lata... ahahanson
hanson
Lloyd Parker
Yeah, New Zealand is such a hotbed of science. How many Nobels from there?
kdt...@yahoo.com
LP
Light energy is composed of discreet packets of energy called photons.
These photons have energy hv. These photons have mass m = E/c^2,
therefore they deliver the momentum mc. This formula of E = mc^2 is
called the theorem of the inertia of energy and it refers to all
energy. The special theory of relativity deals with the mass that
increases as energy increases.. That all energy, such as kinetic energy
has mass can be demonstrated. The kinetic energy of a flywheel can be
converted to heat and light which can then be demonstrated to have the
momentum of mc.
Einsteins formula finds application at every point in physics.
It is also the formalism of the Law of the Conservation of Matter and
Energy. Conservation of matter and energy is explained and the
conversion quantified by this formula.
The energy of nuclear binding is in accordance with this equation as
also is chemical binding. It is easily measured, the missing mass in
nuclei from the whole number weight of the protons and neutrons. The
energy released upon formation of nuclei such as helium is according to
the quantity of mass of the nucleons that is converted to energy,
This is also true of chemical bonding, although the quantity of mass is
very small and difficult to measure.
What this means for chemistry is that bond energies and enthalpies are
from conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa. Also as the molecules
of a gas increase their kinetic energy, they must absorb energy from
the environment, (the field of radiation and it's density which is the
temperature). This quantity of energy absorbed from the environment
into the latent form of the kinetic energy linear motion and spin of
the molecules is measured very exactly for most substances and is
called heat capacity. The gas molecules upon collision always convert a
portion of their kinetic energy to radiation. Therfore to maintain
thermal aggitatin of motion, they must also be continually absorbing
energy from the radiation field. The mean energy of this radiation
field, therfore determines the mean kinetic energy of the molecules
which is kT.Another term for heat capacity is specific heat, which is
not a quantity of heat but a ratio of the heat capacity of a substance
to that of water. Water has just about the highest heat capacity of any
substance for some reason.
Maybe some of this valid theory from Einstein will make it to your
little forlorn and backward island of England some day. Last I heard,
you were still stuck on the BTU which measures heat capacity according
to mass instead of moles. hahahahahahah
Why would an idiot do this. The inert elements weigh very different.
However a common number of these molecules, a mole, have EXACTLY the
same heat capacity. Likewise O2, N2 and CO2 all have virtually the same
heat capacity in the conditions of the atmosphere.
In the meantime, you British freaks have every right to put the AGW bag
over your head and suffocate yourself to death according to your
religion and superstitions of carbon. But you should get out your
dictionary and look up the words in the phrase,"leave us the hell
alone, you backwards, no physics, bunch of self infatuated donkey dick
fag idiots."
Maybe your space program should have another go at a probe to
mars,,hahahahaha
Lost contact with the last one did you as it started it's descent. No
big thing, Just 500 million dollars wasted because the brilliant
theoretical Brits have their head up their own ass. Ten to one you
couldn't land a probe with a hundred more tries. HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAH
Better just stick to exporting your 'anti carbon religion'.
Deatherage
The AGWBunnies,,,keep going,,,,and going,,,,,,and going,,,,,,and
going,,,,,,,
Roger Dewhurst
Rutherford for starters.
R
Ray Lopez Licks Exxon Butt
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In the meantime, you British freaks have every right to put the AGW bag
> over your head and suffocate yourself to death according to your
> religion and superstitions of carbon. But you should get out your
> dictionary and look up the words in the phrase,"leave us the hell
> alone, you backwards, no physics, bunch of self infatuated donkey dick
> fag idiots."
>
> Maybe your space program should have another go at a probe to
> mars,,hahahahaha
> Lost contact with the last one did you as it started it's descent. No
> big thing, Just 500 million dollars wasted because the brilliant
> theoretical Brits have their head up their own ass. Ten to one you
> couldn't land a probe with a hundred more tries. HAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAH
> Better just stick to exporting your 'anti carbon religion'.
>
> Deatherage
Vendicar Decarian
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Here is a link that is good for many laughs.
> You send in your money and get 'certified retired carbon credits'. What
> you are buying is credit on CO2 someone else didn't emit
-1 + 1 = 0
Kdthrge is as Innumerate as he is Scientifically Illiterate.
Vendicar Decarian
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote
> The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
> ancestors generate all that CO2?
They didn't. The last ice age ended as a result of changes in the earth's
orbital characteristics.
These characteristics change over a period of tens of thousands of years,
and have no significnt change over tens of years. Yet over tens of years we
are seeing significnat temperature changes. Hence the temperature change is
not caused by the same mechanism that ended the last ice age.
Stupid... Dung Eating Dewhurst.
Vendicar Decarian
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote
> It is not pointless to bring up. There were many warming and cooling
> episodes long before mankind could have had any influence in these
> matters.
The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm
it.
Which laws are you demanding be repealed in order for warming <not> to be
occurring?
You Fucking Stupid, Shit Eating Moron.
Vendicar Decarian
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote
> There exists no credible proof to support your bulllshit.
Science doesn't provide proof of anything. Demanding that it must
illustrates a profound ignorance on your part Mr. Davis.
But you have been told this many times before haven't you?
I can only conclude that you are incapable of learnng.
Even flat worms can be trained. Yet you keep making the same errors over
and over again.
I therefore value your intellect less than I would value that of a flatworm.
Now go eat some rat poison like a good little boy. The world is best served
if your special kind of ignorance is snufffed.
Vendicar Decarian
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> Know what the proposed world government - you know, the one that will
> limit each and every person's CO2 output and preside over carbon
> trades - will do if emissions are so reduced and climate continues to
> do its thing (which it will) ? I do. They would cast around for
> someone to blame.
Capitulate or die.
Your death is preferrable
Vendicar Decarian
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote
> Most of these glaciers are merely remnants of the ice sheet which has
> largely melted.
And were stable for the last 15,000 years. Now magically virtually all of
them are melting, while - surprise - the earth's surface temperature is
observed to be rising.
Only a particularly dense, low grade moron, or a particularly dishonest
individual would claim that the two observations are unrelated.
Which are you Dewhurst? A low grade moron, or a Liar?
Both perhaps?
Tundra Disappearing At Rapid RateDate - March 7, 2007
-------------------------------------
University of Alberta
The boundary, or treeline, between forest and tundra ecosystems is a
prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments.
As
global temperatures continue to increase, the treeline is expected to
advance but the new research shows that this shift will not always
occur
gradually but can surge ahead.
"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances
are
very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes and
altitudes," said Dr. Ryan Danby, from the Department of Biological
Sciences. "But what our data indicates is that there was an upslope
surge
of trees in response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until
conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not
just
walk."
Danby and Dr. David Hik, also from the Faculty of Science,
reconstructed
changes in the density and altitude of treeline forests in
southwestern
Yukon over the past 300 years. Using tree rings, they were able to
date
the year of establishment and death of spruce trees and reconstruct
changes in treeline vegetation. The study is published in the "Journal
of
Ecology."
They found that a rapid change in response to climate warming during
the
early mid 20th century was observed at all locations. Treeline
advanced
considerably--as much as 85 metres elevation--on warm, south-facing
slopes
and tree density increased significantly--as much as 65 per cent--on
cooler, north-facing slopes.
"The mechanism of change appears to be associated with occasional
years of
extraordinarily high seed production--triggered by hot, dry
summers--followed by successive years of warm temperatures favourable
for
seedling growth and survival," said Danby.
Widespread changes to treelines could have significant impacts, says
Danby. As tundra habitats are lost and fragmented, species and
habitats
are forced to move upwards as well. "The problem is that in
mountainous
areas you can only go so high so they get forced into smaller and
smaller
areas," said Danby.
These changes are of particular importance in these northern regions
where
First Nation people still rely heavily on the land, says Danby. Tundra
species like caribou and sheep populations, which are important parts
of
that lifestyle, have declined across southwestern Yukon. As treeline
advance, the reflectance of the land surface declines because
coniferous
trees absorb more sunlight than the tundra. This light energy is then
re-emitted to the atmosphere as heat. This sets up a "positive
feedback,"
the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic
ice
cap.
"These results are very relevant to the current debate surrounding
climate
change because they provide real evidence that vegetation change will
be
quite considerable in response to future warming, potentially
transforming
tundra landscapes into open spruce woodlands," said Danby, who will
also
be participating in an International Polar Year project that will be
examining treeline dynamics across the circumpolar north.
Dr. Hik is also executive director of the Canadian International Polar
Year secretariat at the University of Alberta.
Vendicar Decarian
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> We are not capable of adding "10 times the amount" of CO2.
You are a liar. There is ample amounts of Coal to do just that, and
should the ocean warm enough to release it's stored methane - the amount of
CO2 will rise spectacularly as the methane is convered.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> CO2 is not a threat.
No, Saddam was not a threat.
As to CO2, you are a Pathetic, Lying, Loser.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> Lefties are looking for someone to focus their hatred upon.
Capitulate, or die. Loser.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> CO2 is responsible for a small percentage of the greenhouse effect.
True, around 40%, other enhanced greenhouse gasses account for the other
30%.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> Man's emissions are a small percentage of the total CO2 in the air.
Mans emissions are twice the observed rate of increase.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> Therefore, all the fuss about CO2 is over a small percentage change in
> a minor greenhouse gas.
Yup, only a 33% change so far. Why not drink 33% of your weight in water
and see if that affects you in any way.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> AGW is an argument of convenience, put forth by the anti-corporate,
> one-world-gov't socialists out there.
Not to mention virtually all of the worlds scientists.
"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote
> Make no mistake, the academic world is infested with such folks.
Ya, it's all a big conspiracy. We got together when you were taking your
annual bath and planned the entire thing just so that we could steal your
morning bowl of cornflakes.
Capitulate or die, cocksucker.
Capitulate or die.
Vendicar Decarian
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote
> What science is taught in that religious fleepit you inhabit?
Here in the European states we learn Chemistry, Biology, Physics
In AmeriKKKa we know the Science taught is the science of bullet dodging,
the science of money grubbing, and the science of self deceit.
You know, Bill Gates is right. AmeriKKKans don't have enough collective
brainpower to power a technology based society. That's why technology
development and big science is moving to Europe, and Asia.
Vendicar Decarian
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> So how did those plants survive when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 that
> supposedly absorbed all the CO2 in the first place?
They didn't exist you Pathetic, Dung Eating, Moron.
Vendicar Decarian
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote
> Childrens' science fairs are about your limit Coppock.
And apparently over your head Dewhurst.
Vendicar Decarian
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Well according to Copack, they've been real busy evolving away from
> liking CO2. Kind of like cows evolving towards being allergic to grass.
Cows don't eat trees even though it is a good source of cellulose.
As CO2 levels have fallen, plants have adatped to become better at capturing
the CO2 and in the process have become less tolerant to high CO2 levels.
It's pretty simple to understand. But even the easiest concepts are too
complex for Kdthrge to understand.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are a liar. There is ample amounts of Coal to do just that, and
>should the ocean warm enough to release it's stored methane - the amount of
>CO2 will rise spectacularly as the methane is convered.
You forget, Scott Nudds (aka "Vendicar") posted a graphic showing that
methane has no effect in the IR bands... <Chuckle>
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Most of these glaciers are merely remnants of the ice sheet which has
>> largely melted.
>
> And were stable for the last 15,000 years. Now magically virtually all of
>them are melting, while - surprise - the earth's surface temperature is
>observed to be rising.
Gosh, let's think if there are any observations that could explain
this?
Well gee, it's gotten a lot warmer in the last 15,000 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
And a longer view of historical temperatures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Gosh, and then there's this phenomena...:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fusion
But perhaps Nudds thought that the melting should be instantaneous,
right at the end of the last ice age...
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is not pointless to bring up. There were many warming and cooling
>> episodes long before mankind could have had any influence in these
>> matters.
>
> The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm
>it.
No they don't. Feel free to provide your proof of this claim.
> You Fucking Stupid, Shit Eating Moron.
And what Scott Nudds post is complete without an insult? Scott has no
science to back his claims, and apparently thinks that insults will
conceal the lack of hard facts and science...
Retief
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm
>>it.
>
>No they don't. Feel free to provide your proof of this claim.
The greenhouse effect was discovered a long long time ago by Svante
Arrhenius, the guy who discovered ions.
CO2 traps UV (ultra violet "black light") radiation by converting it
to IR (infrared, heat), much the way greenhouse glass does. It does
not directly warm the air.
I believe there are so many pontificating on global climate change who
did not even take grade 11 science, or sometimes even grade 2 science.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
Priorities: Prevent global climate destabilisation. End both wars. Prepare for oil shortages.
Joe Fischer
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:03:29 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>> The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm
>>>it.
>>
>>No they don't. Feel free to provide your proof of this claim.
>
>The greenhouse effect was discovered a long long time ago by Svante
>Arrhenius, the guy who discovered ions.
Not true at all, read the 1896 paper by Arrhenius where
he gives credit for prior papers and states at least one of them
was not correct.
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html
>CO2 traps UV (ultra violet "black light") radiation by converting it
>to IR (infrared, heat), much the way greenhouse glass does. It does
>not directly warm the air.
Not even close, CO2 doesn't "trap" anything, it
passes UV, being transparent to UV, and blocks IR,
which doesn't necessarily mean it converts IR, but
to block, it may absorb it or it may reflected it.
>I believe there are so many pontificating on global climate change who
>did not even take grade 11 science, or sometimes even grade 2 science.
Apparently you haven't read the 1896 paper by Arrhenius.
It comes down to the question, not if there is warming,
and not what is the cause, but to the question of whether or
not reducing carbon emissions would stop any warming,
would carbon credit buying, selling, or trading accomplish
anything but profit for somebody, and who is that hopes to
profit on the whole scheme (scheme possibly spelled SCAM).
Joe Fischer
Szczepan Bialek
"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote
news:qhjgv25f2s3ad6upl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:52:41 -0700, Roedy Green
> <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:03:29 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>> The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must
>>>> warm
>>>>it.
>>>
>>>No they don't. Feel free to provide your proof of this claim.
>>
>>The greenhouse effect was discovered a long long time ago by Svante
>>Arrhenius, the guy who discovered ions.
>
> Not true at all, read the 1896 paper by Arrhenius where
> he gives credit for prior papers and states at least one of them
> was not correct.
>
> http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html
>
>>CO2 traps UV (ultra violet "black light") radiation by converting it
>>to IR (infrared, heat), much the way greenhouse glass does. It does
>>not directly warm the air.
>
> Not even close, CO2 doesn't "trap" anything, it
> passes UV, being transparent to UV, and blocks IR,
> which doesn't necessarily mean it converts IR, but
> to block, it may absorb it or it may reflected it.
Is the follwing right?
>" In article <1172963699.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> <pgar...@acay.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Quote from my uni textbook, "Principles of heat transfer", by Frank
>> Keith, 3ed, section 5-8 Radiation properties of gases and vapors
>> " Elementary gases such as O2, N2, H2, and dry air have a symmetric
>> molecular structure and neither emit nor absorb radiation unless they
>> are heated to extremely high temperatures at which they become ionized
>> plasmas and at which electronic energy transformations occur. On the
>> other hand, gases which have polar molecular forms with an electronic
>> moment such as a dipole or quadrupole absorb and emit radiation in
>> limited spectral ranges called bands. In practice, the most important
>> of these gases are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons."
>
>> This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
>> collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy."
S*
Joe Fischer
>Is the follwing right?
>>" In article <1172963699.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>> <pgar...@acay.com.au> wrote:
Friend, I am not an authority, but I will try to state
what I think is right.
>>> Quote from my uni textbook, "Principles of heat transfer", by Frank
>>> Keith, 3ed, section 5-8 Radiation properties of gases and vapors
>>> " Elementary gases such as O2, N2, H2, and dry air have a symmetric
>>> molecular structure and neither emit nor absorb radiation unless they
>>> are heated to extremely high temperatures at which they become ionized
>>> plasmas and at which electronic energy transformations occur.
That may be right, but the word "radiation" is
the key, I think all gases do absorb radiation at one
wavelength or another, possibly different than the
greenhouse gases.
Radiation is used as the term for all things
emitting photons all the time, but the net photon
flow is from warmer to cooler.
>On the
>>> other hand, gases which have polar molecular forms with an electronic
>>> moment such as a dipole or quadrupole absorb and emit radiation in
>>> limited spectral ranges called bands. In practice, the most important
>>> of these gases are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons."
>>
>>> This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
>>> collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy."
>S*
I don't think that last sentence is correct, I think
the wavelength of emissions by any gas can be found
by searching google.com, like
oxygen emission wavelength
And the first hit I got was
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/index.html
which I think is for visible light only, but it is very
interesting.
CO2 has two main regions of opacity, which
may mean it absorbs those wavelengths, and may
also emit in those same wavelengths.
But even that isn't the whole story, remembering
that net photon flow is from warmer to cooler, CO2 molecules
emit any absorbed energy in all directions, and the molecules
that absorb those photons also emit in all directions, which
may mean that the net energy flow is toward space rather
than back to Earth.
In any case, the small proportion of CO2 molecules
can't very well store much energy, so they have to emit
fairly quickly.
This would seem to be a very complex thing, and
most of the discussion of it seems to be too simplistic.
So more study is needed, without all the political
hype or the attempt to sell carbon credits.
Joe Fischer
Carbon Criminal Polluters
On Mar 14, 1:37 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> >Is the follwing right?
> >>" In article <1172963699.453845.204...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
crackpot, ignore.
Retief
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm
>>>it.
>>
>>No they don't. Feel free to provide your proof of this claim.
>
>The greenhouse effect was discovered a long long time ago by Svante
>Arrhenius, the guy who discovered ions.
>
>CO2 traps UV (ultra violet "black light") radiation by converting it
>to IR (infrared, heat), much the way greenhouse glass does. It does
>not directly warm the air.
You seem to be confused... It isn't the UV spectra that global
warmists are concerned with, but rather it is the IR bands.
When in competition with water vapor, CO2 provides very little
contribution. For example:
http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
Note that Dr. Heinz Hug observes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to
714 ppm, results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2
resulting from the wings of 15 um band (the region which the IPCC
claims are critical to IR absorption).
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh, let's think if there are any observations that could explain
> this?
>
> Well gee, it's gotten a lot warmer in the last 15,000 years:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Indeed it has gotten warmer. As your own reference shows. The plot has
time flowing from right to left, and shows current temps higher today than
at any time in the statistical average (black line) since the last ice age.
It also shows that the current temperature is a sharp spike the differs
dramatically than the slow decline in temps since the peak 8,000 years ago.
Retief's own reference illustrates that of his own opinion is contrary to
reality.... Ahahahahahah'
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> And a longer view of historical temperatures:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Illustrating that in the next 90 years - if one assumes optimistic
calculations of the expected warming are correct, the earth will be warmer
than at any time in the last 125,000 years. And if worst case scenario's
are correct, the Earth will be warmer than at any time by a couple of
degrees Centigrade than at any time in that plot - warmer than at any time
in the last half billion years.
Retief's own reference illustrates that of his own opinion is contrary to
reality.... Ahahahahahah'
> Gosh, and then there's this phenomena...:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fusion
Anyone with even a grade 9 level of science education will recognize that
the earth surface is mostly liquid, and hence this reference to a topic on
heat of fusion is childishly misplaced, and immediately indicative of
Retief's spectacular scientific illiteracy.
Stupid... Ignorant.. Retief...
Vendicar Decarian
>> The laws of physics tell hold that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm
>>it.
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> No they don't. Feel free to provide your proof of this claim.
It's already been done, multiple times. You are simply too stupid to
comprehend the argument.
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> And what Scott Nudds post is complete without an insult?
What Insult you Fucking Ignorant, Moron?
mike3
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:ep1177$2k7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> > The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
> > ancestors generate all that CO2?
>
>
> That's completely pointless to bring up. I don't what kind of major volcanic
> activity was happening during that time or anything else for that matter. We
> know what causes the earth to warm. We know we are unaturally pumping tons
> of co2 into the air each day...
>
Yep.
> Define insanity. Doing something you know will lead to your death. It's like
> an alcoholic. He knows hes going to die eventually but its worth the
> drinking in his mind. Many of you are in denial...
And this is probably the worst case of insanity ever -- it affects the
entire
world.
mike3
> "GoMavs" <m...@mavs.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ZsTsh.3346$uL6.164@trnddc03...
>
> > Natural C20 is good for earth. Adding 10 times the amount is not good.
> It's
> > quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
> The
> > more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the
> ice
> > caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
>
> The big melt started about 15,000 years ago. How did our palaeolithic
> ancestors generate all that CO2?
>
> R
They didn't -- that was a natural cycle. Really devastating human
environmental impact only began with the Industrial Revolution,
and capitalism superimposed on top leading to relentless growth.
mike3
wrote:
> <kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Here is a link that is good for many laughs.
> > You send in your money and get 'certified retired carbon credits'. What
> > you are buying is credit on CO2 someone else didn't emit
>
> -1 + 1 = 0
>
True, but the OP says, "we'll give you -1. You can give as
much as you want". -1 + 2 = 1.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> When in competition with water vapor, CO2 provides very little
> contribution. For example:
CO2 doesn't compete with water vapour you Pathetic Moron. It amplifies
it.
You have just confused multiplication with subtraction.
You Fucking Ignorant Moron.
> http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>
> Note that Dr. Heinz Hug observes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to
> 714 ppm, results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2
> resulting from the wings of 15 um band (the region which the IPCC
> claims are critical to IR absorption).
>
> Retief
Note that the Dr. admits to a notcable warming with a doubling of CO2.
Contrary to Retief's claim.
Translating the page from German...
<Accepted, the extinction would be with the today's CO2-Consentration in the
order of magnitude of E = 4 in the maximum of the absorption peaks, i.e. the
transmission T = I/I0 = 10-E would be reduced to 0,0001. Then it would be
obvious for everyone, which is familiar the quantitative IR spectroscopy
from analytic chemistry with the bases ago, that a doubling leads to a
noticeable rise in temperature.>
I also note that the analysis on this page estimates the warming effect of
CO2 alone. The author doesn't even seem aware of the fact that CO2 warming
is enhanced greatly by the increase in water vapour that results from the
CO2 induced warming.
More water = more heating = more evaporation = more water = more heating.
It's a self limiting effect but serves to magnify the initial heating
effect of CO2.
Vendicar Decarian
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:44:46 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are a liar. There is ample amounts of Coal to do just that, and
>>should the ocean warm enough to release it's stored methane - the amount
>>of
>>CO2 will rise spectacularly as the methane is convered.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> You forget, Scott Nudds (aka "Vendicar") posted a graphic showing that
> methane has no effect in the IR bands... <Chuckle>
Again you are a liar.
I poseted a graphic showing that O2 has no significnat IR absorption
bands.
Stupid... Dishonest... Retief....
All Conservatives are Liars. Retief is a fine example.
Vendicar Decarian
"mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> And this is probably the worst case of insanity ever -- it affects the
> entire world.
Crimes against humanity demand criminal prosecution for the commission of
those crimes.
Vendicar Decarian
> much as you want". -1 + 2 = 1.
Really? There is no limit to your consumption? I.E. the credits offered
are not proportional to your consumption?
Liar.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote
> That may be right, but the word "radiation" is
> the key, I think all gases do absorb radiation at one
> wavelength or another, possibly different than the
> greenhouse gases.
"Think" "Possibly"
Ahahahahahahahahahahha.....
You Scientifically Illiterate Moron.
Get the fuck out of here. You are too stupid eveen to be permitted to
breathe.
Retief
<sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>Is the follwing right?
>>" In article <1172963699.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>> <pgar...@acay.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Quote from my uni textbook, "Principles of heat transfer", by Frank
>>> Keith, 3ed, section 5-8 Radiation properties of gases and vapors
>>> " Elementary gases such as O2, N2, H2, and dry air have a symmetric
>>> molecular structure and neither emit nor absorb radiation unless they
>>> are heated to extremely high temperatures at which they become ionized
>>> plasmas and at which electronic energy transformations occur. On the
>>> other hand, gases which have polar molecular forms with an electronic
>>> moment such as a dipole or quadrupole absorb and emit radiation in
>>> limited spectral ranges called bands. In practice, the most important
>>> of these gases are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons."
>>
>>> This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
>>> collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy."
>
>S*
No, it is not correct.
First, the idea that something is "forbidden" in quantum mechanics
does not actually mean that it is _really_ forbidden, only that it is
considerable less likely (i.e. an excited state which can only decay
via a "forbidden transition" will exhibit a long lifetime, but not an
infinite lifetime -- e.g. seconds rather than milliseconds).
Second, the symmetric molecules can be (and are) disrupted by
collisions with other molecules. This is often called "Collision
Induced Absorption" (or sometimes "Collision Induced Dipole").
http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~abrown/research/resother.html
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That may be right, but the word "radiation" is
>> the key, I think all gases do absorb radiation at one
>> wavelength or another, possibly different than the
>> greenhouse gases.
>
>"Think" "Possibly"
But since Scott Nudds cannot disprove these alternate mechanisms, he
can only support his religion via assertions and lies, rather than
through actual science.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> When in competition with water vapor, CO2 provides very little
>> contribution. For example:
>
> CO2 doesn't compete with water vapour you Pathetic Moron. It amplifies
>it.
Once again Scott Nudds demonstrates that he is the moron, and/or a
liar:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
>> http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>>
>> Note that Dr. Heinz Hug observes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to
>> 714 ppm, results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2
>> resulting from the wings of 15 um band (the region which the IPCC
>> claims are critical to IR absorption).
>
>Note that the Dr. admits to a notcable warming with a doubling of CO2.
>Contrary to Retief's claim.
Utter nonsense. Once again Scott Nudds resorts to lies and
misrepresentations.
>Translating the page from German...
><Accepted, the extinction would be with the today's CO2-Consentration in the
>order of magnitude of E = 4 in the maximum of the absorption peaks, i.e. the
>transmission T = I/I0 = 10-E would be reduced to 0,0001. Then it would be
>obvious for everyone, which is familiar the quantitative IR spectroscopy
>from analytic chemistry with the bases ago, that a doubling leads to a
>noticeable rise in temperature.>
As is typical of Scott Nudds, he misrepresents what was reported:
"Introduction"
"Originally it concerned with the anthropogenen greenhouse effect
through CO2 obviously the "completely normal" infrared absorption"
Thus Dr. Hug is presenting the argument which is commonly asserted by
the AGW crowd, not his conclusions. He then goes on to disprove the
standard AGW claim.
Dr. Hug concludes:
"After the measurement and evaluation for CO2, represented here,
duplication increases radiative forcing only by 0,054 W/m2 and not by
4,3 W/m2."
"This is approximately less around the factor 80 than IPCC forcing."
The reader should 0.054 W/m^2 is not significant.
>I also note that the analysis on this page estimates the warming effect of
>CO2 alone. The author doesn't even seem aware of the fact that CO2 warming
The analysis compares the increase in absorbed power, for CO2 in
competition with H2O. It finds that increasing the CO2 from 357 ppm,
to 714 ppm, results in an increase in power absorption of 0.054 W/m^2
(a factor of 80 smaller than the IPCC uses in their models).
Why should we be surprised that Scott Nudds does not understand what
was shown?...
>is enhanced greatly by the increase in water vapour that results from the
>CO2 induced warming.
In Scott Nudds magical world, only CO2 can cause increased water
vapor, certainly not increased solar flux. We note that since 1910,
that the incident solar flux has increased by about 2 W/m^2.
> More water = more heating = more evaporation = more water = more heating.
Gosh, Scott almost understands, other than he thinks that only CO2 can
cause this...
> It's a self limiting effect but serves to magnify the initial heating
>effect of CO2.
Read Lindzen's paper, where he points out that the effect falls off
quickly, after the first 19 ppm of CO2.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And what Scott Nudds post is complete without an insult?
>
> What Insult you Fucking Ignorant, Moron?
Indeed, the reader can see that Scott Nudds has no science to support
his claims, as they are lies. Thus Nudds resorts to logical
fallacies, such as the Ad Hominem. Nudds childish behavior is typical
of the emotionally driven AGW religion crowd, as the science does not
support their specious claims.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are a liar. There is ample amounts of Coal to do just that, and
>>>should the ocean warm enough to release it's stored methane - the amount
>>>of
>>>CO2 will rise spectacularly as the methane is convered.
>
>> You forget, Scott Nudds (aka "Vendicar") posted a graphic showing that
>> methane has no effect in the IR bands... <Chuckle>
>
> Again you are a liar.
>
> I poseted a graphic showing that O2 has no significnat IR absorption
>bands.
A graphic which also showed that methane had no significant IR
absorption (as it was not present on the graph in question).
Further, the reader will recall that nothing was said about
"significant IR absorption by O2/N2", but rather Nudds had falsely
claimed that there was _no_ IR absorption... Nudds false claim was
disproven.
> Stupid... Dishonest... Retief....
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fusion
>
> Anyone with even a grade 9 level of science education will recognize that
>the earth surface is mostly liquid, and hence this reference to a topic on
The reader will recall that Nudds had referred to glaciers. But why
should we be surprised that Nudds will assert otherwise, to "defend"
his ubiquitous false claims?
> Stupid... Ignorant.. Retief...
Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Mack the Knife
> Natural C20 is good for earth. Adding 10 times the amount is not good. It's
> quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. The
> more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the ice
> caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on record.
Somehow, your rather simplistic understanding of the chemical dynamics
of the atmosphere and biosphere leaves something to be desired.
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Mack the Knife
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > Title:
> > Green says that CO2 is good for plants. The more the better.
>
> > Nope,
> > at about 4 or 5X concentrations, ~1000ppmv, some plants
> > begin to find CO2 levels toxic, especially when other variables
> > are held constant. Some plants show toxic reactions well
> > before animals do. Showing differing reactions to increasing
> > CO2 concentrations is a very common science fair project.
>
> So how did those plants survive when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 that
> supposedly absorbed all the CO2 in the first place? What is the effect
> of the burning of the Amazon rainforest on CO2 levels?
>
> CO2 has supposedly increased about 40% in 150 years or total increase
> of 100 ppm. What part of this is from volcanoes.? This is about 8 ppm
> per 10 years. US part of this maybe 3ppm total CO2 from all sources.
> Depending on if we can ever get that figuring on how much the burning
> of the Amazon has affected levels. Or how much is naturally released
> from the natural warming trend that has melted some polar ice.
>
> In the meantime, Al Gore recommends flourescent bulbs and his brand of
> corncobs (the kind you shove up your ass). And if you are really
> feeling guilty for your extravagance or to compensate for the cow farts
> from the steak you ate,, you can buy some free market credits for
> "guaranteed third party confirmed carbon retirement"
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
>
> I planted some trees last week. You should be able to drive your car 28
> thousand miles to feed one tree. You want to by some driving credits to
> avoid that feeling of guilt? Guaranteed to be verified by third party
> eyewitness that I planted the trees and retired this tree from it's
> carbon absorption from being sold again.
>
> Man this "GREEN' thing might be fun. Just think of all the GREEN we
> can all make exercising our right to be insane and strangle ourselves
> to death because we are scared our breathing and farts might be
> overheating the atmosphere and cause us to die or something. Anyway it
> will be fun having the CO2 police in charge running around with their
> little CO2 detectors making the world safe from CO2 by taking bribes
> and shaking down businesses that they don't like or don't cough up the
> GREEEN.
>
> Deatherage
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
Let's not forget the nuclear power industry. Supposedly, we need to
build nuke plants all over the place because they don't produce carbon
emissions. The fact that they vent radioactive gases, need to get rid
of contaminated old parts, and produce radioactive waste that will be
hot for hundreds of thousands of years is no big deal. The important
thing is that nobody be exhaling CO2.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> But since Scott Nudds cannot disprove these alternate mechanisms, he
> can only support his religion via assertions and lies, rather than
> through actual science.
There are no alternate mechanisms.
You can jabber all you want about UFO's and leprechans all you like, and
it's not going to change the scientific consensus one bit.
Why? Because you are a Scientifically Illiterate Moron, and a first class
scumbag.
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Once again Scott Nudds demonstrates that he is the moron, and/or a
> liar:
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Indeed, the reader can see that Scott Nudds has no science to support
> his claims, as they are lies. Thus Nudds resorts to logical
> fallacies, such as the Ad Hominem. Nudds childish behavior is typical
> of the emotionally driven AGW religion crowd, as the science does not
> support their specious claims.
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> his claims, as they are lies. Thus Nudds resorts to logical
> fallacies, such as the Ad Hominem. Nudds childish behavior is typical
> of the emotionally driven AGW religion crowd, as the science does not
> support their specious claims.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> First, the idea that something is "forbidden" in quantum mechanics
> does not actually mean that it is _really_ forbidden, only that it is
> considerable less likely
Ahahahahahaha.... You pathetic, Scientifically Illiterate Moron.
State where the pauli exclusion principle is violated. Quanta are forbidden
to enter into states in which their self interference will cause them to
vanish from existance. When is that principle violated?
Ahahahahah... Stupid... Ignorant Retief.
Vendicar Decarian
> On Jan 21, 5:22 pm, "GoMavs" <m...@mavs.net> wrote:
>> Natural C20 is good for earth. Adding 10 times the amount is not good.
>> It's
>> quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
>> The
>> more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the
>> ice
>> caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on
>> record.
"Mack the Knife" <bulldo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Somehow, your rather simplistic understanding of the chemical dynamics
> of the atmosphere and biosphere leaves something to be desired.
Simple yes, and right on the money. The basic princiiples are so simple,
even a child can understand them.
But most RepubliKKKans aren't smart enough apparently...
Vendicar Decarian
> build nuke plants all over the place because they don't produce carbon
> emissions. The fact that they vent radioactive gases
They do? Only when broken.
The problem with nuclear power is the 200,000 reactors that would have to
be constructed and the fact that AmeriKKKa and Israel are so intent on
attacking a soverign, unthreatening nation for maintaining it's absolute
right to development a nuclear fuel cycle.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> A graphic which also showed that methane had no significant IR
> absorption (as it was not present on the graph in question).
Ahahahahahah You Pathetic, Dung Eating Moron.
Here are the warming attributions... Red = Warming, Blue = Cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg
Gosh, I don't see Oxygen or Nitrogen in there anywhere, even thoug Retief
insists that they are strong IR absorbers.
Ahahahahahahahahahah... Pathetic Moron.
Bill Ward
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> But since Scott Nudds cannot disprove these alternate mechanisms, he can
>> only support his religion via assertions and lies, rather than through
>> actual science.
>
> There are no alternate mechanisms.
>
> You can jabber all you want about UFO's and leprechans all you like, and
> it's not going to change the scientific consensus one bit.
>
> Why? Because you are a Scientifically Illiterate Moron, and a first
> class
> scumbag.
>
>
> AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
> --------------------------------------
>
><bandwidth snip>
Has anybody else noticed how Scotty has to include his mantra after each
post? Is it proof by repetition, or just some comforting talisman, like a
blankee, when he's feeling the stress?
Bill Ward
Your trouble, Scotty, is that you know the words, but you don't seem to
understand squat. It appears you've been educated beyond the point of
comprehension.
Vendicar Decarian
"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
> Has anybody else noticed how Scotty has to include his mantra after each
> post? Is it proof by repetition, or just some comforting talisman, like a
> blankee, when he's feeling the stress?
Ex-CIA chief says U.S. must act on climate
Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:07 AM ET
By Paul Taylor
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States must act to cap its emissions of
greenhouse gases and join the fight against climate change or risk losing
global leadership, a former CIA director said in a report released on
Monday.
"The United States must adopt a carbon emission control policy," John
Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1995-96, said in a report
to the Trilateral Commission, a grouping of business and opinion leaders
from Europe, the United States and Asia.
"If the United States or any other OECD country that is a large producer of
greenhouse gas emissions is to retain a leadership role in other areas, it
cannot just opt out of the global climate change policy process," he wrote.
Deutch, an energy specialist who is now a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, also proposed an expanded use of nuclear power,
international cooperation to develop clean coal technology and a sharing of
the costs of emissions control between rich countries and large emerging
nations.
He advocated an additional tax of about $1 per gallon on gasoline, diesel
and other petroleum products in the United States, coupled with a tightening
of fuel economy standards for U.S. car manufacturers, to encourage fuel
efficiency and dampen demand, while recognizing that would be politically
difficult.
CAP AND TRADE
He suggested Washington use the same "cap and trade" system of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions and issuing emissions permits to industry that can
be traded, which the European Union currently uses.
His report to the council, created in 1973 to build a policy consensus among
capitalist democracies on three continents, was the latest in a series of
international studies highlighting the need for radical policy changes to
combat global warming.
Deutch also listed so-called geotechnical measures under consideration to
counterbalance climate change, including adding aerosols to the
stratosphere, placing balloons or mirrors in the stratosphere and even "high
altitude nuclear explosions to induce a nuclear 'spring'".
These ideas were so risky and hard to demonstrate technically that they
highlighted the need to redouble efforts to mitigate human-induced climate
change.
The report said the major industrialized countries must began a process of
transition away from a petroleum-based economy to reduce their dependence on
oil and gas imports for political as well as environmental reasons.
It also called for China and India to be admitted to the International
Energy Agency to improve cooperation among major oil and gas importers and
help avoid tensions over supplies.
While Deutch placed great expectations on carbon capture and sequestration
technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations, notably in
China, a parallel report to the Trilateral Commission by French energy
executive Anne Lauvergeon cast doubt on that solution.
Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, which builds nuclear power stations,
said the capture and storage of carbon emitted through the burning of fossil
fuels was too often presented as a miracle solution.
"This technology will ... not play a significant role in the limitation of
carbon emissions for half a century," she wrote.
Vendicar Decarian
"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
> Your trouble, Scotty, is that you know the words, but you don't seem to
> understand squat. It appears you've been educated beyond the point of
> comprehension.
Yup, apparently your comprehension is quite limited.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html
Ahahahahahaha.... You pathetic, Scientifically Illiterate Moron.
State where the pauli exclusion principle is violated. Quanta are forbidden
to enter into states in which their self interference will cause them to
vanish from existance. When is that principle violated?
Educate yourself. Maggot.
Mack the Knife
wrote:
> "Mack the Knife" <bulldog101...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Let's not forget the nuclear power industry. Supposedly, we need to
> > build nuke plants all over the place because they don't produce carbon
> > emissions. The fact that they vent radioactive gases
>
> They do? Only when broken.
AH AH, WRONG!
Mack the Knife
wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 5:22 pm, "GoMavs" <m...@mavs.net> wrote:
> >> Natural C20 is good for earth. Adding 10 times the amount is not good.
> >> It's
> >> quite simple you idiots. C02 is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
> >> The
> >> more you pump up the more its going to stay heated. Hence the reason the
> >> ice
> >> caps are melting and 2005, and 2006 have been the warmest years on
> >> record.
>
>
> > Somehow, your rather simplistic understanding of the chemical dynamics
> > of the atmosphere and biosphere leaves something to be desired.
>
> Simple yes, and right on the money. The basic princiiples are so simple,
> even a child can understand them.
So, you have a child's understanding of the biosphere, atmosphere, and
near earth space? I'm not surprised.
Szczepan Białek
"Vendicar Decarian"
<
> For more information:
>
> www.aaas.org/climate
>
> The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
> activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
>
> Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
> rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases
> in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more.
> The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over
> the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
Evidence of harm have increased markedly because we have big "success" in
lowering SO2 content in air. CO2 and SO2 are good for plants and people
Proper control means to keep natural proportion. I am sure that in near
future everywhere will be working "SO2 generators" to keep needed
proportion. SO2 and sulphites are the best natural disinfectants and
fungicidal agents.
S*
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
Vendicar Decarian
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
> Evidence of harm have increased markedly because we have big "success" in
> lowering SO2 content in air. CO2 and SO2 are good for plants
SO2 precipitates out of the atmosphere as dilute sulphuric acid, acidifying
lakes, rivers and streams, soils etc. Lowering biological productivity.
Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate Szczepan...
Impact of climate change on crops worse than previously thought
The impact of climate change on global crop production is likely to
be worse than previously predicted, scientists said in a 2005 Royal
Society Discussion Meeting.
The two-day international meeting entitled "Food Crops in a Changing
Climate" broughttogether world-class scientists in the fields of
meteorology, climate science and agriculture, to discuss the impacts
of a changing climate on the productivity of staple food crops,
grown throughout the world.
Importantly, it considered how best to forecast these impacts using
observations and modelling techniques.The meeting focussed largely
on tropical countries where most of the world's food is grown and
where people are most vulnerable to climate change.
Results were presented from a series of large-scale field
experiments on crops such as maize, rice, soyabean and wheat, that
show how increasing temperatures, drought and ground-level ozone
concentrations (as predicted for the coming century*), will result
in substantial reduction in crop yields, outweighing the beneficial
fertilisation effects currently predicted from rising levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Professor Steve Long from Illinois University said: "Growing crops
much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the
beneficial effects that were previously hoped for in the event of
climate change. In addition, ground-level ozone, which is also
predicted to rise but has not been extensively studied before, has
been shown to result in a loss of photosynthesis and 20% yield
loss."
He continued: "Both these results show that we need to seriously
re-examine our predictions for future global food production as they
are likely to be far lower than previously estimated."
Additionally, studies by scientists from the UK and Denmark show
that just a few days of hot temperatures can severely reduce the
yield of major food crops such as wheat, soyabean, rice and
groundnuts, if they coincide with the flowering of these crops.
These results suggest that there are particular thresholds above
which crops become very vulnerable to climate change.
On a more positive note, the meeting highlighted new developments in
forecasting techniques, the basis of which can act as early warning
systems of famine for vulnerable countries. For example, a team from
the NCAS Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling and the Department
of Agriculture at the University of Reading will demonstrate a new
forecasting system that incorporates a state-of-the-art climate
prediction model with a model that simulates crop growth under
varying environmental conditions.They will show how this can be
used to predict the yield of annual crops in countries such as
India, for the next 50 -100 years, under a changing climate.Such
information can be used by policy makers to aid future planning for
climate and crop responses, and for assessing future vulnerabilities
across the globe.
* As predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change for
2050.