Arctic ice thins dramatically

[wirebender]

It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.

Do you really believe that? If you do, I put it to you that you are not using your mind at all but merely following the dogma that a high priest has preached to you. Here, let me give you an opportunity to actually use your intellect in a small bit of critical observation.

You say that the earth would be much colder if it weren't for CO2. I say that the exact opposite is true and anyone who is capable of using his mind must come to the same conclusion. The fact is that the atmosphere (primaraly water vapor) keeps us cool during the day, and slows the inevetable cooling that night time brings.

Consider the moon. It is roughly the same distance as us from the sun and as such recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter from the sun as earth except it has no atmosphere. Ask yourself. On the moon, what is the consequence during the day of having no atmosphere? What is the consequence during the night of having no atmosphere.

During the day, the moon, which has no atmosphere and recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter as the earth, the temperature is over 250 degrees F. Compare that to the hottest place on earth and you can't help but agree that during the day, the atmosphere keeps us from buring up.

During the night, the moon which has no atmosphere to slow the convection of heat absorbed by its surface into space drops to a chilly -387 degrees F very quickly.

If you still believe that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it, explain the searing daytime temperatures on the moon.

So what's so hard to understand that more would result in even more warming, despite the fact that it's a trace gas?

Rather than answer that I will ask you if you still beleive that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it? If you do, then clearly you are not using your mind.

If its absolute concentration was important, why would it contribute to warming at all? That's the problem with the deniers' positions. When looked at carefully, they just don't pass the logic test.

The problem lies with your position as it opposes all observed evidence. The foundations of your position are proveably wrong. Your entire position rests on the idea that the atmosphere, namely CO2 somehow keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be without it, but the moon, our nearest neighbor, sears under the light of the sun with no atmosphere. What makes you believe that the earth would burn under the sun the same as the moon if there was no atmosphere to keep daytime temperatures down to a liveable level?

 

[skookerasbil]

wire bro.........this Konrad guy pops in and invariably jumps on the bandwagon of the hard core nutballs. He's not part of the religion..........just an example of what we refer to around here as a naive sheep = automatically embraces everything that is k00k left, no questions asked.

Its pretty fcukking funny when the trolls refer to "logic" as it relates to the global warming debate.........as if logic had anything to do with the scam. Think about it.........pairing "weather" and science" is beyond laughable.

When Old Rocks comes on here and tells me that someboy has come up with a method to control the direction and intensity of tornado's and hurricanes, I promised in this forum I'd listen intently.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.

Is it your contention that the earth would be colder without an atmosphere?

What kind of a dumb ass question is that....???
Let me ask you one...:
are You one of those stupid people that believe that Mars is so hot because the atmosphere there is almost entirely CO2...?

Mars would be that hot, regardless what kind of gas is around it, even if it were Hydrogen Gas...it`s the absence of water that makes Mars hot...
GEEEEZUZ...what`s the matter with you wanna be scientists? Don`t You know anything about heat enthalpy?...specific heat (energy in Joules), of evaporation...? or just plain "specific heat"...like how many calories does it take to heat a specific substance by 1 degree...?

Lets start with this moronic "experiment" that "proved" that inside a plexiglass dome the "climate model" heated up quicker the more CO2 was inside this childish experiment.

Whatever IR strikes inside the dome,...all solid objects of course warm up...nevermind if there is any gas in the dome or not...
Then as You replace the air inside the dome with more and more CO2 You will jump for joy noticing that the temperature inside the dome climbs quicker...
and Your balloon of joy would be deflated just as quickly, had You bothered to look into any Physics book, because there You would find that it takes WAY LESS CALORIES to raise CO2 gas by 1 degree than Nitrogen & Oxygen, the chief constituents of our atmosphere...
and You ask ME, if I believe

Is it your contention that the earth would be colder without an atmosphere?

Man You did not just miss the boat, You are centuries behind...!!!

By the way, it`s not just "my contention"...there was an entire delegation of renowned Physisists & Chemists from around the world telling the U.S. Congress the same thing I have been telling You just now in this post and the post just before it...

Of course Googling for nothing but "Global Warming Evidence + CO2" You will never find out about it....and that`s why people like that stay stupid and ignorant

Google some using "Dr. Heinz Hug et al" and You will find out what the rest of the REAL SCIENTISTS have to say about this Michael Mann`s fantasy world

LOL, BiPolar is sucking on the torpedo juice again. Yessiree.... Hot Mars!

Temperature of Mars

For the most part, the temperature of Mars is cold, very cold. That’s because Mars is further from the Sun than Earth, and lacks a thick atmosphere to hold in the heat.



But Mars is also similar to Earth because it’s tilted on its axis about 25 degrees. This gives the planets seasons like we have on Earth.

During the Martian winter, temperatures can dip down to -140 C, and then rise up to 20 °C in the summers.

Mars has an extremely eccentric orbit around the Sun. The closest point in its orbit to the Sun is called perihelion; this is the same time that it’s summer in the southern hemisphere. This means that the summer temperatures in the southern hemisphere can be 30 C warmer than the summer temperatures in the north.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.

Do you really believe that? If you do, I put it to you that you are not using your mind at all but merely following the dogma that a high priest has preached to you. Here, let me give you an opportunity to actually use your intellect in a small bit of critical observation.

You say that the earth would be much colder if it weren't for CO2. I say that the exact opposite is true and anyone who is capable of using his mind must come to the same conclusion. The fact is that the atmosphere (primaraly water vapor) keeps us cool during the day, and slows the inevetable cooling that night time brings.

Consider the moon. It is roughly the same distance as us from the sun and as such recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter from the sun as earth except it has no atmosphere. Ask yourself. On the moon, what is the consequence during the day of having no atmosphere? What is the consequence during the night of having no atmosphere.

During the day, the moon, which has no atmosphere and recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter as the earth, the temperature is over 250 degrees F. Compare that to the hottest place on earth and you can't help but agree that during the day, the atmosphere keeps us from buring up.

During the night, the moon which has no atmosphere to slow the convection of heat absorbed by its surface into space drops to a chilly -387 degrees F very quickly.

If you still believe that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it, explain the searing daytime temperatures on the moon.

So what's so hard to understand that more would result in even more warming, despite the fact that it's a trace gas?

Rather than answer that I will ask you if you still beleive that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it? If you do, then clearly you are not using your mind.

If its absolute concentration was important, why would it contribute to warming at all? That's the problem with the deniers' positions. When looked at carefully, they just don't pass the logic test.

The problem lies with your position as it opposes all observed evidence. The foundations of your position are proveably wrong. Your entire position rests on the idea that the atmosphere, namely CO2 somehow keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be without it, but the moon, our nearest neighbor, sears under the light of the sun with no atmosphere. What makes you believe that the earth would burn under the sun the same as the moon if there was no atmosphere to keep daytime temperatures down to a liveable level?

Wow! What a real ******* dumb ass you have turned out to be. It is only the physicists that are telling us that CO2 is a GHG, and that without that in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen clear down to the equator.

So we have all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Sciences, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real and a clear and present danger, and you come along and state it is not, that that CO2 is not a GHG. Without presenting the slightest bit of evidence other than your yap-yap.

Lordy, lordy, the more they come, the dumber they get. And ol' BiPolar has just informed us of a hot Mars.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.

Do you really believe that? If you do, I put it to you that you are not using your mind at all but merely following the dogma that a high priest has preached to you. Here, let me give you an opportunity to actually use your intellect in a small bit of critical observation.

You say that the earth would be much colder if it weren't for CO2. I say that the exact opposite is true and anyone who is capable of using his mind must come to the same conclusion. The fact is that the atmosphere (primaraly water vapor) keeps us cool during the day, and slows the inevetable cooling that night time brings.

Consider the moon. It is roughly the same distance as us from the sun and as such recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter from the sun as earth except it has no atmosphere. Ask yourself. On the moon, what is the consequence during the day of having no atmosphere? What is the consequence during the night of having no atmosphere.

During the day, the moon, which has no atmosphere and recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter as the earth, the temperature is over 250 degrees F. Compare that to the hottest place on earth and you can't help but agree that during the day, the atmosphere keeps us from buring up.

During the night, the moon which has no atmosphere to slow the convection of heat absorbed by its surface into space drops to a chilly -387 degrees F very quickly.

If you still believe that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it, explain the searing daytime temperatures on the moon.



Rather than answer that I will ask you if you still beleive that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it? If you do, then clearly you are not using your mind.

If its absolute concentration was important, why would it contribute to warming at all? That's the problem with the deniers' positions. When looked at carefully, they just don't pass the logic test.

The problem lies with your position as it opposes all observed evidence. The foundations of your position are proveably wrong. Your entire position rests on the idea that the atmosphere, namely CO2 somehow keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be without it, but the moon, our nearest neighbor, sears under the light of the sun with no atmosphere. What makes you believe that the earth would burn under the sun the same as the moon if there was no atmosphere to keep daytime temperatures down to a liveable level?

Wow! What a real ******* dumb ass you have turned out to be. It is only the physicists that are telling us that CO2 is a GHG, and that without that in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen clear down to the equator.

So we have all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Sciences, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real and a clear and present danger, and you come along and state it is not, that that CO2 is not a GHG. Without presenting the slightest bit of evidence other than your yap-yap.

Lordy, lordy, the more they come, the dumber they get. And ol' BiPolar has just informed us of a hot Mars.

Im laughing................

What do the National Academies of Sciences and all the major universities have in common???


http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists

 

[wirebender]

Wow! What a real ******* dumb ass you have turned out to be. It is only the physicists that are telling us that CO2 is a GHG, and that without that in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen clear down to the equator.

Physicists who depend on grant money for thier daily bread. In fact, as far as scientists go, the AGW crowd consists mostly of government hacks and scientists who depend on grant money for a living. No crisis, no money. You have to look pretty hard to find a scientist on the AGW bandwagon who doesn't depend on grant money, which is most of them.

Clearly, you aren't able to use your mind. How do you suppose that the earth would be frozen solid without CO2 and the moon burns in the sun? Explain that if you can. The atmosphere is what keeps the earth from buring in the day.

So we have all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Sciences, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real and a clear and present danger, and you come along and state it is not, that that CO2 is not a GHG. Without presenting the slightest bit of evidence other than your yap-yap.

You have the political heads of the sceintific bodies on the bandwagon for the grant money. When surveys are done of the membership of said bodies, you get an entirely different story. Clearly, you can't speak on the subject yourself as you have no grasp of the science so you are left with nothing more than a fallacious appeal to an authority which you have no idea whether they are right or wrong.

Here rocks, have a gander at some peer reviewed science that states quite clearly that CO2 is not responsible for the changing climate.

WorldSciNet

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

SpringerLink - Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2

SpringerLink - Space Science Reviews, Volume 81, Numbers 1-2

Inter Research » CR » v10 » n1 » p69-82

ScienceDirect - The Science of The Total Environment : Evaluating the climatic effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 via an analysis of Earth's historical temperature record

ScienceDirect - Applied Energy : On the magnitude of the CO2 greenhouse effect

ScienceDirect - Atmospheric Environment (1967) : The climatic effect of co2: A different view

Want more? I can point you to dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed papers that show that CO2 is not a driving climatic factor.

Your problem rocks, is that you don't grasp the science and as a result are at the mercy of people who seek to take advantage of your ignorance for their own political and financial gain. Your political position makes you their patsy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.

The Carbon Dioxide Problem

 

[westwall]

Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.

The Carbon Dioxide Problem

The Vostock Ice cores prove you wrong everytime, maybe that's why you studiously ignore them.

 

[wirebender]

Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.

The Carbon Dioxide Problem

Sorry, but the physical record, and observed evidence prove me right. The only "evidence" that contradicts what I am saying is the output of computer simulations and that hardly constitutes proof of anything other than the shortcomings of those who wrote the simulations. Computer simulations have a singularly poor record of reflecting observations.

As to your "evidence" I am laughing at you again old rocks. Did you even read the information that was provided? There was a big graphic representing the Vostok ice core data with a notation directly underneath. Here is an excerpt from that notation:

Notice that present carbon dioxide concentrations far exceed all values for the past 400,000 years, and that the concentration is high when temperature is high. This does not imply cause or effect. Both carbon dioxide and temperature are linked through feedback loops.

 

[skookerasbil]

computer models are gay...........

 

[IanC]

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.

 

[konradv]

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.

The first 20 ppm is more important? That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20. Do the math!!!

 

[IanC]

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.

The first 20 ppm is more important? That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20. Do the math!!!

do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?

 

[Old Rocks]

computer models are gay...........

Skookerasbil is gay.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Skookerasbil is gay.

At least he isn't some ******* brain-dead AGW cultist. Gay I've got no problem with, cultists are fucked up, though.

 

[Old Rocks]

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.

The first 20 ppm is more important? That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20. Do the math!!!

do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?

Do you understand anything, Ian?

A23A

 

[westwall]

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.

The first 20 ppm is more important? That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20. Do the math!!!

konrad, you need to go to a university and have one of the math profs teach you about logarithims. Really you do.

 

[westwall]

The first 20 ppm is more important? That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20. Do the math!!!

do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?

Do you understand anything, Ian?

A23A

Ian understands far more than you do while he is asleep then you ever will in your entire life.

 

[polarbear]

Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.

The Carbon Dioxide Problem

So how would You explain all that..:

You ******* moron

 

[wirebender]

do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?

Obviously, he doesn't. I doubt that a definiton would help much either but it's worth a shot.

logarithm [Gr.,=relation number], number associated with a positive number, being the power to which a third number, called the base, must be raised in order to obtain the given positive number. For example, the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2, written log 10 100=2, since 10 2 =100. Logarithms of positive numbers using the number 10 as the base are called common logarithms; those using the number e (see separate article) as the base are called natural logarithms or Napierian logarithms (for John Napier). The natural logarithm of a number x is denoted by ln x or simply log x. Since logarithms are exponents, they satisfy all the usual rules of exponents. Consequently, tedious calculations such as multiplications and divisions can be replaced by the simpler processes of adding or subtracting the corresponding logarithms. Logarithmic tables are generally used for this purpose.

If that doesn't help, maybe he could visit logarithms for dummies

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/logarithm-basics.html