Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only thing more amusing than the irony of this thread is the media's attempt to cover the story and downplay or completely hide the nature of the mission. With that said, I would like some climate change people to answer my questions that I asked in the previous thread on this topic, before it was locked:
1) If CO2 reflects 50 percent of short-range radiant heat and long-range heat is in equilibrium with the planet, why hasn't the planet warmed continuously since the beginning of time?
2) Has anyone actually pumped "greenhouse gasses" into a greenhouse or other controlled environment and observed warming?
3) If "greenhouse gasses" have risen exponentially since the industrial revolution and each molecule of CO2 reflects 50 percent of SWL radiant heat back to earth, why has the "warming" been, at best, linear?
4) If NASA really believes in global warming, then why not use it to warm Mars for human habitation?
5) If humans cause "greenhouse gasses" and warming, then what caused the past temperate zone shifts, ice ages, mini ice ages, glacial growths, glacial recessions, and other climate changes on earth long before man?
The only thing more amusing than the irony of this thread is the media's attempt to cover the story and downplay or completely hide the nature of the mission. With that said, I would like some climate change people to answer my questions that I asked in the previous thread on this topic, before it was locked:
1) If CO2 reflects 50 percent of short-range radiant heat and long-range heat is in equilibrium with the planet, why hasn't the planet warmed continuously since the beginning of time?
No, the only thing that is both ironic and amusing on this thread is the woeful lack of even basic knowledge about climate science from all the smug heehawing high-fiving deniers.
Your questions are like word salad where you throw a few sciency sounding phrases together and hope it makes sense. Have you been reading denialist blogs or something?
You might as well ask questions like "If the moon is made of green cheese, why doesn't it look green?"
If you are going to read blogs at least read a blog where the writers understand climate science:
No, the only thing that is both ironic and amusing on this thread is the woeful lack of even basic knowledge about climate science from all the smug heehawing high-fiving deniers.
Your questions are like word salad where you throw a few sciency sounding phrases together and hope it makes sense. Have you been reading denialist blogs or something?
You might as well ask questions like "If the moon is made of green cheese, why doesn't it look green?"
If you are going to read blogs at least read a blog where the writers understand climate science:
But, we are told the effect of global warming on us in the UNITED STATES will be hotter weather with crops zones moving north
Which is exactly what is happening, as you could easily find out for yourself if you took 30 seconds to do 1st-grade level research before shooting your mouth off. But that wouldn't be as much fun, would it?
CO2 is tied with O2 and H2O for the title of "molecule that human life is totally dependent on" while arsenic is nothing of the sort. Your body does not produce arsenic in the process of every breath you take. Plants do not use arsenic in the photosynthesis process. Greenhouses do not use tanks of arsenic to make plants grow greener, bigger, and heartier. In short, it's an absurd comparison.
Do people seriously not know what an analogy is? Do you not understand the context in which I compared arsenic? Go back and read for context.....
Quote:
The human contribution to CO2 as a percentage of the greenhouse gas volume is
0.4%. That's it. And your magnified effect theory disregards this thing called
"the saturation point" in regards to infrared absorption (the thing that let's
CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere) and that water + naturally occurring CO2 + all
other GHG molecules govern 99.6% of the greenhouse gas volume and the GHG
volume's effect on the global mean temperature.
Not sure what you are talking about. The Earth has a finite amount of carbon. All the carbon stored in fossils fuels has taken tens of millions to reach that point and we've been releasing billions of tons of this stored CO2 into the atmosphere yearly.
That's just CO2, the same can said of methane, SOX, and NOX. You are just looking at one variable.
Quote:
Question...do people who work in greenhouses drop over dead from the vastly increased CO2 concentrations within the structure? How about tourists who stroll through said greenhouses? I've been to several botanical gardens with increased humidity, CO2 and temperature, and not only have I not keeled over from being in them, I was amazed to see abundant flora thriving in such an environment. How is this possible?
Of course not, that's a stupid suggestion/question. Why would anyone "keel over" from a botanical garden? Do botanical gardens have climates? NO? Well that takes care of that stupid question.
Quote:
I thought an increase in CO2 killed just like arsenic?
Then you thought completely wrong.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Breathe enough O2 and you will die. Is O2 now poison?
By definition, if you die from O2 then yes it is a poison.
What else ya got?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
