The Coming Meltdown

[DeclinetoState]

By Bill McKibben (http://www.nybooks.com/authors/98)

Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains (http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181&sourceid=41397204&bfpid=0805064435)

by Mark Bowen

Henry Holt, 463 pp., $30.00
Dancing at the Dead Sea: Tracking the World's Environmental Hotspots (http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181&sourceid=41397204&bfpid=0226532003)

by Alanna Mitchell

University of Chicago Press, 239 pp., $25.00

The year 2005 has been the hottest year on record for the planet, hotter than 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2003. More importantly, perhaps, this has been the autumn when the planet has shown more clearly than before just what that extra heat means. Consider just a few of the findings published in the major scientific journals during the last three months:

—Arctic sea ice is melting fast. There was 20 percent less of it than normal this summer, and as Dr. Mark Serreze, one of the researchers from Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center, told reporters, "the feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover." That is particularly bad news because it creates a potent feedback effect: instead of blinding white ice that bounces sunlight back into space, there is now open blue water that soaks up the sun's heat, amplifying the melting process.

—In the tundra of Siberia, other researchers report that permafrost has begun to melt rapidly, and, as it does, formerly frozen methane—which, like the more prevalent carbon dioxide, acts as a heat-trapping "greenhouse gas"—is escaping into the atmosphere. In some places last winter, the methane bubbled up so steadily that puddles of standing water couldn't freeze even in the depths of the Russian winter.

—British researchers, examining almost six thousand soil borings across the UK, found another feedback effect. Warmer temperatures (growing seasons now last eleven days longer at that latitude) meant that microbial activity had increased dramatically in the soil. This, in turn, meant that much of the carbon long stored in the soil was now being released into the atmosphere. The quantities were large enough to negate all the work that Britain had done to switch away from coal to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. "All the consequences of global warming will occur more rapidly," said Guy Kirk, chief scientist on the study. "That's the scary thing. The amount of time we have got to do something about it is smaller than we thought."

<HR class=section-break>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18616

[ConspiracyBuff]

Doesnt seem like anyone wants to listen, not on this forum, and not in our oh, so busy world.....one day they'll listen when its too late.

[DoctorDoom]

The year 2005 has been the hottest year on record for the planet ...Deception, thy name is ecowacko. How long have temperature records been kept, how accurate were they, how widespread was the recording, did they account for variables, etcetera?

... hotter than 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2003.How about hotter than 1500 AD or 500 AD or 5000 BC or 1,000,000 BC? Are they hotter than they were when the mammoths, now encased in ice, were grazing on vegetation where the ice is?

Scaremongers are shameless. Incidentally, 2005 was by no means the hottest year that I can remember? I can recall quite a few years where the summer temps exceeded 100°-plus for several days. Last year, the highest was in the low-mid 90s.

GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!!!! AAUUGGHH!!!! Break out the parkas.

[Lazarus]

This global warming CON is the best grip that the Enviro-Commies had had on the throats of the American public... They intend to milk it for all its worth...

Disregard the POOR science they use to back it - they know politicians respond to loud noises, so they believe they have some degree of momentum in this and will contimue to make up stats and twist facts to achieve their ultimate goal - TO SHUT DOWN THE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL MACHINE..!!!

If they cant turn us to Communism thru a direct appeal to the people, they will sneak it in the back door thru some sugar-coated lie that strikes near any normal human's heart...

As Mr Limbaugh has said for years, the Enironmental movement has become the new safe haven for the Communists...

It is shear arrogance to assume that mankind, in its best efforts can have the slightest effect on the global environment of this planet... This ball is being managed by the hand of God - always has been - always will be...

[Maggie_T]

In the 70s, we were supposed to freeze solid anytime. Now, we're going to melt away like ice-cream cones in the Mohave desert.

Maybe 10 years from now, things will finally settle down and the world will be at room temperature.

No, wait. That would not suit the eco-nazis agenda.

Never mind.

[papaimp]

The year 2005 has been the hottest year on record for the planet, hotter than 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2003.
So, does that mean it was hotter in 1999, 2000, and 2001?:whistle:
I always thought 2004 came after 2003, is there a statistical difference in the heat rating explaining the chronological disparity?

I also recall a summer when the temperatures hit 110F, nearly 15 years ago. There also was a record cold spell in 1978, when my town nearly froze over. This past year has been the most "room temperature" of any I recall....

[Native American]

Doesnt seem like anyone wants to listen, not on this forum, and not in our oh, so busy world.....one day they'll listen when its too late.

Hell, I'm listening! Count me in on your listening post!!

I'm "listening" to the Sun's increased solar output. Dammit, it's making the Earth I live on get hotter!! Guess I'll have to phone up the Sun and tell it to turn down its thermostat a few degrees, huh? Maybe it'll listen....

[Native American]

Rather than continue to listen to the emotional hysteria of the Envirowackos, let's pause for a moment and consider, for example, the amount of "global warming" power coming from natural causes (i.e., The Sun) versus the amount of "global warming" power caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.

This way we can begin to get a handle on how big a factor Man's behavior is in producing the much-ballyhooed "global warming" versus how big a factor the Sun is.

Sun's Overall Properties<O:p</O:p

produces 4x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts of energy and based on the Earth's fossil record, has been doing so at virtually the same rate for over 3 billion years. <O:p</O:p
has a mass of 2x10<SUP>30</SUP> kg and an average density of 1400 kg/m<SUP>3</SUP> (recall the computation of the density of Jupiter which illustrates that even an object comprised largely of H can be this dense; H is in a different state in the Sun than in Jupiter, however) <O:p</O:p
has a surface temperature of 5800ºK (which implies that it must be a compressed gas because no materials can remain solid or even liquid at this temperature) <O:p</O:p
rotates in about 25 days at its equator; it rotates differentially confirming its gaseous character <O:p</O:p
has a magnetic field <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
By measuring the radiation received just outside the Earth's atmosphere and applying our knowledge that the Sun's radiation will have been spread over a sphere whose radius is the Earth's distance from the Sun:
<O:p</O:p
flux f = 1370 watts/m<SUP>2</SUP> received from the Sun at the Earth, integrated over all wavelengths so
<O:p</O:p
L<SUB>Sun</SUB> = 4 pi d<SUP>2</SUP>f = 4 pi (1.50x10<SUP>11</SUP> m)<SUP>2</SUP> 1370 w/m<SUP>2 </SUP>= 3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts

In 2004, there were 1,809,078 billion BTU’s useful thermal power output produced by burning coal, oil, and natural gas

1 BTU X 0.0002928 = KWH
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530 billion KWH in a year
24 X 365 = 8760 hours in a year
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530/8760 = .06 billion watt rate from burning coal, oil, and natural gas = .06 x 10<SUP>9 </SUP>= 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts
3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts / 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts = 0.65 = 10<SUP>20</SUP>


<O:p</O:p
IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes.


Then again, facts don't mean much to the typical "global warming" theorist....<O:p</O:p

[Native American]

Also, I'm wondering why DeclinedToState has been banned??

[Popperite]

Rather than continue to listen to the emotional hysteria of the Envirowackos, let's pause for a moment and consider, for example, the amount of "global warming" power coming from natural causes (i.e., The Sun) versus the amount of "global warming" power caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.

This way we can begin to get a handle on how big a factor Man's behavior is in producing the much-ballyhooed "global warming" versus how big a factor the Sun is.

Sun's Overall Properties<O:p</O:p

produces 4x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts of energy and based on the Earth's fossil record, has been doing so at virtually the same rate for over 3 billion years. <O:p</O:p
has a mass of 2x10<SUP>30</SUP> kg and an average density of 1400 kg/m<SUP>3</SUP> (recall the computation of the density of Jupiter which illustrates that even an object comprised largely of H can be this dense; H is in a different state in the Sun than in Jupiter, however) <O:p</O:p
has a surface temperature of 5800ºK (which implies that it must be a compressed gas because no materials can remain solid or even liquid at this temperature) <O:p</O:p
rotates in about 25 days at its equator; it rotates differentially confirming its gaseous character <O:p</O:p
has a magnetic field <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
By measuring the radiation received just outside the Earth's atmosphere and applying our knowledge that the Sun's radiation will have been spread over a sphere whose radius is the Earth's distance from the Sun:
<O:p</O:p
flux f = 1370 watts/m<SUP>2</SUP> received from the Sun at the Earth, integrated over all wavelengths so
<O:p</O:p
L<SUB>Sun</SUB> = 4 pi d<SUP>2</SUP>f = 4 pi (1.50x10<SUP>11</SUP> m)<SUP>2</SUP> 1370 w/m<SUP>2 </SUP>= 3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts

In 2004, there were 1,809,078 billion BTU’s useful thermal power output produced by burning coal, oil, and natural gas

1 BTU X 0.0002928 = KWH
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530 billion KWH in a year
24 X 365 = 8760 hours in a year
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530/8760 = .06 billion watt rate from burning coal, oil, and natural gas = .06 x 10<SUP>9 </SUP>= 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts
3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts / 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts = 0.65 = 10<SUP>20</SUP>


<O:p</O:p
IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes.


Then again, facts don't mean much to the typical "global warming" theorist....<O:p</O:p

:thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud:

I am utterly dumbfounded.

[sunsettommy]

Also, I'm wondering why DeclinedToState has been banned??

He refused the Administrators requests to make some changes.The changes to keep in line with the Forums policy and rules.

[sunsettommy]

Hell, I'm listening! Count me in on your listening post!!

I'm "listening" to the Sun's increased solar output. Dammit, it's making the Earth I live on get hotter!! Guess I'll have to phone up the Sun and tell it to turn down its thermostat a few degrees, huh? Maybe it'll listen....

Yeah the fact that the Sun is at its most active in a thousand years must in some way impact the Earth.

They seems to think it is only about 20% of the warming cause.

:rolleyes:

[Bob_Arctor]

Rather than continue to listen to the emotional hysteria of the Envirowackos, let's pause for a moment and consider, for example, the amount of "global warming" power coming from natural causes (i.e., The Sun) versus the amount of "global warming" power caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.

This way we can begin to get a handle on how big a factor Man's behavior is in producing the much-ballyhooed "global warming" versus how big a factor the Sun is.


Wow! It looks like someone doesn't understand global warming! Even others here who deny it understand the basic idea. :uhh:

(Also NA don't forget to give a link to your sources!)

[Popperite]

Wow! It looks like someone doesn't understand global warming! Even others here who deny it understand the basic idea. :uhh:

(Also NA don't forget to give a link to your sources!)

Hmmm... I am rather curious to see where that comes from. And if it is still online somewhere.

[Bob_Arctor]

Hmmm... I am rather curious to see where that comes from. And if it is still online somewhere.
Oh, it is. The different font tends to give it away.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/astr_250/Lectures/Lecture_12.htm

The "BTU from fossil fuel" he may have calculated himself, as it isn't part of the sun lecture and is a bit more simple :grin:

[Popperite]

Oh, it is. The different font tends to give it away.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/astr_250/Lectures/Lecture_12.htm

The "BTU from fossil fuel" he may have calculated himself, as it isn't part of the sun lecture and is a bit more simple :grin:

Well the site you mention doesn't argue what NA has argued at least.

[Bob_Arctor]

Well the site you mention doesn't argue what NA has argued at least.
Hehe, well it is from a university!

[Popperite]

Hehe, well it is from a university!

:grin: I knew there was a good side to this. But you can find the strangest things on the net. It wouldn't have surprised me if this would have been out there somewhere.

[Biff]

Wow! It looks like someone doesn't understand global warming! Even others here who deny it understand the basic idea. :uhh:
(Also NA don't forget to give a link to your sources!)

I noticed that neither of you two geniuses could find fault with his scientific argument.

[DeclinetoState]

Also, I'm wondering why DeclinedToState has been banned??

Since it's my birthday, they've let me back in. :D

Will the candles on my cake contribute to global warming?

[Bob_Arctor]

I noticed that neither of you two geniuses could find fault with his scientific argument.
That's because there were no faults! It perfectly represented his understanding of GW. All the heat made by engines, furnaces, power plants, radiators and so on doesn't compare to the sun's input. Case closed!

[Popperite]

Since it's my birthday, they've let me back in. :D

Will the candles on my cake contribute to global warming?

Congrats and welcome back:thumb: to our CAPITAL offender!:D

Uhhh... about the birthday candles. Dunno... depends on how old you're getting this year I suppose.

[Native American]

I noticed that neither of you two geniuses could find fault with his scientific argument.

Bingo!

I can (and did) do the math. Neither of them can.

So they're frustrated. And ignorant. This was probably the very first time they ever had it pointed out to them that the "global warming" caused by the Sun is many orders of magnitude greater than any puny "warming" caused by Man's activity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas!

[Native American]

Since it's my birthday, they've let me back in. :D

Will the candles on my cake contribute to global warming?

Yes! Blow them out quick! (and welcome back, BTW!)

Even the simple experiment of holding your hand over the burning candles will prove, beyond a doubt, that the rapid oxidation of the beeswax (it's more probably candles which were derived from petroleum, but we'll overlook that for now) is cranking out the ol' BTU's, and thus will contribute to the dreaded "GLOBAL WARMING" !!!

Today it's just your hand getting warm, tomorrow it's the polar ice shelf melting, and later on IT'S THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT! Pretty scary thought, huh?

Then again, the "global warming" due to the Sun, as I have already shown, is literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than that due to all the birthday candles on all the birthday cakes ever since Man started baking those "environmentally-unfriendly" birthday time bombs! Then again, those facts won't deter the hysterical rants of the Envirowackos one bit....

[Popperite]

So they're frustrated. And ignorant. This was probably the very first time they ever had it pointed out to them that the "global warming" caused by the Sun is many orders of magnitude greater than any puny "warming" caused by Man's activity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas!

One can off course never be a 100% sure about things like this, but I would call it safe to say that we are dealing with a unique insight here. Nobody until now, I would say, has thought of this. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Native American]

One can off course never be a 100% sure about things like this, but I would call it safe to say that we are dealing with a unique insight here. Nobody until now, I would say, has thought of this. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Obviously it's a "unique insight" for you, else you would have been able to point out some "error" in what I posted.

But you could not.

[Bob_Arctor]

NA,

I think you're on to something here. I've never looked at the global warming issue the way you've presented it, and I must confess it's really making me think. I believe I've misunderstood the idea on a very fundamental level, and am likely not alone in my confusion. To make sure, the idea is basically that the released greenhouse gases are hot, because they are mainly exhaust from engines - and this heat simply does not compare to the heat added by the sun. Is that it?

Then again, the "global warming" due to the Sun, as I have already shown, is literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than that due to all the birthday candles on all the birthday cakes ever since Man started baking those "environmentally-unfriendly" birthday time bombs! Then again, those facts won't deter the hysterical rants of the Envirowackos one bit....

[Native American]

NA,

I think you're on to something here. I've never looked at the global warming issue the way you've presented it, and I must confess it's really making me think. I believe I've misunderstood the idea on a very fundamental level, and am likely not alone in my confusion. To make sure, the idea is basically that the released greenhouse gases are hot, because they are mainly exhaust from engines - and this heat simply does not compare to the heat added by the sun. Is that it?

Your confusion runs deep, I see.

To begin with, "greenhouse gases" are not "mainly exhaust from engines", but are rather mainly "exhaust" from trees, plants, and volcanoes - all of which are "combusting" on daily basis, and indeed have been for centuries.

Second, the amount of heat released by combusting the Earth's stores of oil, coal, and natural gas is orders of magnitude less than the amount of heat radiated onto the Earth by the Sun. The heat from the combustion of oil, coal, and natural gas is a veritable drop in the ocean (not merely a bucket!) compared to the heat from the Sun.

Burning the coal and the oil and the natural gas doesn't make a damn bit of difference in terms of how warm or cold the Earth is, Bob.

[DoctorDoom]

Originally Posted by Native American
So they're frustrated. And ignorant. This was probably the very first time they ever had it pointed out to them that the "global warming" caused by the Sun is many orders of magnitude greater than any puny "warming" caused by Man's activity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas!One can off course never be a 100% sure about things like this, but I would call it safe to say that we are dealing with a unique insight here. Nobody until now, I would say, has thought of this. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?It has been pointed out numerous times in various threads that the energy received via insolation is vastly greater than man's puny energy efforts.

Some number-crunching:1999 world energy production in 10^15 BTUs

Petroleum 149.70
Hydroelectric 27.10
Natural Gas 87.31
Nuclear 25.25
Coal 84.90
Geothermal, solar, wind, wood, waste 2.83

Total: 376.99FAST SOLAR ENERGY FACTS (http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm)

That's 376,990,000,000,000,000 BTUs.

Insolation: 1.4 kw/m² at Earth's distance from the sun

Earth diameter: 12,756 kilometers x 1000 = 12,756,000 meters

Area of circle of Earth diameter: 127,796,483,130,000 m²

Insolation on the circle: 178,915,076,382,000 kilowatts = 178,915,076.382 gigawatts

Annual Gwh value (year = 8760 hours): 1,567,296,069,106.32 = 5,347,836,168,835,430,000,000 BTU

Therefore the sun provides 14,186 times as much energy at the outer edge of the atmosphere as man generates from all conventional energy sources. And this doesn't include the various other forms of EM radiation from the sun.

Ergo the statement, "One can off course never be a 100% sure about things like this," is scientifically unjustifiable.

[Popperite]

Ergo the statement, "One can off course never be a 100% sure about things like this," is scientifically unjustifiable.

DoctorDoom, the statement you mention was a disclaimer, if you will, about my assumption that it must never have been argued before that global warming is about the heat generated by man's use of fossil and other fuels. As you have now shown that assumption to be wrong, I´m glad I made it.:grin:

[Bob_Arctor]

Your confusion runs deep, I see.
I had been looking at the issue in the wrong way all along, evidently.

To begin with, "greenhouse gases" are not "mainly exhaust from engines", but are rather mainly "exhaust" from trees, plants, and volcanoes - all of which are "combusting" on daily basis, and indeed have been for centuries.
Well, any emissions from plants will be cool, so I didn't think they would count toward heating the planet. However the volcano emissions would be very hot, so they would contribute to global warming quite a bit.
Second, the amount of heat released by combusting the Earth's stores of oil, coal, and natural gas is orders of magnitude less than the amount of heat radiated onto the Earth by the Sun. The heat from the combustion of oil, coal, and natural gas is a veritable drop in the ocean (not merely a bucket!) compared to the heat from the Sun.

Burning the coal and the oil and the natural gas doesn't make a damn bit of difference in terms of how warm or cold the Earth is, Bob.
I think you're right! Heat from volcanoes and combustion, in the form of hot greenhouse gases, is simply insignificant compared to the sun's input.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Doesnt seem like anyone wants to listen, not on this forum, and not in our oh, so busy world.....one day they'll listen when its too late.
Since the reason that we are seeing hotter weather is that the sun is hotter, there is nothing that we can do to stop the hotter weather short of turning off the sun.

[Velox]

The global warming theory isn't based on heat produced by men at all. It is actually based upon the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect).

This effect is basically insulation from greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) that keep energy the earth absorbs from the Sun's light insulated against the earth. Instead of the heat dissipating into space, the atmosphere saturated with greenhouse gasses absorbs the heat and re-radiates it.

Trees do not produce greenhouse gasses. In fact, if you paid more attention in 4th grade science, you would know that plants absorb carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants), the most influential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases) greenhouse gas.

The sun is not getting hotter. Well, not within the next 4-5 billion years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), anyway.

You mentioned volcanoes as a factor to global warming. You have actually used a fact. However, it's influence on global warming has nothing to do with their heat, as I have stated before. When volcanoes erupt, carbon dioxide is expelled into the air. This is only 255 million tons per year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). Actually, this is "orders of magnitude" less than Global expulsion of over 6,000 million tons per year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) in 2000 from burning fuels.

[Melz]

"as I have stated before"


When did you state it before? That was your first post. Or are you someone else?

Sorry, I just read thru these global warming scientific threads, but that confused me even more than all this scientifical language! LOL.

[Velox]

It was the first sentence in my post. I was only emphasizing the irrelevance of any heat origining from Earth. Heat coming from volcanoes, factories, engines, or anything is of little comparison to the Sun. The important factors lie in the input and removal of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

[Bob_Arctor]

The global warming theory isn't based on heat produced by men at all. It is actually based upon the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect).

This effect is basically insulation from greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) that keep energy the earth absorbs from the Sun's light insulated against the earth. Instead of the heat dissipating into space, the atmosphere saturated with greenhouse gasses absorbs the heat and re-radiates it.
What's actually important - apparently - is that these greenhouse gases are very, very hot - at least those produced by car engines, powerplants and volcanoes are. However, the heat added by these hot greenhouse gases pales in comparison to the heat added to the Earth by the sun. The other greenhouse gases, such as methane bubbling up from the seabed, are cold, and therefore do not contribute to global warming at all. The very phrase "greenhouse gas" is misleading - gases should be labeled either "hot" or "cold." Frankly there's really no reason why these gases are even called "greenhouse gases." Perhaps it's an anachronism from the old days when some thought these gases would act analogously to the panes of glass in a greenhouse - before they realized it was the temperature of the gas that mattered, rather than any sort of insulating property they might posess.

Yes. I think they should be called "hot gases," as their temperature when produced is the only important factor.

You're a dangerously deluded person, Velox. It's not your fault, though. Live and learn.

:grin:

Please do more research. Thank you.
You may be interested in researching Native American's recent assertion that the Christian Galileo was persecuted by the scientists of his day, with their fearful Inquisition, because Galileo's science challenged their science. Religion had little to do with it, other than the fact that Galileo was indeed a Christian, while his tormentors may or may not have been - NA never clarified. NA knows a lot of stuff no one else knows.

[Velox]

Ah! Of course. Someone should seriously fix those articles on Wikipedia. I nominate NA.

[sunsettommy]

Bingo!

I can (and did) do the math. Neither of them can.

So they're frustrated. And ignorant. This was probably the very first time they ever had it pointed out to them that the "global warming" caused by the Sun is many orders of magnitude greater than any puny "warming" caused by Man's activity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas!

Oh I have brought it up.Just not the way you did it.

It just does not penetrate their skulls that the Sun contributes 100% of the warming to the planet.

Without the sun it would be around the absolute cold of interstellar space.

[sunsettommy]

Bingo!

I can (and did) do the math. Neither of them can.

So they're frustrated. And ignorant. This was probably the very first time they ever had it pointed out to them that the "global warming" caused by the Sun is many orders of magnitude greater than any puny "warming" caused by Man's activity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas!

Well I think everyone here knows the Sun produces more warming than what mans activities can produce.It is a no brainer.

The issue is over the GREENHOUSE GASES and their affects on the Earths temperature level.

CO2 is the satanic gas apparently somehow despite it being a trace gas and even with the undenied increases of the last 100 years or so.Is the driver of the present slight warming.The Sun gets little credit by those people who blame CO2 so much.

The overall increase of CO2 in the atmosphere does not matter that much since there is only a slight increase in "trapping" the suns rays.

The variable fluctuations of Water Vapor in the atmosphere is greater than the measured increased effects of CO2 thus far.

Maybe you can provide the mathematics to show this?

It is undeniable that mans activities has contributed to the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.The dispute is how much is CO2 and how much is other factors that is contributing to the undenied warming.

[sunsettommy]

Yes! Blow them out quick! (and welcome back, BTW!)

Even the simple experiment of holding your hand over the burning candles will prove, beyond a doubt, that the rapid oxidation of the beeswax (it's more probably candles which were derived from petroleum, but we'll overlook that for now) is cranking out the ol' BTU's, and thus will contribute to the dreaded "GLOBAL WARMING" !!!

Today it's just your hand getting warm, tomorrow it's the polar ice shelf melting, and later on IT'S THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT! Pretty scary thought, huh?

Then again, the "global warming" due to the Sun, as I have already shown, is literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than that due to all the birthday candles on all the birthday cakes ever since Man started baking those "environmentally-unfriendly" birthday time bombs! Then again, those facts won't deter the hysterical rants of the Envirowackos one bit....

What about those heat trapping gases?

Do they count for something?

[sunsettommy]

Ah! Of course. Someone should seriously fix those articles on Wikipedia. I nominate NA.

But he is Not Available to do it.

[Popperite]

Without the sun it would be around the absolute cold of interstellar space.

I think it is safe to say that without the sun there would be no global warming of any significance.


It just does not penetrate their skulls that the Sun contributes 100% of the warming to the planet.


With the exeption of nuclear power that is true, but the Sun has direct and indirect ways of doing so.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
Your confusion runs deep, I see.


I had been looking at the issue in the wrong way all along, evidently.

Yes, and not an uncommon occurrence, in your case.

That's true not only in the case of your confusion about the so-called "global warming", but also in your erroneous belief that it's just fine and dandy for CBS to conduct "scientific polls" using far fewer pollees that actually vote Republican.

Nor were you able to refute Bryon York's report on President Bush's military service, even though you attempted to use Salon to do so.

So it's little wonder you find yourself in the minority (and incorrect) on one issue after another on this BBS, Bob.

[Native American]

Well, any emissions from plants will be cool, so I didn't think they would count toward heating the planet.

That's nonsense, Bob. Oxidation produces heat output. And that is true whether it is oil being burned, a log laying on its side rotting in the woods, or a piece of steel slowly rusting.

You obviously don't understand that the term "cool" is a relative one. Nor, apparently, do you have any idea of what the background temperature of deep space (in which our planet Earth resides) happens to be, Bob.

But for the fact that the Sun's radiant energy is striking the Earth with more megawatts than someone like you can even imagine, our planet would be so "cool" that you'd be forced to cancel your mid-Winter vacation to Oahu, I assure you.

The fact that our planet stays warm has nothing to do with how much coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas, or kerosene we are burning, nor with how much fissionable fuel is being burnt in our nuclear reactors, nor with the number of cans of hairspray our womenfolk use each year, Bob.

Your science ignorance is appalling.

[Native American]

"as I have stated before"

When did you state it before? That was your first post. Or are you someone else?

Bingo. And nicely done, Melz. Another lying sack of previously-banned liberal sh*t discovers his lies have caught up to him, once again.

[Native American]

What about those heat trapping gases?

Do they count for something?

Yes! And most of them are the result of natural occurrences also, not Man's activity.

The idea that "something Man is doing" is causing the planet to "get warmer" is laughable.

As has already been pointed out, by multiple posters, the amount of heating power conveyed to the Earth by the Sun swamps any amount of power produced by Man's behavior.

[Popperite]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
What about those heat trapping gases?

Do they count for something?

Yes!

How do they relate to the puny amount of fuel generated heat would you say?

[Native American]

How do they relate to the puny amount of fuel generated heat would you say?

That's not the question. The question is, "How do they relate to the mythical 'global warming'?"

And the answer is, "Not at all."

Any 'global warming' that is occurring is due strictly to increased solar activity, which of course well outside of Man's control.

[Popperite]

That's not the question. The question is, "How do they relate to the mythical 'global warming'?"

And the answer is, "Not at all."

Any 'global warming' that is occurring is due strictly to increased solar activity, which of course well outside of Man's control.

Ah. So the gasses do not relate to global warming, mythical or otherwise. I mean the global warming as is put forward by the global warming theorists you mentioned earlier?

[Native American]

Ah. So the gasses do not relate to global warming, mythical or otherwise. I mean the global warming as is put forward by the global warming theorists you mentioned earlier?

Any 'global warming' that is occurring is due strictly to increased solar activity, which of course well outside of Man's control.

[Bob_Arctor]

Yes, and not an uncommon occurrence, in your case.
Indeed. I can't believe I've been so wrong for so long.

That's true not only in the case of your confusion about the so-called "global warming", but also in your erroneous belief that it's just fine and dandy for CBS to conduct "scientific polls" using far fewer pollees that actually vote Republican.
You still haven't provided evidence for this insane assertion.

Nor were you able to refute Bryon York's report on President Bush's military service, even though you attempted to use Salon to do so.
Salon did just fine. I don't accept accounts from partisan hacks like York or pieces from the biased conservative media like National Review.

So it's little wonder you find yourself in the minority (and incorrect) on one issue after another on this BBS, Bob.
I am often in the minority here...incorrect is another issue. :grin:

[Bob_Arctor]

That's nonsense, Bob. Oxidation produces heat output. And that is true whether it is oil being burned, a log laying on its side rotting in the woods, or a piece of steel slowly rusting.
Yes but the heat from burning fuel is much more significant than the heat added by cool greenhouse gases.

We are, after all, talking about hot greenhouse gases.

You obviously don't understand that the term "cool" is a relative one. Nor, apparently, do you have any idea of what the background temperature of deep space (in which our planet Earth resides) happens to be, Bob.
No, I didn't know "cool" was relative. I thought a temperature of say, 60 degrees F would be considered cool even in the depths of interstellar space.
But for the fact that the Sun's radiant energy is striking the Earth with more megawatts than someone like you can even imagine, our planet would be so "cool" that you'd be forced to cancel your mid-Winter vacation to Oahu, I assure you.
Indeed. Therefore all the hot greenhouse gases truly are insignificant.
The fact that our planet stays warm has nothing to do with how much coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas, or kerosene we are burning, nor with how much fissionable fuel is being burnt in our nuclear reactors, nor with the number of cans of hairspray our womenfolk use each year, Bob.
So are you saying that if the sun suddenly went out, we couldn't keep the planet reasonably warm by simply burning everything in sight? I thought we would be able to do that. That would be a lot of hot greenhouse gas, but it really wouldn't be much of a match for the sun, I guess.

Wow, this is pretty interesting. I never learned any of this stuff before.
Your science ignorance is appalling.
We're both appalled, my friend. :grin:

[sunsettommy]

Yes! And most of them are the result of natural occurrences also, not Man's activity.

Sure MOST of them are,but you are not really fully addressing the question I asked you.

What about those heat trapping gases?

There is undeniable increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 1950's.

What about the increase?

Do they count for something?


The idea that "something Man is doing" is causing the planet to "get warmer" is laughable.

Well I think the increase does influence to a small degree to a warming phase.The problem is that the warming is going to be slight since the greenhouse gas is still a trace gas,despite all that increase in recent decades.

Then with all the concrete and asphault all over in big cities which themselves are proven heat islands.The brick building and other large structures also retain heat absorbed during the day.

This is a well known example of man altering the regional climate.Maybe even globally?

As has already been pointed out, by multiple posters, the amount of heating power conveyed to the Earth by the Sun swamps any amount of power produced by Man's behavior.


I have not seen anyone dispute the Suns radiative curve "swamping" anything we have produced.

But again the real issue is HOW MUCH of that radiation is retained here on Earth.

This puts us right back to those Greenhouse Gases you seem to dance around on.

Since you worked hard on the Suns radiative powers mathematically and no one has disputed it.How about putting that math know how to this:



The variable fluctuations of Water Vapor in the atmosphere is greater than the measured increased effects of CO2 thus far.

Maybe you can provide the mathematics to show this?



I asked you this once already.How about it?

[DoctorDoom]

Now that our GW experts have recited their usual gloom & doom scenario, ignoring that Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now, perhaps they can tell us HOW we can stop it. And we don't want vague generalities such as, "Well, we have to reduce CO₂ emissions." Let them give us specifics, including the costs, the technologies, the time frame, the burdens on business and consumers, the negatives, and the evidence that it will make any f**king difference at all. They owe us that, since they want us to spend many trillions of dollars on their harebrained, pseudoscientific notions.

We're waiting.

[Popperite]

But for the fact that the Sun's radiant energy is striking the Earth with more megawatts than someone like you can even imagine, our planet would be so "cool" that you'd be forced to cancel your mid-Winter vacation to Oahu, I assure you.

Indeed. Therefore all the hot greenhouse gases truly are insignificant.

Bob, I have been thinking that we need a more solid theoretical base, to give us a more thorough understanding of what Native American is trying to get across here. And when I stumbled upon CQRAIO the other day, I knew I was on to something. The trouble is, that we have never taken the concept (or should I say Theory) of the Comparative Quantified Relativity of Artificially Induced Occurrences into account when discussing these matters, like Native American, and now indeed I, do.

As NA has pointed out, an occurrence that is humanly induced, like say, artificial heating or artificial refrigeration for that matter, should always be quantitatively compared to its counterpart in nature as to find out whether it can be of any influence on our earthly circumstances. The comparison between warming caused by the sun and the warming caused by burning fossil fuels, make it clear that fossil fuels can never cause any significant global warming. This becomes immediately clear to the skeptic believer of Global Warming Theories, once you point out to him that human induced artificial refrigeration will of course never cause the temperature on earth to fall with even a zillionth part of a degree.

People like Velox and Sunsettommy keep coming up with those "greenhouse" gasses, or as you more aptly call them "hot" gasses. Now you should understand Bob, that according to the Comparative Quantified Relativity of Artificially Induced Occurrences that I mentioned before (and when I say I mentioned it before I mean that I mentioned it in the first paragraph of this post and not in any of my previous 345 posts, so there be no misunderstanding about that), these gasses are basically as irrelevant to the equation as the artificially induced heat. The total net amount of humanly processed "greenhouse" gasses pales in comparison to gasses with similar properties found in nature and it is therefore and only therefore that this tiny artificially induced quantitative shift can never have adverse consequences. I will spare you the math at this point, but somehow, according to the Comparative Quantified Relativity of Artificially Induced Occurrences, the hugeness of the natural occurring quantity, blocks out any adverse effect that the artificially induced quantity could cause, BECAUSE of the latter’s relative tinyness. It is not clear how this works exactly yet, but it seems to be an inescapable property of the natural world as such, much like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

The downside seems to be that some deluded researchers from the field of the Social Studies try to apply CQRAIO to their field of research, in a way that causes highly questionable results. It kind of worried me the other day when I heard this Social Scientist claim that rising murder rates can, in principle, not be regarded as problematic, since the rate of natural occurring deaths is so much higher.

[Native American]

Yes but the heat from burning fuel is much more significant than the heat added by cool greenhouse gases.

We are, after all, talking about hot greenhouse gases.

No, "we" are not. You are. And only you. I never spoke of "hot greenhouse gases".

Also, I notice you didn't post any evidence to back up your claim you make in your first sentence quoted above. And frankly, I doubt you possess the science understanding to do so, Bob.

[Native American]

You obviously don't understand that the term "cool" is a relative one. Nor, apparently, do you have any idea of what the background temperature of deep space (in which our planet Earth resides) happens to be, Bob.

No, I didn't know "cool" was relative. I thought a temperature of say, 60 degrees F would be considered cool even in the depths of interstellar space.

Thanks for confirming what I said - indeed, you are unaware that "cool" is a relative term. For example, 60 degrees F would be considered hot (not "cool" as you just claimed) in the depths of interstellar space, since the depths of intersteller space run several hundred degrees below zero.

Your science ignorance is appalling, Bob.

[Popperite]

No, "we" are not. You are. And only you. I never spoke of "hot greenhouse gases".

I think Bob is refering to the heat, more than to the gasses. And you did mention heat NA. Artificially induced heat, the tinyness of which is at the basis of your assumption.

[Biff]

Thanks for confirming what I said - indeed, you are unaware that "cool" is a relative term. For example, 60 degrees F would be considered hot (not "cool" as you just claimed) in the depths of interstellar space, since the depths of intersteller space run several hundred degrees below zero.

Your science ignorance is appalling, Bob.

Remember, you're arguing with evolutionists.

[Bob_Arctor]

No, "we" are not. You are. And only you. I never spoke of "hot greenhouse gases".

You, from post #8, after a series of borrowed calculations on the relaitive heat produced by burning fuel and the sun:

"IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes."

I merely renamed "greenhouse gases" because the heat released by combustion is the important part, not the "greenhouse" part. Unless I'm misunderstand you?

Also, I notice you didn't post any evidence to back up your claim you make in your first sentence quoted above. And frankly, I doubt you possess the science understanding to do so, Bob.
Perhaps. Maybe the heat added by fairly cool (relative to the Earth, not outer space) but still exothermic processes - such as oxidixing iron - is actually more than the heat added to the Earth by relatively hot exothermic processes, like oil well fires or natural gas powered ovens.

Certainly both are exothermic, but do we compare them to the Earth's average background temperature or the temperature of outer space?


I really don't know - I don't know very much about science, and I'd appreciate you being a little more kind to me abou it, because I'm trying to learn.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
No, "we" are not. You are. And only you. I never spoke of "hot greenhouse gases".


You, from post #8, after a series of borrowed calculations on the relaitive heat produced by burning fuel and the sun:

"IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes."

As we can all see, nowhere did I speak of "hot greenhouse gases".

I merely renamed "greenhouse gases" because the heat released by combustion is the important part, not the "greenhouse" part.

As I said, "we" are not speaking of "hot greenhouse gases". You are.

Thanks for finally admitting it.

[Native American]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Native American
Thanks for confirming what I said - indeed, you are unaware that "cool" is a relative term. For example, 60 degrees F would be considered hot (not "cool" as you just claimed) in the depths of interstellar space, since the depths of intersteller space run several hundred degrees below zero.

Your science ignorance is appalling, Bob.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Remember, you're arguing with evolutionists.

Yes, and thus it comes as no surprise to see how incredibly science-ignorant Bob is. He doesn't even understand that the word "cool" or "hot" is a relative term. He probably thinks "heat rises". He probably thinks "Man produces more air pollution than volcanoes do". He obviously was unaware of how much the power from the Sun swamps the power released when Man burns fossil fuels.

He's incredibly science ignorant.

[Bob_Arctor]

As we can all see, nowhere did I speak of "hot greenhouse gases".
I renamed them, as simply calling them "greenhouse gases" is terribly misleading. What's important is only that they are hot. Therefore I renamed them "hot greenhouse gases" or simply "hot gases," which is more accurate and to the point.

With your guidance I understand that the relative heat of the "hot gases" is also insigificant compared to the heat from the sun, and therefore cannot influence anything here on Earth.

Again I ask you to be kind; I'm simply trying to learn.

[Native American]

[/color]
I renamed them, as simply calling them "greenhouse gases" is terribly misleading.

Which is why I didn't speak of them as "greenhouse gases" either.

You did.

I confined myself to pointing out to you that the power released by Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels is vastly swamped by the amount of solar power that impinges upon the Earth.

What's important is only that they are hot.


No, what's important is that heat energy is given off when fossil fuels are oxidized. And another thing that is important is that the heat energy given off by the oxidation of fossil fuels is orders of magnitude less than the energy that impinges upon the Earth from the Sun.


You seem to lack even the most fundamental understanding of thermodynamics, Bob.


With your guidance I understand that the relative heat of the "hot gases" is also insigificant compared to the heat from the sun, and therefore cannot influence anything here on Earth.

"Hot gases" is a term you introduced, not me. I said nothing of "hot gases" or "greenhouse gases" or "hot greenhouse gases".

Those are all your words, not mine.


Again I ask you to be kind; I'm simply trying to learn.

I am being kind. The problem is, your understanding of science in general (and thermodynamics in particular) is apparently so poor that you're likely to understand little of what any of us are telling you, Bob.

Witness your laughable inability to understand that "cool" is a relative term, for example.

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
I renamed them, as simply calling them "greenhouse gases" is terribly misleading.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Which is why I didn't speak of them as "greenhouse gases" either.
You did.
I confined myself to pointing out to you that the power released by Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels is vastly swamped by the amount of solar power that impinges upon the Earth.
Right. Doesn't that oxidation yield hot exhaust, gases that are commonly referred to as "greenhouse gases"? Therefore they are "hot greenhouse gases." After all, the heat is what's important, because the heat added by hot gases is very small compared to heat added by the sun.

Since you say oxidation is always exothermic, is there any chance that reduction is always endothermic? Maybe we could have a reducing plant next to every plant that oxidizes, and the net heat change would be zero!


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">What's important is only that they are hot. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No, what's important is that heat energy is given off when fossil fuels are oxidized.
In the form of hot greenhouse gases, i.e. exhaust. Isn't exhaust typically pretty hot?
You seem to lack even the most fundamental understanding of thermodynamics, Bob.
What's that? Is it a branch of science, or a law or something? Fill me in.
I am being kind. The problem is, your understanding of science in general (and thermodynamics in particular) is apparently so poor that you're likely to understand little of what any of us are telling you, Bob.
Maybe; that's why I'm asking you to help me understand.

Could you go into the thermodynamics of the situation a bit more? I've heard the word now but I'm not really sure what you mean.
Witness your laughable inability to understand that "cool" is a relative term, for example.
How was I supposed to know that 60 degrees F is cool on Earth but hot in outer space? That's pretty confusing!

[DesertFox]

NA, Arctor's playing with you. I don't know if he has a PhD, but he does work in some aspect of science. He's a bona fide scientist.

[DoctorDoom]

He has bachelor's degree in genetics or some such thing. However, he is convinced that he is an expert on everything. His being a "bona fide scientist" is open to debate.

[sunsettommy]

NA, Arctor's playing with you. I don't know if he has a PhD, but he does work in some aspect of science. He's a bona fide scientist.

Funny that you see it right away.:whistle:

Native American should have seen through Bob's over the top gushing and pretended ignorance of elementary science.He never did notice.

I saw it right away too but said nothing because it was between the two of them.

He he he........

[Native American]

Arctor is clearly woefully uneducated in terms of thermodynamics. He probably has a Bachelor's in Public Education or some such, at best. Perhaps a degree in Music or Art.

He wasn't even aware that the term "cool" is a relative one. Nor was he able to follow the math on the amount of power striking the Earth from the Sun. Plus he's never been able to present any science-based arguments.

The only one he is toying with is himself. If he had any science background, he would have been able to present a science-based argument.

[Native American]

I confined myself to pointing out to you that the power released by Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels is vastly swamped by the amount of solar power that impinges upon the Earth.

Doesn't that oxidation yield hot exhaust, gases that are commonly referred to as "greenhouse gases"?

Actually (and I'm not surprised to see that you're unaware of this) most of the power released by the intentional oxidation is in the form of kinetic, not thermal, energy.

HINT: most of the power goes to moving cars and trucks, not heating them, and goes to making motors spin and lights light up. Which is why scientists speak of "efficiency" - the conversion of the latent power stored in fossil fuel into the intended form (kinetic energy, light energy, etc.) rather than into 'waste' heat.

Someone of your limp scientific backgroup probably imagines that most of the gasoline burnt in a car is converted to heat coming out of the defroster ducts, rather than into overcoming mechanical and wind friction, Bob.

What's your (supposed) "science" degree in, Bob? Genetics? Biology?

It's certainly not in physics, thermodynamics, or electrical engineering, that much is quite obvious! For example, you weren't even aware that "cool" is a relative term, nor were you aware of the temperature of deep space, nor were you aware that most of the power released by the burning of gasoline in our cars is in the form of kinetic (not thermal) energy.

You keep imagining "hot greenhouse gases", which is nonsense. You wouldn't have sounded so foolish if you actually had received science training which involved courses in physics and thermodynamics, Bob.

[Native American]

Native American should have seen through Bob's over the top gushing and pretended ignorance of elementary science.

Native American did see through it, and it wasn't "pretended" elementary science ignorance on Bob's part - it was quite real. Bob, for example, was unaware that the term "cool" is a relative one. He also apparently believes most of the latent power in gasoline is converted to heat coming out of the defroster ducts, rather than into kinetic energy.

No, Bob's ignorance of elementary science is quite real.

[sunsettommy]

Arctor is clearly woefully uneducated in terms of thermodynamics. He probably has a Bachelor's in Public Education or some such, at best. Perhaps a degree in Music or Art.

He wasn't even aware that the term "cool" is a relative one. Nor was he able to follow the math on the amount of power striking the Earth from the Sun. Plus he's never been able to present any science-based arguments.

The only one he is toying with is himself. If he had any science background, he would have been able to present a science-based argument.

:thud:

Apparently you still fail to realize that he was playing you.

He wanted to make a fool out of you,why make it so easy?

[Native American]

Apparently you still fail to realize that he was playing you.

You still fail to realize that Bob is ignorant of even the most elementary understanding of physics and thermodynamics.

That's why Bob failed to understand that the term "cool" is a relative one.

[sunsettommy]

Native American did see through it, and it wasn't "pretended" elementary science ignorance on Bob's part - it was quite real. Bob, for example, was unaware that the term "cool" is a relative one. He also apparently believes most of the latent power in gasoline is converted to heat coming out of the defroster ducts, rather than into kinetic energy.

Actually he does know.He was playing you.He succeeded to make you look silly in the process since the real issue was how much heat is retained by the greenhouse gases and specifically if CO2 increases really contribute to that much warming.Observed or predicted.

No, Bob's ignorance of elementary science is quite real.

Maybe you go through his previous postings in earlier science threads and see if you want to continue this claim about him.I think you are mistaken.

I have argued with him and while I see that he is at least aware of the basic science.He is weaker in the application of the basic science on certain topics such as Global warming,Ozone depletion and Solar energy.

It would be wise not to underestimate him.

It is true that he was playing with you in this thread.

Popperite,Velox,DesertFox and myself knew that Bob was playing you.



I suggest that you be a little more discerning about what Bob is doing in the future and prevent getting played on.He knows he can not try this one me as I would spot it right away.The way I spotted it immediately with his game on you.

[sunsettommy]

You still fail to realize that Bob is ignorant of even the most elementary understanding of physics and thermodynamics.

That's why Bob failed to understand that the term "cool" is a relative one.

Gawd,

He made a sucker out of you.

It is plain that you failed to see he was playing that with you.

Should I have to explain how he did it?

It was so apparent in how he wrote it.

[Native American]

I suggest you quote for us an example of one of Bob's posts which you think exhibited any science-based argument whatsoever, sunsetommy.

You seem to regard him as science-based. I don't. So, show us an example or two of Bob's posts which you regarded as exhibiting a science-based argument.

I suggest it is you who are the one who has been deceived by Bob Arctor, sunsetommy.

[Naturalized-Texan]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
I renamed them, as simply calling them "greenhouse gases" is terribly misleading.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Right. Doesn't that oxidation yield hot exhaust, gases that are commonly referred to as "greenhouse gases"? Therefore they are "hot greenhouse gases." After all, the heat is what's important, because the heat added by hot gases is very small compared to heat added by the sun.
You are completely misrepresenting the greenhouse gas hypothesis. In this hypothesis, the heating is NOT due to the release of "hot greenhouse gases," but the hypothesis is that the release of greenhouse gases is creating a greenhouse effect that traps the heat from the sun much as in a greenhouse where plants are grown. Of course, there is no scientific proof of the greenhouse-effect hypothesis or that the effect, if it exists, is being caused by human activities.

[Popperite]

You are completely misrepresenting the greenhouse gas hypothesis. In this hypothesis, the heating is NOT due to the release of "hot greenhouse gases," but the hypothesis is that the release of greenhouse gases is creating a greenhouse effect that traps the heat from the sun much as in a greenhouse where plants are grown. Of course, there is no scientific proof of the greenhouse-effect hypothesis or that the effect, if it exists, is being caused by human activities.

See rest of thread NT. You know that, I know that, Bob knows that. The misrepresentation is to be found elsewhere.

The effect exists by the way. Otherwise we would be freezing our butts off. The measure in which it takes place is debated.

[sunsettommy]

I suggest you quote for us an example of one of Bob's posts which you think exhibited any science-based argument whatsoever, sunsetommy.

You seem to regard him as science-based. I don't. So, show us an example or two of Bob's posts which you regarded as exhibiting a science-based argument.

I suggest it is you who are the one who has been deceived by Bob Arctor, sunsetommy.


HA HA HA HA HA!

You have no idea how silly you sound.

I have debated Bob a number of times and it is almost always in disagreement on the issues.

Bob has a number of times used real science to make his arguments.I have disputed his INTERPRETATION of the science he brings up.That is the difference.

It is plain you will not admit it that he had you on the run with his game in THIS THREAD.

Imagine anyone falling for the "Hot" greenhouse gases baloney.

You did.:hahaha:

If you will persist in your silly denial that he played you in the thread.I will show how he did it later.

[Popperite]

Imagine anyone falling for the "Hot" greenhouse gases baloney.

You did.:hahaha:

If you will persist in your silly denial that he played you in the thread.I will show how he did it later.

Falling for it is perhaps not the right way to put it. Basically NA came up with it himself when in post # 8 he asserted that Global Warming is argued to be caused by heat from burning fossil and other fuels. He asserted that, while trying to refute Global Warming by comparing the heat from the Sun to the heat produced by burning fossil and other fuels here on earth.

In that, he inadvertently created a strawmen, because nobody, on either side of the issue, ever argued that Global Warming is caused by heat from burning fuels, but rather by the gasses produced in the process, that make it more difficult for the heat coming from the Sun to escape the earth's atmosphere. The heat from burning fuels play no role whatsoever in the equation, making NA's attempt to use them as an argument against Global Warming a fine example of missing the point in a big way.

There were no references for this "theory" to be found anywhere and we concluded that he must have simply made it up, although DrDoom seems to have seen it argued elswhere.

Hence the satirical "hot greenhouse gasses"

[Native American]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Native American
I suggest you quote for us an example of one of Bob's posts which you think exhibited any science-based argument whatsoever, sunsetommy.

You seem to regard him as science-based. I don't. So, show us an example or two of Bob's posts which you regarded as exhibiting a science-based argument.

I suggest it is you who are the one who has been deceived by Bob Arctor, sunsetommy.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

HA HA HA HA HA!

You have no idea how silly you sound.

I have debated Bob a number of times and it is almost always in disagreement on the issues.

Bob has a number of times used real science to make his arguments.I have disputed his INTERPRETATION of the science he brings up.That is the difference.

It is plain you will not admit it that he had you on the run with his game in THIS THREAD.

Imagine anyone falling for the "Hot" greenhouse gases baloney.

You did.:hahaha:

If you will persist in your silly denial that he played you in the thread.I will show how he did it later.


Golly, that's a lot of rhetoric from you plus an animated smiley, but notice how you were unable to show us even one post by Arctor which you felt was science-based!

So in the final analysis, we see that it is you who has been duped by Bob Arctor.

[Naturalized-Texan]

HA HA HA HA HA!

You have no idea how silly you sound.

I have debated Bob a number of times and it is almost always in disagreement on the issues.

Bob has a number of times used real science to make his arguments.I have disputed his INTERPRETATION of the science he brings up.That is the difference.

It is plain you will not admit it that he had you on the run with his game in THIS THREAD.

Imagine anyone falling for the "Hot" greenhouse gases baloney.

You did.:hahaha:

If you will persist in your silly denial that he played you in the thread.I will show how he did it later.
I agree. Bob and other GW advocates here seem to know a little science, but not enough to interpret it correctly. Hence their blind acceptance of the hypothesis that global warming is human-caused.

[DoctorDoom]

Perhaps the climate change is actually evolution. :evilgrin:

BTW, I've challenged the athropogenic GW zealots to offer specific examples of what we can do to counteract the alleged warming as a result of human activity, with analyses of the technologies, the applications, the economic impacts, the cost-benefit ratios, and the evidence that the efforts will in fact achieve anything. They hem and haw and dance around, but not one of them has responded with that information.

They ululate that we are causing the problem, but when pinned down about what we can do to and whether what we do will have any effect, they offer nothing to demonstrate that they have even the remotest grasp of what's involved.

But then they're liberals, and that's SOP.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Golly, that's a lot of rhetoric from you plus an animated smiley, but notice how you were unable to show us even one post by Arctor which you felt was science-based!

So in the final analysis, we see that it is you who has been duped by Bob Arctor.
Stop being an ass. Bob has posted dozens of science-based posts in the Earth & Health Sciences (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=33) forum, most of them long before you joined FC. The fact that he misinterprets the science doesn't negate the fact that he has posted them. sunsettommy, DD, I, and others have thoroughly refuted Bob's science-based posts, but you should at least give him credit for trying.

[Bob_Arctor]

You are completely misrepresenting the greenhouse gas hypothesis. In this hypothesis, the heating is NOT due to the release of "hot greenhouse gases,"...
Don't blame me, blame Native American. He laid out this ridiculous idea in post #8 - check it out, it's pretty amusing.
...but the hypothesis is that the release of greenhouse gases is creating a greenhouse effect that traps the heat from the sun much as in a greenhouse where plants are grown.
Yes, I know. Tell NA, because he's the only person here who is in the dark!
Of course, there is no scientific proof of the greenhouse-effect hypothesis or that the effect, if it exists, is being caused by human activities.
But the evidence is overwhelming, despite your denial.

[Bob_Arctor]

BTW, I've challenged the athropogenic GW zealots to offer specific examples of what we can do to counteract the alleged warming as a result of human activity, with analyses of the technologies, the applications, the economic impacts, the cost-benefit ratios, and the evidence that the efforts will in fact achieve anything. They hem and haw and dance around, but not one of them has responded with that information.
Wrong. We had a nice debate going about the merits of solar panels, and you never responded to my rebuttal of your claim that it would be too expensive, too impractical, and too hard for us dumb Americans to pull off. That was only a week or two ago!

[Native American]

Bob has posted dozens of science-based posts in the Earth & Health Sciences (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=33) forum, most of them long before you joined FC.

Like I said, I've never seen him post a science-based post. And Sunsettommy wasn't able to quote any examples of any science-based posts by Bob.

I guess what you're admitting is that you can't point to any example of Bob posting a science-based post either. All you can do is make vague allegations that some time in the past he may have perhaps posted a science-based post.

The fact that he misinterprets the science doesn't negate the fact that he has posted them.

So you claim, yet you can't provide any examples of where Bob actually posted a science-based post!

sunsettommy, DD, I, and others have thoroughly refuted Bob's science-based posts, but you should at least give him credit for trying.

Gee, I'd like to, but apparently neither you nor sunsettommy can provide an example of a science-based post by Bob!

[Bob_Arctor]

I guess what you're admitting is that you can't point to any example of Bob posting a science-based post either. All you can do is make vague allegations that some time in the past he may have perhaps posted a science-based post.
Perhaps you should take their word for it. These guys (NT, DF, Sunsettommy) certainly wouldn't defend me on this count if I had truly never done any "science-based" posts.

Here's a dare for you, NA. How would you like to have "science-based" debate? Choose whatever part of genetics, evolution, ID or whatever you'd like. Give it a shot! Of couse it'll have to be in the evolution forum, but if it's just you and me we can keep it on track and keep the insults at a minimum.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Like I said, I've never seen him post a science-based post. And Sunsettommy wasn't able to quote any examples of any science-based posts by Bob.

I guess what you're admitting is that you can't point to any example of Bob posting a science-based post either. All you can do is make vague allegations that some time in the past he may have perhaps posted a science-based post.

So you claim, yet you can't provide any examples of where Bob actually posted a science-based post!

Gee, I'd like to, but apparently neither you nor sunsettommy can provide an example of a science-based post by Bob!
As I said before, stop being an ass. There are dozens of science-based posts from Bob in the forum that I linked to. They're wrong, but if you're too damn lazy to bother looking in that forum for those posts, it's your problem, not mine.

[Bob_Arctor]

As I said before, stop being an ass. There are dozens of science-based posts from Bob in the forum that I linked to. They're wrong, but if you're too damn lazy to bother looking in that forum for those posts, it's your problem, not mine.
Hehehe, and that's just global warming stuff, where I'm a total amateur. I wish I had access to all the old evolution posts!

I reiterate my invitation to NA - join me in a science-based debate.


(I still can't believe he fell for it - "why no NA, I thought it was room temperature out by Pluto..." :grin: )

[sunsettommy]

From this thread:

Sunsettommy:

I have debated Bob a number of times and it is almost always in disagreement on the issues.

Bob has a number of times used real science to make his arguments.I have disputed his INTERPRETATION of the science he brings up.That is the difference.

Naturalized-Texan:

As I said before, stop being an ass. There are dozens of science-based posts from Bob in the forum that I linked to. They're wrong, but if you're too damn lazy to bother looking in that forum for those posts, it's your problem, not mine.

Stop being an ass. Bob has posted dozens of science-based posts in the Earth & Health Sciences (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=33) forum, most of them long before you joined FC. The fact that he misinterprets the science doesn't negate the fact that he has posted them. sunsettommy, DD, I, and others have thoroughly refuted Bob's science-based posts, but you should at least give him credit for trying.

Bob_Arctor:

Perhaps you should take their word for it. These guys (NT, DF, Sunsettommy) certainly wouldn't defend me on this count if I had truly never done any "science-based" posts.

DesertFox:

NA, Arctor's playing with you. I don't know if he has a PhD, but he does work in some aspect of science. He's a bona fide scientist.

DoctorDoom:

He has bachelor's degree in genetics or some such thing. However, he is convinced that he is an expert on everything. His being a "bona fide scientist" is open to debate.

__________________________________________________ __

N.A.

Maybe you stop using the spade and take N.T.'s suggestion and look in the science forum.

I have started a number of topics mostly on Global Warming and Bob has been in half of them.There he has indeed used real science as part of his arguments.

You have been here a month and I have been here more than a year.The others a lot longer and they have history with Bob_Arctor.We know he has used science based arguments before.

So stop being pigheaded.




<!-- / message -->
<!-- / message -->

[Native American]

As I said before, stop being an ass. There are dozens of science-based posts from Bob in the forum that I linked to.

Then stop being an ass, and post a link to even one post of his that you thought was "science-based"! Can't you even find just one??

[Native American]

You have been here a month and I have been here more than a year.The others a lot longer and they have history with Bob_Arctor.We know he has used science based arguments before.

So stop being pigheaded.

Then stop being pigheaded and post a link to even one post of his that you actually thought was "science-based"! C'mon, put up or shut up.

[Popperite]

Then stop being an ass, and post a link to even one post of his that you thought was "science-based"! Can't you even find just one??

Stop obfuscating the issue and see how you missed the point in post #8, that you were ridiculed for that and now refuse to see that this even happened.

[Native American]

What's truly amusing (and it gets funnier by the moment) is neither Popperite nor sunsettommy nor even Naturalized Texan can provide us a link to even one post by Bob Arctor that they actually thought was "science-based"!! Not even when repeatedly publicly challenged to do so!

[Naturalized-Texan]

What's truly amusing (and it gets funnier by the moment) is neither Popperite nor sunsettommy nor even Naturalized Texan can provide us a link to even one post by Bob Arctor that they actually thought was "science-based"!! Not even when repeatedly publicly challenged to do so!
You, child, are afraid to look in that forum to see the Bob's dozens of science-based posts - afraid that you will be proven wrong, which you certainly are. Your fear is so strong that I can even smell it.

[Native American]

You, child, are afraid to look in that forum to see the Bob's dozens of science-based posts - afraid that you will be proven wrong, which you certainly are. Your fear is so strong that I can even smell it.

You, pissant, are unable to come up with even one post that Bob Arctor posted that you imagine was science-based. Your incompetence is so strong it's stinking up this thread.

Time for you to publicly admit your stunning inability to produce a link to even one post by Bob Arctor that you imagine is "science-based", pissant.

[Popperite]

You, child, are afraid to look in that forum to see the Bob's dozens of science-based posts - afraid that you will be proven wrong, which you certainly are. Your fear is so strong that I can even smell it.

NT, he is trying to make this issue not about his misrepresentation but about something else. It's easy! Works like this: Someone says something, doesn't really matter what it is or how bl**ding obvious it is. Then you go sitting on a high horse demanding sources and verification and cry foul if they're not presented on a silver plate to you. Works like clockwork!

[Naturalized-Texan]

NT, he is trying to make this issue not about his misrepresentation but about something else. It's easy! Works like this: Someone says something, doesn't really matter what it is or how bl**ding obvious it is. Then you go sitting on a high horse demanding sources and verification and cry foul if they're not presented on a silver plate to you. Works like clockwork!
Yeah, I know. NA knows very well that Bob has posted dozens of science-based posts but he is too lazy and/or too scared to go to the forum I linked to in order to view them. He also can't stand the fact that Bob thoroughly snookered him. Oh, well. Maybe some day he'll grow up.

[PaulRevere]

The end of the last ice age was caused by Cromagnon man, whose camp fires were too large and caused the continental ice caps in Europe and North America. That, and mammoth farts.

The Cromagnons are still around, now known as Republicans.
;-)

[Native American]

NA knows very well that Bob has posted dozens of science-based posts but he is too lazy and/or too scared to go to the forum I linked to in order to view them. He also can't stand the fact that Bob thoroughly snookered him. Oh, well. Maybe some day he'll grow up.

You are unable to post a link to even one supposedly "science-based" post that Bob Arctor has ever produced. You keep claiming you can do so, but you keep demonstrating that you are, in reality, unable to do so.

You tell us you have been around a long time here. You claim you have seen "dozens" of "science-based" posts by Bob. Yet you can't provide a link to even one such post!

LOL at you!!! :hahaha: What absolute frauds you and your friend Bob are!

Grow up.

[Native American]

The end of the last ice age was caused by Cromagnon man, whose camp fires were too large and caused the continental ice caps in Europe and North America. That, and mammoth farts.

The Cromagnons are still around, now known as Republicans.
;-)

Nicely put! And the beauty of it is, that little post by PaulRevere is more "science-based" than any post Bob Arctor has made in this thread! And it's more "science-based" than any post by Bob Arctor, at any time, in any thread, that his friend Naturalized Texan can post a link to!

[Naturalized-Texan]

You are unable to post a link to even one supposedly "science-based" post that Bob Arctor has ever produced. You keep claiming you can do so, but you keep demonstrating that you are, in reality, unable to do so.

You tell us you have been around a long time here. You claim you have seen "dozens" of "science-based" posts by Bob. Yet you can't provide a link to even one such post!

LOL at you!!! :hahaha: What absolute frauds you and your friend Bob are!

Grow up.
I provided you a link to dozens of science-based posts by Bob, yet you are still either too afraid or too lazy to link to those posts. Or maybe you are just a spoiled child who is used to having everything served to him on a silver platter. Well, those silver-platter days are over as far as I'm concerned. If you are too scared or too lazy or too spoiled to use that link, then I guess you'll just have to remain ignorant.

[Native American]

I provided you a link to dozens of science-based posts by Bob, yet you are still either too afraid or too lazy to link to those posts. Or maybe you are just a spoiled child who is used to having everything served to him on a silver platter. Well, those silver-platter days are over as far as I'm concerned. If you are too scared or too lazy or too spoiled to use that link, then I guess you'll just have to remain ignorant.

Hey lazyboy, you are the one claiming Bob Arctor has (supposedly) produced a "science-based" post at one time in his life, not me! So the burden of proof is on you to produce a link to such a post!

And no, you have not "provided a link to dozens of science-based posts by Bob"! You merely provided a link to a forum, not to any specific post by Bob.

If you actually think Bob Arctor has ever produced a science-based post in his entire posting career on this BBS, then let's see you provide even one example of such a post by Bob that you imagine was "science-based" on his part!

So far, despite repeated public challenges for you to do so, you have proven yourself unable to do so! YOU are the one claiming Bob Arctor has actually made a "science-based" post once. So get off your lazy ass:bdh:
and give us a link to a post of Bob's that you actually thinks falls into that category!!

[Bob_Arctor]

So far, despite repeated public challenges for you to do so, you have proven yourself unable to do so! YOU are the one claiming Bob Arctor has actually made a "science-based" post once.
Everyone has made this statement, and not one of them would be inclined to lie for me, as should be obvious.

You're a creationist. Do you believe in the global flood, Noah's ark and all that? Let me know. I have some saved material on that that i can post for your pleasure if you care to debate any of it. Let me know.

[Jesse_Lackman]

So where does water vapor fit into the global warming senario?

Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html)

SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html)

Does CO2 really drive global warming? (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html)


water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO<SUB>2</SUB>;

Could that be true?

[Bob_Arctor]

So where does water vapor fit into the global warming senario?
I believe that as warming increases, the level of water vapor will also increase. This would be bad because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It's a sort of positive feedback mechanism...though I could be wrong.

[Telit laikitiz]

The global warming theory isn't based on heat produced by men at all. It is actually based upon the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect).

This effect is basically insulation from greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) that keep energy the earth absorbs from the Sun's light insulated against the earth. Instead of the heat dissipating into space, the atmosphere saturated with greenhouse gasses absorbs the heat and re-radiates it.

Trees do not produce greenhouse gasses. In fact, if you paid more attention in 4th grade science, you would know that plants absorb carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants), the most influential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases) greenhouse gas.

The sun is not getting hotter. Well, not within the next 4-5 billion years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), anyway.

You mentioned volcanoes as a factor to global warming. You have actually used a fact. However, it's influence on global warming has nothing to do with their heat, as I have stated before. When volcanoes erupt, carbon dioxide is expelled into the air. This is only 255 million tons per year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). Actually, this is "orders of magnitude" less than Global expulsion of over 6,000 million tons per year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) in 2000 from burning fuels.

Aren't you leaving out a lot influences and sources for carbon dioxide? And there are also other so called "greenhouse gasses". Don't forget the many animal and human farts that contribute methane and other gasses. The oceans spew out tremendous amount of co2, as do volcanoes. But all this info doesn't matter anyway since global warming is a religion and some will believe it no matter what. Global warming theory is actually based on money and how much can be diverted, swindelled and cheated.:hissyfit: :soap: :moo: :uhh: :bdh:

[Telit laikitiz]

:evilgrin: So where does water vapor fit into the global warming senario?

Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html)

SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html)

Does CO2 really drive global warming? (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html)



Could that be true?

Money drives global warming. Water vapor evidence is cloudy, that is, misty. It is steamy. It is all wet. It is rain. Water vapor is cool, or is it? Global warming is money for those who know how to get it.

[2nd_Amendment]

Native Annoyance and Nationalized-Taxan calling each other names. I could sit back and watch this all damn day... :)

Who's got the popcorn?

[Bob_Arctor]

Money drives global warming. Water vapor evidence is cloudy, that is, misty. It is steamy. It is all wet. It is rain. Water vapor is cool, or is it? Global warming is money for those who know how to get it.
Do you think there's any cash to be made in global warming denial? Who could benefit from arguing against it?

Scientists have little to gain from GW being a fact. Energy companies, on the other hand, could potentially have a lot to lose. This may be why they fund assorted anti-GW groups.

[DoctorDoom]

Do you think there's any cash to be made in global warming denial?There are a lot of liars making bucks scaring the shit out of ignorant sheeple with their gloom & doom scenarios.

Who could benefit from arguing against it?Who benefits from ANY arguments against junk science? A: the people who can make informed decisions based on facts rather than on boogeyman stories.

You still have not convinced us that man is responsible for it. You still have not told us what we are supposed to do about it (as though we CAN do anything), other than your usual vague generalities that evince your ignorance of things outside your narrow field of expertise.

Energy companies, on the other hand ...Ah, yes, the EEEE-vill "energy companies", those hideous alien monsters of "Big Oil" who don't live on Earth with their families, and who therefore don't give a flying f**k what happens to it.

... could potentially have a lot to lose.You'd like that, eh, Bobby? You and your fellow big-business-loathing liberalosers strive relentlessly to cause energy companies to collapse, putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, and guaranteeing an energy deprivation that would destroy the country.

And you're proud of that.

This may be why they fund assorted anti-GW groups.Ever look over the list of assholes that fund the GW fearmongers?

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Do you think there's any cash to be made in global warming denial? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>There are a lot of liars making bucks scaring the shit out of ignorant sheeple with their gloom & doom scenarios.
Yes of course, all those scientists are so very rich, driving their Ferraris and living in their mansions. Meanwhile the poor victimized energy companies are just getting by, those poor victims of the conspiracy.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Who could benefit from arguing against it? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Who benefits from ANY arguments against junk science? A: the people who can make informed decisions based on facts rather than on boogeyman stories.
Not if the "arguments" against it are little more than propaganda meant to sucker people like you who are predisposed to reject anything that smacks of "environmentalism." Your and your ilk are essentially "useful idiots."

You still have not convinced us that man is responsible for it.
The people who know about the subject are - the opinions of a few ignorant anonymous people on the internet are entirely irrelevant.

You still have not told us what we are supposed to do about it (as though we CAN do anything), other than your usual vague generalities that evince your ignorance of things outside your narrow field of expertise.
You never replied to my last response to you on solar panels, where I showed them to be cost effective and practical. So don't lie, DD.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Energy companies, on the other hand ... </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ah, yes, the EEEE-vill "energy companies", those hideous alien monsters of "Big Oil" who don't live on Earth with their families, and who therefore don't give a flying f**k what happens to it.
They aren't evil, despite your ridiculous hysterics, but they would indeed have the potential for loss. Some of them, like BP, are actually being proactive. Then again, they're a European company...:grin:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">... could potentially have a lot to lose. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You'd like that, eh, Bobby? You and your fellow big-business-loathing liberalosers strive relentlessly to cause energy companies to collapse, putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, and guaranteeing an energy deprivation that would destroy the country.
Oh, the sky is falling! You're such a pathetic defeatist. You're the guy who has announced the American people are far too ignorant and stupid to solve any of these problems, so let's ignore them.

By the way, I work for a big business, as you probably know, and I like it a lot. It's in an unrelated area, of course. However, I fail to see how awareness of GW would cause the catastrophes you imagine above. Then again that isn't surprising coming from a defeatist like you. You fear change. You feared changes in fuel economy standards as well, and thought that would be the end of the world. Guess what: new technologies create jobs, they don't eliminate them.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">This may be why they fund assorted anti-GW groups. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ever look over the list of assholes that fund the GW fearmongers?
Give me a reference, troll. So have you ever looked at how the anti-GW groups are entirely funded by energy companies, i.e. they are no more than propaganda outlets you foolishly confuse with actual researchers?

You must be French, DD. I've never seen anyone who acted like such a pathetic, sniveling defeatist before. Certainly I've never seen an American act like you. It's shameful.<!-- / message -->

[sunsettommy]

I think the apt thread title is:

The red hot meltdown.

Can you guys get back to a quieter debate?

[Native American]

You're a creationist.

You're an evolutionist.

[Native American]

You'd like that, eh, Bobby? You and your fellow big-business-loathing liberalosers strive relentlessly to cause energy companies to collapse, putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, and guaranteeing an energy deprivation that would destroy the country.

Oh, the sky is falling! You're such a pathetic defeatist. You're the guy who has announced the American people are far too ignorant and stupid to solve any of these problems, so let's ignore them.<!-- / message -->

Bob, can you give us a link to where DoctorDoom said that? No, of course you can't, because you just lied about one of your fellow posters again.

You're such a pathetic liar, in addition to being a stupid disciple of the "global warming" theorists.

What DoctorDoom said was that since Man isn't the cause of "global warming", Man isn't the one who is going to solve the "problems" you imagine to exist.

You're such a pathetic liar, Arctor.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What DoctorDoom said was that since Man isn't the cause of "global warming", Man isn't the one who is going to solve the "problems" you imagine to exist.
That's correct. Since global warming is a natural occurrence that is caused by the hotter sun, there is absolutely nothing that we humans can do to stop it unless we can figure out a way to turn off the sun.

BTW, I provided you a link to where you will find science-based posts from Bob. You should use it and stop your whining.

[Bob_Arctor]

You're an evolutionist.
Another substance free post from the infantile NA.

Here's what you "somehow" missed:

You're a creationist. Do you believe in the global flood, Noah's ark and all that? Let me know. I have some saved material on that that i can post for your pleasure if you care to debate any of it. Let me know.


You want some science? You can have it, by attempting to refute some math on the amount of heat the supposed global flood would have generated. Yes or no, NA.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob, can you give us a link to where DoctorDoom said that? No, of course you can't, because you just lied about one of your fellow posters again.
Doom said that solar power can never ever be a part of the solution to the generation of those "hot greenhouse gases." He said it's impossible, that the technology could never get any better than it is now.

You're such a pathetic liar, in addition to being a stupid disciple of the "global warming" theorists.
Right right, that means a lot coming from a guy who doesn't even understand the concept of GW, aside from agreeing with it or not.


By the way, what do you think of my work on the poll scheme you dreamed up? It must be too much for you to handle, since you are afraid to even broach the subject now. Pathetic.

[Jesse_Lackman]

From the Does CO2 really drive global warming? (http://www.min.uc.edu/nuclear/htmfile/viewpointR.htm) article;


The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.
I've been watching since this article was published and haven't seen anyone bring numbers with their objection to the author's viewpoint.

[Timberwolf]

Native American...TONE IT DOWN. If anyone disagrees with Arctor more than me, I'd be surprised...but, he does base his positions upon science. When we disagree, it is more due to HOW we INTERPRET what we read/see. Believe me, Bob and I have had our "go 'rounds" and more than once. So, KNOCK IT OFF...you're doing nothing for your credibility.

[Timberwolf]

Now then, as for the global warming thang....little if anything mankind does affects global warming/cooling. Not that it isn't happening/doesn't occur....it is/does. But, the cause(s) of it remain outside the control of humanity.

[Bob_Arctor]

Now then, as for the global warming thang....little if anything mankind does affects global warming/cooling. Not that it isn't happening/doesn't occur....it is/does. But, the cause(s) of it remain outside the control of humanity.
But this isn't supported by the evidence, TW. Warming correlates very well to greenhouse gas concentrations. We're pumping out tons of them, and temperatures are rising, as you would expect. Certainly heating and cooling can change naturally, but we can affect them as well.

[Native American]

But this isn't supported by the evidence, TW. Warming correlates very well to greenhouse gas concentrations.

It also correlates very well to increased solar spot activity, Bob.

[Naturalized-Texan]

From the Does CO2 really drive global warming? (http://www.min.uc.edu/nuclear/htmfile/viewpointR.htm) article;


I've been watching since this article was published and haven't seen anyone bring numbers with their objection to the author's viewpoint.
Wow! That paper sure knocks the hypothesis of human-caused global warming into a cocked hat.

[Bob_Arctor]

It also correlates very well to increased solar spot activity, Bob.
No, it doesn't. There is little long term correlation between solar output and temperatures, as several graphs I've provided have shown.

By the way, when are you going to try and explain your poll scheme? I see you're avoiding it, but I'd really like to know what you were thinking on that. Don't worry, there's no shame in being wrong! There is some shame in denying it, though...

[Naturalized-Texan]

But this isn't supported by the evidence, TW. Warming correlates very well to greenhouse gas concentrations. We're pumping out tons of them, and temperatures are rising, as you would expect. Certainly heating and cooling can change naturally, but we can affect them as well.
Your "evidence" is only evidence if supposition and speculation can be considered evidence.