Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
OilIsMastery wrote:
roccman wrote:
OilIsMastery wrote:
aflurry wrote:
the world was not in unchanging stasis before man came along.
I know that. Perhaps you should tell that to Zardoz, Olaf, Aaron, Rock, Bas, and the rest of the environmental (emphasis on mental) movement. Somehow I don't think they will believe you.
Dude it is R-O-C-C
Two Cs
Get it?
Aaron is with two As...hey that reminds me...
Mods...best be watching this Aaron character...he's been cutt'n up this thread pretty severly.
Hehe. My bad. I stand corrected Rocc.
This thread is great. I was just thinking it has all the elements of a Socratic dialogue (I'm Socrates of course) bwahaha. Aaron is Thrasymachus...
Hmmmmmm...not exactly what I would have said.
I think this post has all the makings for flame bait.
But hey - maybe a lurker now will clearly see that in fact the GW deniers (that would be you OisM) are on crack.
Thanks for helping out - every thread needs a clearly identifiable idiot - where did you get the training? I am very impressed. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
roccman wrote:
But hey - maybe a lurker now will clearly see that in fact the GW deniers (that would be you OisM) are on crack.
They are rather dealing crack.
Never mind.
Natural purpose of intelligent species (if there is such a thing as purpose at all...) is to return missing carbon into circulation, to facilitate faster entropy increase.
-G _________________ I Have and will continue to vote against ANY politician who supports the various bailouts. Curse you for selling out our future for status quo now!
Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 3904 Location: over here
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
OilIsMastery wrote:
And why aren't those causes factors today?
a supervulcanoe or unusual solar activity may trigger the end of an ice age, but the selfsustained reaction is a reaction of the CO2 coming from the molten permafrost which during iceages covers huge areas of the earth.
so when it comes to vulcanoes and solar activity; those are minor factors when you look at the past rising of both CO2 and temperature; and hardly factors at all in the steady state of the last 10,000 years, as they lose their trigger role in this situation.
You have proven to have no brain for math, but I'll try to explain it: when the temperature and CO2 levels had risen to what where it was at the end of the ice age, there was less and less permafrost melting (due to ball shape of the earth) per degree of increase in global temperatures ---> less CO2 ---> less warming ---> steady state. So due to natural causes and limits it couldn't get much warmer then it was in the interglacial periods as you can clearly see from the graph I posted.
So from the factors only some permafrost remains, but it needs more warming/CO2 than it will give off, but we're starting to see renewed melting in Canada and Siberia now, due to the enormous amounts of CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere, especially over the last 50 years, and it's still increasing.
Also you can easily calculate the amount of carbondioxide that is emitted by calculating the number of carbon atoms in the coal oil and gas that is burnt relative to all other molecules in the atmosphere, which is also easily calculated, but I assume you don't know nothing about chemistry either, though it doesn't require much more than a highschool level at that.
To finish you off, OiM....ehh,...I mean to finish it off OiM, you talk about this being fate rather than science, yet you completely ignore the facts and relationships I've given you. You also talk about the cliche "socratic conversation" yet you ask the questions after I've given the answers; so let me ask you a few questions now: do you believe anything other than what you choose to believe? does "choice" really exist? Do you even exist as an independent mind or are you merely a product...a tool of others? _________________ "The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
Bas wrote:
OilIsMastery wrote:
And why aren't those causes factors today?
a supervulcanoe or unusual solar activity may trigger the end of an ice age, but the selfsustained reaction is a reaction of the CO2 coming from the molten permafrost which during iceages covers huge areas of the earth.
so when it comes to vulcanoes and solar activity; those are minor factors when you look at the past rising of both CO2 and temperature; and hardly factors at all in the steady state of the last 10,000 years, as they lose their trigger role in this situation.
You have proven to have no brain for math, but I'll try to explain it: when the temperature and CO2 levels had risen to what where it was at the end of the ice age, there was less and less permafrost melting (due to ball shape of the earth) per degree of increase in global temperatures ---> less CO2 ---> less warming ---> steady state. So due to natural causes and limits it couldn't get much warmer then it was in the interglacial periods as you can clearly see from the graph I posted.
So from the factors only some permafrost remains, but it needs more warming/CO2 than it will give off, but we're starting to see renewed melting in Canada and Siberia now, due to the enormous amounts of CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere, especially over the last 50 years, and it's still increasing.
Also you can easily calculate the amount of carbondioxide that is emitted by calculating the number of carbon atoms in the coal oil and gas that is burnt relative to all other molecules in the atmosphere, which is also easily calculated, but I assume you don't know nothing about chemistry either, though it doesn't require much more than a highschool level at that.
To finish you off, OiM....ehh,...I mean to finish it off OiM, you talk about this being fate rather than science, yet you completely ignore the facts and relationships I've given you. You also talk about the cliche "socratic conversation" yet you ask the questions after I've given the answers; so let me ask you a few questions now: do you believe anything other than what you choose to believe? does "choice" really exist? Do you even exist as an independent mind or are you merely a product...a tool of others?
Bas, even though your views are so warped I've really tried to understand them. Unfortunately I have questions. You think you have all the answers but you don't. _________________ The Lies Of Richard Heinberg
Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 3904 Location: over here
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
OilIsMastery wrote:
Bas, even though your views are so warped and I've really tried to understand them. Unfortunately I have questions. You think you have all the answers but you don't.
Are there really such things as answers? or questions for that matter? _________________ "The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
roccman wrote:
But hey - maybe a lurker now will clearly see that in fact the GW deniers (that would be you OisM) are on crack.
They are rather dealing crack.
Never mind.
Natural purpose of intelligent species (if there is such a thing as purpose at all...) is to return missing carbon into circulation, to facilitate faster entropy increase.
So fill your car, cooperate and don't grumble.
You cannot change a world, I cannot, Nature will.
Yeah that was Ed Abbey's philosophy also...tis why he drove a Cadillac...to hasten the end...
http://www.abbeyweb.net/doc.htm?ID=75 _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 235 Location: Sonoma County, Northern California
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
I leave it up to those with more detailed and advanced scientific knowledge to rebut GW skeptics such as Augie Auer. To find some of the articles that rebut Auer's overly-simplistic reasoning for denying GW, I Googled "augie auer" (with filters such as -died and -dies to remove most of the posts regarding his passing). I found a lot of GW skeptics clinging to his denial, but also a number of intelligent rebuttals to his claims.
This link is an example of an excellent rebuttal, with an excerpt below:
Quote:
It is true that by comparison of quantity there is a hell of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapour is a perfect absorber of infrared radiation and thus the main contributor to the so called 'greenhouse' effect. So far Augie is right.
And he is also right, that the Earth would be covered in ice, if it was not for the warming blanket of that water vapour.
However Augie omits to say this: Water vapour is not absorbing (shielding against radiation heat loss) in the entire infrared spectrum. In fact there are, thankfully, a few relatively clear 'open windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour because of the physical properties of the water molecule. If it was not for these 'windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour, our earth would find it more difficult to radiate heat away to space. And radiating in the infrared spectrum, a bit like the glow from your hot potbelly stove in winter, is the only way that Earth can loose thermal energy to space! If these remaining open windows in the infrared spectrum between the various bands in which water vapour absorbs were not there, then Earth would a much warmer place, and probably not very conducive to the current forms of life.
Water is so abundant in the atmosphere that in those areas where it absorbs heat radiation, the atmosphere is practically impermeable or 'black'. In other words in these areas the absorption spectrum is completely saturated. And no matter how much more water vapour there would be, it can't get 'blacker than black'. It’s a bit like putting a black tarp over your window at home. After the first one it dose not matter how many more you add, it won't get any darker - at least through that window!
But here is the catch: CO2 and also Methane have absorption areas of infrared radiation in some of the few remaining 'windows' in which the earth can 'shine out' so to speak and loose heat, because these windows in the spectrum are not already closed by water vapour's thick blanket. And it does not take much of a CO2 concentration at all, to lead to a strong absorption in these areas. In fact CO2 is so good at absorbing heat radiation in its bands that even at the natural background concentration of 280 parts per billion of CO2, the atmosphere is practically already almost 'black' in the centre of the CO2 absorption bands!
OisM is not likely to read the entire linked article and challenge it point-by-point, (or even link to a URL that rebuts the points presented). Rather, I expect that he will quickly post another poorly thought-out response that avoids acknowledging the content of the rebuttal to which I have linked. (Please note that I have avoided making an ad hominem attack on OisM.)
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
Dvanharn wrote:
OisM is not likely to read the entire linked article and challenge it point-by-point, (or even link to a URL that rebuts the points presented). Rather, I expect that he will quickly post another poorly thought-out response that avoids acknowledging the content of the rebuttal to which I have linked. (Please note that I have avoided making an ad hominem attack on OisM.)
Dave
Hmmmmm....I have a feeling OisM is not going to be posting much more around here.
Just a feel'n... _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 3904 Location: over here
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
roccman wrote:
Hmmmmm....I have a feeling OisM is not going to be posting much more around here.
Just a feel'n...
yeah, questioning your own existence is a dangerous business _________________ "The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
Bas wrote:
roccman wrote:
Hmmmmm....I have a feeling OisM is not going to be posting much more around here.
Just a feel'n...
yeah, questioning your own existence is a dangerous business
Biting the hand that feeds comes to mind in both cases. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: Re: Less Than 1% Of CO2 Is Man Made
OilIsMastery wrote:
When I see this much of an emotional reaction on any given subject it's a red flag that there is a lot of religion going on and very little science.
The moment someone realizes their philosophical position or scientific conclusion has zero logical or factual basis their immediate reaction is to get all emotional because they are upset that something they thought was so true for so long turned out to be nothing but a lie.
No, it is mostly the case - especially on a message board - that when someone comes in with a reasoned argument that squashes the skeptic's arguments, they are ignored. So when you hear the same false arguments over and over by people that know absolutely nothing about science, it gets very frustrating.
Volcanoes are absolutely not the cause of the last 100 years of CO2 rise. This is known by isotopic analysis of the CO2. It is unequivocally man-made from burning fossil fuels. The other way to know is that we have a pretty decent knowledge of how much CO2 has been formed by human use in the last century. Carbon content is increasing in the oceans, land, and atmosphere. If it was a natural source, at least one of those would have to be declining.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
