Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[flip]

Now your statement got me interested. If I remember my elementary science, we breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2. The plants do it in reverse. In that case, I would expect the greenhouses to be far less in CO2. Could you please explain that?

Park your car in the greenhouse It's common to use CO2 generators and add some kind of fuel, that is much the same as running a car engine, pouring out CO2.

 

[flip]

problem is - we're wasting billions and billions of dollars on misunderstood problem regarding CO2. In other word - applying a costly solution to non-existent problem when that money is better spent on pollution control and researching green technology.

You nailed it. Polution control and green tech is what we need. High five.

 

[flip]

Posting bogus science from questionable sites which are funded by industries with interests that are negatively affected by scientific findings (ex. the tobacco industry and findings regarding smoking and lung cancer) is a surefire way to lose credibility with rational posters.

Yes, guess we just have to accept that some people really are able to belive this kind of stuff. Luckily they don't have much influence over the direction we are moving in, for some obvious reasons perhaps.

 

[flip]

well - global warming is real. Earth is certainly getting hotter than before. It's just that this subject tends to get very confusing and it's easy for people to lose direction in this hot debate (no pun intended ).

Let me be clear -
1. Global Warming is a wrong subject to talk about. The whole CO2 Cap-and-Trade is grossly and disgustingly misguided & misunderstood. Global Pollution should be discussed. It's a serious problem that's IMMEDIATELY affecting the humanity. It IS the direct result of mankind's abuse on Earth. The money should be spent on fixing our global pollution, not global warming. It's like pouring in billions of dollars to stop the hurricane from hitting Florida. Again - Global Warming is NOT caused by men but the Global Pollution is.

2. Did men cause global warming? nope!

3. Did men cause global pollution? YUP!

3. So what is this global warming? what's going on?? are we dying?? Simple - it's a natural phenomenon. Earth is correcting itself to balance its atmosphere, environment, and eco-system to accommodate the growing living things' demand. we are not dying but we are flourishing and living on land that were once inhospitable and inaccessible.

Ok. Ok. 97 percents of climate scientists can put their research up their arse, so can over 80 percent of all scientists.

 

[Jiro]

Park your car in the greenhouse It's common to use CO2 generators and add some kind of fuel, that is much the same as running a car engine, pouring out CO2.

right but not even close enough to make such impact on global level as the Al Gore and media want you to believe. It affects only at micro-level... which is our immediate environment where we're living in. that's why it was smoggy in LA while the air was clear in Hawaii or Montana or NJ.

Because of stricter pollution control in California - the smog condition got significantly better today than compared to 90's.

 

[flip]

Plants as in those that use photosynthesis? Performs worse? Which ones?

African violets and some Gerbera varieties will love 500 ppm of CO2.

I didn't say that nor implied that as a rule that CO2 is only an asphyxiant. In this case I was referring to what was reported that dry ice sublimed quickly into gaseous CO2 in such small and confined space which quickly caused an asphxiation result because the ventiation fan wasn't working at the time. This was a case of a displacement of breathable oxygen by CO2 which produced asphyxiation. Nothing more. For those who don't know what dry ice is it is solid CO2 at a temperature of -109 F. Putting it in a walk in refridgerator (at 35 degrees) is a bad idea since that's 144 degrees warmer for that dry ice and that means quick sublimnation of CO2 solid into CO2 gas.

You said "CO2 is not that potent since it just takes up the volume space of air with increasing concentration.....Asphyxiation".

Then you say here "This was a case of a displacement of breathable oxygen by CO2 which produced asphyxiation. Nothing more."

Then finally you put up this cite "The cause of death was listed as “inhalation of a high concentration of carbon dioxide [intoxication] and reduced oxygen [asphyxiation].". Here it says the toxicity of CO2 played a role, and not only asphyxiation.

I don't want to belittle, but this is a serious case of literacy problems.


Good see you are educating yourself about CO2, what it is and not. Keep up the great work.

 

[flip]

right but not even close enough to make such impact on global level as the Al Gore and media want you to believe. It affects only at micro-level... which is our immediate environment where we're living in. that's why it was smoggy in LA while the air was clear in Hawaii or Montana or NJ.

Because of stricter pollution control in California - the smog condition got significantly better today than compared to 90's.

Er?.. Buffalo is talking about how we maintain high levels of CO2 in greenhouses. I doubt anyone here belive that the greenhouse industry, with it's cute flowers, can contribute to global warming, and it's new to me that Al Gore and the media have claimed that.

 

[flip]

Global Warming: Medieval Era Hotter than Today

Here is an article talking about warm periods throughout history and that

The middle ages was a time of global warming more than now.

Most records seems to show the earth was 0.03 degrees colder in that period. The medieval warm period is mostly a regional thing, in the north atlantic region. In the litterature, it has little with global temperature to do.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003d.pdf

 

[flip]

And you wonder where people get these myths about global warming as caused by man? For one, the media purposefully use the word "hole" in "ozone hole" for scary effect when there is in fact no hole at all. Just a thinning layer of ozone that thickens and thins over time. Secondly, this "ozone hole" was first measured in 1956 way before the "ozone destroying" CFCs (refridgerant) were in common use. It goes like clockwork, just like global warming only on a much shorter time scale. The "hole" appears at the end after a long dark, cold Antarctic winter, lasts about three to five weeks, and then this "hole" slowly disappears. None of the permanent depletion of the ozone layer. Kind of makes you wonder about the science lately, eh?

Note NASA's use of the word "hole," too. Great PR stuff to boot! But as you can see, this "hole" disappears every year like clockwork.

You never stop emberassing us with your "knowledge"? That observation of the ozone "hole" from 1956 was done in the Arctic, not Antarctic. The changes in Arctic was normal and has allways been like that. Pulling up this image from Arctic, when it was data from the ozone layers in the Antarctic that caused the worries in the 90's, is a epic fail.

After 1996, we stopped the use of CFCs, halons, etc at a large scale, and the Anatarctic ozone layer is now improving.

 

[Jiro]

Er?.. Buffalo is talking about how we maintain high levels of CO2 in greenhouses. I doubt anyone here belive that the greenhouse industry, with it's cute flowers, can contribute to global warming, and it's new to me that Al Gore and the media have claimed that.

ah gotcha but as you know - car fume is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. so you would kill the plants in greenhouse if you do that

 

[Jiro]

Ok. Ok. 97 percents of climate scientists can put their research up their arse, so can over 80 percent of all scientists.

99.9% of scientists believed Earth was flat until Magellan proved them wrong.
99.9% of scientists believed Earth was center of the universe until Copernicus & Galileo proved them wrong

 

[kokonut]

Ok. Ok. 97 percents of climate scientists can put their research up their arse, so can over 80 percent of all scientists.

Again, saying the word "97%" is misleading. It doesn't say anything substantial.

 

[kokonut]

you say it's undergoing thru natural fluctuation and dynamic changes. I say it's correcting itself. I suppose that's subject to argument

Correcting itself of what then? What that is suggesting is Earth must attain some sort of return to "normalcy" I'd say "normalcy" under what condition? Temperature? CO2 Concentration? Amount of clouds? Ocean temperature? The frequency of El Nino and La Nino episodes? Amount of ice at the North and South Pole? What is Earth as a system trying to correct itself of?

 

[Jiro]

Correcting itself of what then? What that is suggesting is Earth must attain some sort of return to "normalcy" I'd say "normalcy" under what condition? Temperature? CO2 Concentration? Amount of clouds? Ocean temperature? The frequency of El Nino and La Nino episodes? Amount of ice at the North and South Pole? What is Earth as a system trying to correct itself of?

Normalcy? not at all. More like - adjusting its atmosphere to accommodate the increasing demand of humanity and other living things.

 

[kokonut]

Thank you, Sequoias.

Go back to the picture that I shared to you. Growing can be relative of the size, but the size might not be bigger, but also others as well. It is complication of the growing system of the Sun. The bottom line is that the Sun is growing including everything what the Sun have itself. Koko - Bottom line, you're spouting nonsense and gooblygook.
This is my final clarification of my words and I will not reply any further.

So, based on your comments then it's the size of the sun that's growing. But you're somehow trying to avoid saying that based on a flawed and erroneous math result of "60 time." Again, you're making no sense. I agree. It's better for you to stop.

Next, there is no "system" in a Sun itself. Rather the Sun is a part of the whole that includes the Earth, moon, planets, interplanetary bodies, satellites, and so on. System means a part of an integrated whole whether it involves interdependency or not. Unless you're saying that the system as a whole is "growing," too.

 

[kokonut]

Normalcy? not at all. More like - adjusting its atmosphere to accommodate the increasing demand of humanity and other living things.

This is what you said earlier.

yes but everything points to sun. El Nino is affected by sun. Global Warming is affected by sun. everything is affected by sun. What's going on in Earth is a natural phenomenon affected by sun. not a manmade cause.

http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...eaks-1877-cold-temp-record-2.html#post1379723

Also, "adjusting" implies a direction to some normalcy or adaptation. Earth as a system does respond to inputs though it's a matter of scale, magnitude, and sensitivity, among other things.

 

[Hwy99]

So, based on your comments then it's the size of the sun that's growing. But you're somehow trying to avoid saying that based on a flawed and erroneous math result of "60 time." Again, you're making no sense. I agree. It's better for you to stop.

I say "timeS", that has nothing to do with the mathematic, but the English.

Me stop? You are the one who supposely to be stopped too because I can't say any more toward to your quotes, because you seems just shitting out of my quote even though there are some of my quote could even agree with yours :roll:

Next, there is no "system" in a Sun itself. Rather the Sun is a part of the whole that includes the Earth, moon, planets, interplanetary bodies, satellites, and so on. System means a part of an integrated whole whether it involves interdependency or not. Unless you're saying that the system as a whole is "growing," too.

Of course, as Sun grows, as others planets are growing. That including the Earth.

Now you prove the global warming do exist, you stated the sun do our temperature, that sounds so affecting our earth, that is just like my own philosphy.

 

[kokonut]

WTF with this topic?

Well, just helping those who need help.

 

[kokonut]

I say "timeS", that has nothing to do with the mathematic, but the English. Koko - "grew 60 times" is the proper grammar but even that does not make clear on what is exactly growing. You were specifically talking about the sun.

Me stop? You are the one who supposely to be stopped too because I can't say any more toward to your quotes, because you seems just shitting out of my quote even though there are some of my quote could even agree with yours :roll:

Koko - Not making sense. Not making it clear. Nor concise. Period. That's what I'm trying to say here.


Of course, as Sun grows, as others planets are growing. That including the Earth. Koko - you need to provide context on what is growing. How is Earth growing? From the constant bombardment of micrometeorites and meteorites? What? How is other planets growing? The slow accumulation of gases, carbon dioxide ice?

Now you prove the global warming do exist, you stated the sun do our temperature, that sounds so affecting our earth, that is just like my own philosphy. Koko - global warming and cooling is what Earth has been doing for hundreds of millions of years. The proof is in our natural records here on Earth..

My responses are in red.

 

[flip]

99.9% of scientists believed Earth was flat until Magellan proved them wrong.
99.9% of scientists believed Earth was center of the universe until Copernicus & Galileo proved them wrong

In the cases of Magellan, Copernicus and Galileo, the percentage of scientists who belived them, increased over time. We see the exactly same thing with climate science. The numbers of scientists who agree that global warming is caused by man, is according to surveys, increasing, not decreasing.