Grugore

Best thing to do with that clown is to ignore him. I wish more people would do so. He craves attention. If he doesn't get it, he just might disappear.

jeff smith

Bravo, young Clem

Glaucon

You are apparently a very emotional person and I treated you as I would treat any normal adult and that really pulled your chain. I assumed that since you played dirty, you might expect some unpleasant response. You couldn't stand the heat and you were unable to get the fuck out of the kitchen. You made many personal attacks and hurled many insults, but not much on the exchange of ideas. Your rage and oozing hostility don't make much room for reasonable exchange. Your imagined outing of me and your wishing me a WONDERFUL day were obviously insincere and were definitely childish. I expected something better than your true self that you revealed. Calm down and take a warm bath.

angery american Loc: Georgia

Gluacon is the biggest liar on OPP...And he is all that you said he was..He is a sorry piece of crap...looking for his moma... :thumbup:

ah...clem

gosh, i signed that petition probably a dozen years ago, maybe even back when clinton was in the white house "men's room." i don't know if i can find a link to it at this point. could you just take my word on that?

it's really irrelevant, anyway, because as i pointed out in other posts, consensus of opinion is MEANINGLESS in science. how many signatures is on that petition is no better of an argument than the infamous 97% of "scientists" agree. i only mentioned it to support the posts by others, who have questioned this thoroughly bogus number, and emphasize that in the first place, it DOESN'T MATTER if 97% agree.

many non-scientists have WAY to much "faith" in scientists (as opposed to science itself), and can't seem to wrap their brain around the simple FACT that the "scientific consensus" always has been and always will be dead wrong more often than not. if it wasn't, there would be no progress. in fact there would BE no science, and it would be called history, instead.

facts speak for themselves. but humans can lie about the facts, either because they're wrong, or they're paid to lie. if their babble makes it to mainstream media, you can safely bet on the latter. and if the audience is functionally illiterate (as 97% of the general public are, at least in science), the easier it is for those lies to take hold and start a life of their own. a lot of well-meaning people can be taken in, and we have to remember that and do our best to educate them on the facts, and have faith that because they are well-meaning, they will do the right thing in the end, once they know what the REAL facts are.

a consulting chemical engineer can earn north of $1000/hr for their time. here i am posting facts with references and citations for free. eh... i live comfortably enough, and i have a strong distaste for travel. anyone who recognizes my nom de plume (ah...clem) will have a good idea of how old i am. plus, i have the foresight to know that in the long run, mass ignorance and corrupt leaders could conspire to cost me far more than i could ever earn as a consultant.

if you REALLY NEED a link to that petition, i'll see if i can find it. don't hold your breath.

ah...clem

definitely the former.

obviously we can destroy the environment, at least in the short term. we can't destroy the earth, or life. they've survived far worse than humans. i have every confidence that the earth will eventually shake us off like a annoying dose of fleas. but we can foul our nest to the point that we kill ourselves off. mainly thru pollution. only human arrogance exceeds our ability to negatively impact the earth. we are insignificant but hardly powerless to affect the earth. the examples are everywhere and i am loathe to enumerate them here. it would require an encyclopaedic output hardly befitting this forum.

and clearly there is good evidence that we can affect at least the weather. there are north of 35 ionospheric heaters (like HAARP) around the world, all attempting to weaponize weather. and massive deforestation undoubtedly has proven itself to have an impact. easter island is essentially a desert, tho we know that quite recently it was lushly forested, like most pacific islands at that latitude, and enjoyed bounteous rainfall, and the most probable explanation for the change is the total deforestation by the inhabitants, driven quite possibly by mindless devotion to their religion (all religious fanatics pls take note).

a codicil i would add is that the proponents of many alternative technologies likewise fail to think things thru. if humankind somehow managed to get all of their energy from the wind, is it safe to blithely assume that extracting quadrillions of horsepower of energy from the wind WON'T have an impact on climate. for all we know it could potentially be far worse.

we are most assured capable of affecting the weather. but climate is another matter and the jury is still out. anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke. smelly, smelly, smoke.

but the plain and simple FACT regarding greenhouse gases is that they have no impact on climate, or if they do, an impact that is dwarfed by the natural cycles of climate that are well established historic events. for 95% of the earth's 4.5 billion year existence, the were NO polar ice caps whatsoever. those are a relatively recent occurrence and to any but the most logically challenged, global cooling is a FAR GREATER THREAT to the continued existence of the present human population.

the most potent greenhouse gas by far, is water vapor, and there is roughly 300 times more of it (on average) in the atmosphere. so the greenhouse contribution of CO2 and CH4 and whatever other trace components of the atmosphere you care to name doesn't amount to as much as a fart in a windstorm.

besides which, i'm all for global warming. when all of that fossilized CO2 was in the atmosphere waiting to be absorbed by the global rainforest and turned into fossil fuel, life on the earth was FAR more diverse and prolific. so contrary to what the doomsayers would have you believe, polar bears and penguins will be just fine if the earth warms up. how do they think there came to BE penguins and polar bears in the first place, if warm climate creatures hadn't been able to adapt when the ice ages arrived?

like i said. 97% of people NEVER think. they feel. that is revealed by the language they use...

"hey, what do you FEEL like doing tonite?"

or

"why did you do that?"
"because i FELT like it."

emotions have their place, but they need to be held in check by reason. emotions arise from a region of the brain called "the snake brain" because all creatures more advanced than snakes have it (and emotions). clearly, reason evolved later, and must therefore offer survival advantages, and therefore must be a superior faculty. even in eastern philosophy/metaphysics, the "head chakra" is ABOVE the "heart chakra." remember this and act (think) accordingly.

it seems i've wandered a bit. NO. CO2 cannot affect climate.

PeterS

I found "Magnetic Storm" and the transcript but didn't see a reference to the "collapse of the earth's magnetic field" being the cause of the depletion of the Ozone layer nor did I find any references in google that even cited that the earths magnetic field having even collapsed or even flipped though there was speculation that it would flip in our life time. If you have a link it would be helpful else I don't see how an event that didn't happen as being the cause of Ozone depletion.

Below are some of the links I looked at that I think relevant.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_magnetic.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_astrosciences08.htm#2.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545465/Forget-global-warming-worry-MAGNETOSPHERE-Earths-magnetic-field-collapsing-affect-climate-wipe-power-grids.html

Nickolai

Co2 is a green house an the level of carbon in the atmosphere regulates the temperature. The atmosphere of Venus is 90 percent Co2 and the temperature is around 900 degrees.

ah...clem

that's not quite what i said. i suggested watching "Magnetic Storm" and then added "if you can put the dots together..."

"N:MS" gives a detailed account of the current understanding of magnetic pole reversals. those were discovered and proven long ago. we know from geologic records going back tens of millions of years that the magnetic poles flip on average every 200,000 years, and we know that it's been 700,000 years since the last reversal, so we are seriously overdue.

"N:MS" explores the mechanism of those pole reversals, and includes then current data on the state of the earth's magnetic field, including the magnetic "hole" above the south atlantic, and suggests that it is a sign that the next reversal is in all likelihood now beginning. it also mentions that the magnetic field creates the Van Allen belts which shield both us and the upper atmosphere from the solar wind.

the research of mike kasha (now deceased) whom i've met and talked with a some length, shows that one effect of the solar wind on the unprotected upper atmosphere will be the total destruction of the ozone layer. this is accepted fact and much has already been written about the loss of the ozone layer if the poles begin their reversal (a process that takes up to 1000 years). given that, and the presence of the magnetic hole above the south atlantic now, and the fact that 90% of the CFC's were released in the northern hemisphere (there is practically no exchange between the hemispheres, and the concentrations of CFCs actually measured in the north and south polar regions confirmed this), "connecting the dots" points to the ongoing collapse of the magnetic field in the south polar region as the true cause of the hole in the ozone over the south pole, NOT CFCs.

ah...clem

99% of bank robbers are wearing clothes. do you believe that clothes CAUSE bank robberies, or that we could prevent them by making everyone go naked?

cause and effect must be DEMONSTRATED, not ASSUMED!

and in case you don't know, the concentration of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is roughly 300 ppm (parts per million = 0.0001%), and it has increased to 320 ppm. we're NOT in imminent danger of turning into venus. CO2 most assuredly does NOT regulate the temperature of earth. if your analogy were correct (90% = 900 degrees), the temperature on earth should be barely above absolute zero.

W8_4_It

Hi, I'm W8, from Texas but posting from China.

Thanks, you beat me to it.

The side of mercury that faces the sun is over 800 F. Venus av temp is about 864 F if I remember correctly. If a 90% CO2 level only results in a slight rise in temp compared to mercury then CO2 is a piss poor performer as a greenhouse gas.

Cosmology really isn't my thing. My degree is in Chemistry and experience in is manufacturing and product development.

Anyway I have been reading some of your posts. I agree with most of them.

Vacaman

I can not argue with anything other than human controlling nature. Not possible ,unless you are talking about manipulating habitat.
We have been using so many elements to provide us with electricity, air conditioning, heat, and transportation that carbon dioxide is a moot subject by comparison.

otschelnik

to w8, jeff smith, and others: just wanted to say that i'm surprised to see so many rational people with understanding of scientific method (which requires proof and not correlation), and understand the difference between cause and effect. it puts the co2 question into context and exposes the politicization of the whole issue. human (anthropogenic) global warming is an extrapolation to atmpospheric co2 which looks even... far fetched, in that light? and i thought i was alone.....

1776Nate

I believe that there are alot of factors like solar flares,we can't control that.That co2 is a damn hidden tax.Yes the Earth is gonna change no matter what,it happens in cycles.If these people where alive in the pre-historic days they'd blame the dinosaurs for ruining the Earth with dinosaur shit before their extinction.Or the damn caveman polluted the air to much with that wonderful invention called fire,then they'd claim the pollution from those fires caused the last ice age.LOL 😁!It's in God's hands,ya can't control mother nature,or her cycles.I do respect mother Earth,I'm just not fanatical about it.Go recycle or something LOL 😁

W8_4_It

otschelnik,

There are more of us than you think. The brainwashing people have undergone with respect to "global warming" is prevalent. It's fault of the media. They don't factually report anything anymore. News is twisted to fit their agenda.

You can't argue rationally with a liberal about it. It's emotion 24/7 with those drama queens. When you try to point out bad scientific method, poor design of experiment, outlandish conclusions they get all emotional on you (The earth is your mother, you are killing her, what about the homeless baby polar bears, OMG we are all going to die, everyone near the coast will drown). You need a victorian era fainting couch handy to even to talk to them about the subject.

The really funny part is that if you read these IPCC NOAA , NASA etc. climate studies and look at the bias (uncertainties) of the measurements, they are usually much larger than the small changes they are hyperventilating about.

They throw out data that does not support the hypothesis. It's beyond shoddy, bad science. It's to the point of outright deception. I was reading 1 study where the tree rings did not support the hypothesis Obviously those trees LIE! So they throw out the data!

No one wants to talk about the 18 year pause in warming, or the fact they are basing all this on only 150 years of recorded temperature data.
They are talking about 0.04 temp diffs. How accurate were most ships thermometers in the 1850's?

Anyway nice to meet you and glad to meet a kindred spirit who looks at stuff logically.