Global Warming

It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and unable
to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political inclinations
and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see the light'.

1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much IR
radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher levels in
the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past 800,000 yrs.
(about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical high of 270 ppm)

2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.

3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.

4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.

5. The argument that H2O vapor is also a greenhouse gas doesn't mean that
CO2 doesn't have an effect. CO2 causes 10% of our greenhouse effect, and
climate models show pretty much the expected T change due to observed
increases in CO2. In fact, the latest news is that the climate models
under-predict T changes.

6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then the
atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the oceans,
which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating. A negative
feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening (which is very
real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.

Stop listening to "scientists" who are on the fringe and are capitalizing on
the issues of global warming because it has become such
a hot political debate!




"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
m...
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

On Apr 11, 12:43*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message

...
On Apr 11, 6:52 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:



You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
wind energy and all that.

The real comedy is that you're so slow that no one here can slow their minds
enough to comprehend what you're thinking. My brother used to work for
Windpower, I've worked on alternative energy resources for companies in a
commercial sense and as far back as 1974 I was having these same arguments
in newspaper editorials that Solar and Wind wouldn't become practical until
the AVAILABILITY of oil started becoming a problem. And gee, I was right and
all those big-mouthed fools such a yourself were wrong. Yet again.

If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
American companies and American workers. The oil?

Do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?

Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

What happens to those places when the oil runs out?



Dumbass -


When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
to go, right?

Well . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...

When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
to go, right?

If you don't understand what's going on in the energy business why don't you
actually go out and find out rather than listening to morons on the left?

Tom Kunich wrote:

"William Asher" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

"William Asher" wrote in message
...

Remember, I'm here to help.

So what do you drive again?

You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

Afraid to tell us what you drive? Now that's a real surprise.


If you have a comment on the increase in CO2 emissions from the U.S. I'ld
love to hear it. But while equating being willing to discuss personal
transportation with courage is keeping within your programming, it is so
ludicrously infantile I just can't bring myself to respond seriously. I
know people claim that all you need to know you learn in kindergarten, but
you don't have to keep acting like you're still there. Or at least in some
bizarro-world cross between the Marine Corps and kindergarten. Were you a
Marine? I forget.

--
Bill Asher

"JS" wrote in message
...
It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see the
light'.

Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world around
them operates being led around by the nose by people with an agenda.

1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher levels
in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past 800,000
yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical high of 270
ppm)

As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the
neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it
behaves differently than science has shown it does.

2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.

We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The
problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the
other 97% is natural.

3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.

The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles
obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in these
bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into and
through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm was
completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it is
today.

4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.

Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers in
Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there were
HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people - they tend
to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority tells them.

6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating. A
negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
(which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

William Asher wrote:

You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.

I prefer "virtual challenge." It's more in keeping with accepted standards
for record keeping in bicycle racing palmares.

I think I might be able to show that I get better mileage than you --
i.e., I've driven him crazier with fewer posts.

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

Maxed out already??????? Please enlighten me as to how you've come to that
conclusion.

Actually I do know how CO2 warming works and unfortunately you haven't a
clue and you continue to argue with your narrow-minded, finger-pointing and
branding me a "leftist". Whether I am or not is not the issue here.

FYI: The reason CO2 affects T is because it can absorb IR (I'm assuming
that's what you meant by a "VERY" small segment of the light band). And it
does so, because the wavelength of IR is about the right value to interact
with the O-C-O bonds. A carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms in a
linear array, with C in the middle. When IR radiation hits the CO2 molecule,
the C atoms move back and forth, vibrating back to something that is more
linear. That's how CO2 traps heat.

The experiments showing the heat absorbing effect of CO2 go back to the 19th
century, when John Tyndall, in attempting to explain the ice ages, examined
the "heat blocking" effect of certain gases. He discovered that CO2, water
vapor and methane were all very effective at blocking (absorbing) heat.
This is what I was trying to point out regarding the feedback effects when
CO2 values become elevated in the atmosphere.


"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
"JS" wrote in message
...
It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see
the light'.

Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world
around them operates being led around by the nose by people with an
agenda.

1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher
levels in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past
800,000 yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical
high of 270 ppm)

As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the
neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it
behaves differently than science has shown it does.


2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.

We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The
problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the
other 97% is natural.

3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.

The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles
obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in
these bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into
and through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm
was completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it
is today.

4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.

Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers
in Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there
were HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people -
they tend to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority
tells them.

6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating.
A negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
(which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

wrote:

William Asher wrote:

You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.

I prefer "virtual challenge." It's more in keeping with accepted
standards for record keeping in bicycle racing palmares.

I think I might be able to show that I get better mileage than you --
i.e., I've driven him crazier with fewer posts.


Ahhh.

Sensei, I was not trying to compete with you. I humbly apologize for
bragging.

Off to wax car, paint fence, sand deck.

--
Bill Asher

JS wrote:

snip

What you say is true, but the reason that CO2 has an impact on
longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the presence of so much
water vapor is that the mixing ratio of water vapor isn't constant through
the troposphere whereas CO2 is uniformly mixed. Go to:

www.realclimate.org

search for "saturated gassy argument" for the gory details. Tom won't read
the article, but you should.

--
Bill Asher

On Apr 11, 3:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message

Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

What happens to those places when the oil runs out?

They become another Dubai.

Here's a hint to jackasses such as yourself - let's run THEM out of oil
before we use up all of our own.

Yeah, that's a swift idea. Let's throw huge amounts of money at them
until they get sick of it. Sheesh.

R