Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Kansas.com

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Comments
22,841 - 22,860 of 27,012 Comments Last updated Yesterday
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23613
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Earth is continually falling towards the Sun. That is why we go round and round....
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is continually making the Earth warmer. That is why we are going round and round....
I guess we can now add Gravity being affected CO2 and AGW to the already IMMENSE number of things affected by AGW:

A complete list of things caused by AGW.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

What a HOOT!
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23614
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess we can now add Gravity being affected CO2 and AGW to the already IMMENSE number of things affected by AGW:
A complete list of things caused by AGW.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
What a HOOT!
Didn't figure you would understand the paronomasia since you have such difficulty with understanding basic science. The meaning was not that CO2 makes the world go round and round but that it makes us here on the Topix go round and round.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23615
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet to some other so we can start over .
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23616
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't figure you would understand the paronomasia since you have such difficulty with understanding basic science. The meaning was not that CO2 makes the world go round and round but that it makes us here on the Topix go round and round.
You might find this reference educational. I found it to be a very well done description of the greenhouse effect.

http://tinyurl.com/7rk7p93

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23617
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bozo may also find this educational:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
That CO2 cannot be a 'pollutant'? Wrong. Anything CAN and IS a pollutant in a specific context. In this case, as a greenhouse gas causing 'thermal pollution' of the planet.
-
it is IRRELEVANT to the issue of CO2 as a 'thermal pollutant'. Agreed?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23618
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
You might find this reference educational. I found it to be a very well done description of the greenhouse effect.
http://tinyurl.com/7rk7p93
Except for the bottle experiment, I agree.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23619
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Bozo may also find this educational:<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
DEPENDS upon how you interpret the definition of a thermal pollutant. CO2 does increase the temperature. That is a thermal event. Since many understand that a hotter atmosphere will become problematic it is not incorrect to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes the atmosphere to heat. Thus can we call it a thermal pollutant?

pollutant:

Definition
In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria:(1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic).(2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem.(3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity.(4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23620
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
DEPENDS upon how you interpret the definition of a thermal pollutant. CO2 does increase the temperature. That is a thermal event. Since many understand that a hotter atmosphere will become problematic it is not incorrect to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes the atmosphere to heat. Thus can we call it a thermal pollutant?
pollutant:
Definition
In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria:(1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic).(2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem.(3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity.(4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal.
Yes, we can call it "thermal pollutant."

Others have posted similarly.

What "minus one" does not grasp is that science people also invent terms that go into the dictionary.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23621
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

A little crisis is a Harry Potter plotline.

"There are millions of people and their doomed families in the global scientific community and only dozens of climate change protesters. If millions of people had firsthand knowledge of the worst disaster imaginable, hundreds of thousands of them would be marching and ACTING like it was a crisis." –Shylow Escobar

Exaggeration trumps scientific consensus.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23622
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

at home in lynching counties wrote:
we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
We must only remove AGW deniers. Since they AREN'T humans, like eart hling (alien has no affinity to Earth), all we have to worry about is the ASPCA.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23623
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Climate change was unsustainable in support.
Nobody, especially the scientists acted like it was the worst disaster imaginable, a climate crisis. Only a comet hit could have been worse. There are millions of people and their families involved with the global scientific community, yet there are only dozens of climate change protesters in the streets. So in the end, scientific exaggeration trumped scientific consensus.
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed bank funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of INSANE attempts at climate CONTROL!
Scientists are not Gods for science gave us the pesticides that made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23624
Feb 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

me me me getting mine in the 69 position wrote:
A little crisis is a Harry Potter plotline.
"There are millions of people and their doomed families in the global scientific community and only dozens of climate change protesters. If millions of people had firsthand knowledge of the worst disaster imaginable, hundreds of thousands of them would be marching and ACTING like it was a crisis." –Shylow Escobar

Exaggeration trumps scientific consensus.
If you tell "me me me getting mine in the 69 position" & almost all topix repub AGW deniers about science, they're asleep before the end of the first equation. Proof of this are the mathematics errors of topix AGW deniers, the largest being a thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand TIMES, 10.9 billion TIMES, 4.3 billion TIMES, 2.7 billion TIMES, & 500 million TIMES. The fourth place error is by 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' who has no hi skule deegreee & is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.

Of course, none of the errors are exaggerated, & topix AGW deniers exaggerate their science savvy, despite their ability to trump their errors.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23625
Feb 27, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't figure you would understand the paronomasia since you have such difficulty with understanding basic science. The meaning was not that CO2 makes the world go round and round but that it makes us here on the Topix go round and round.
You must be talking about your Panic Attacks, Crapping your Pants and RUNNING FOR THE HILLS..."round and round" you go.

Change your Pants lately?
----------
Speaking about "understanding basic science"....

"I'm still waiting for you to post EVEN ONE MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE, where a Cold Object HEATS-UP a Warmer Object.

Why don't you stop BABBLING CULT-SPEAK and start POSTING those Non-Existant Measurements?

The next Ice Age will have come and past before you ever answer.

What a HOOT!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23626
Feb 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Wriggling Bozo wrote:
DEPENDS upon how you interpret the definition of a thermal pollutant.
There is no 'definition' for "thermal pollutant" anywhere, the term doesn't exist in science.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
Just another Bozo wrote:
CO2 does increase the temperature. That is a thermal event. Since many understand that a hotter atmosphere will become problematic it is not incorrect to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes the atmosphere to heat. Thus can we call it a thermal pollutant?
No, simply because it isn't.
Just another Bozo wrote:
pollutant:
Definition [deleted due to lñack of reference to thermal pollutant]
-
SpamBot wrote:
Yes, we can call it "thermal pollutant."
You certainly can, but as the phrase doesn't exist in science, you'd be wrong to.
SpamBot wrote:
Others have posted similarly.
Name them?
SpamBot wrote:
What "minus one" does not grasp is that science people also invent terms that go into the dictionary.
Can you link to the relevant term in any dictionary, SpamBot?
While you're at it, please define "science people," child?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23627
Feb 27, 2012
 
Google search:
CO2 as a thermal pollutant
"Did you mean: co2 as a thermal pollution"
https://www.google.com/search...
Google search:
Thermal pollutant
"Did you mean: thermal pollution"
https://www.google.com/search...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23628
Feb 27, 2012
 
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
You might find this reference educational. I found it to be a very well done description of the greenhouse effect.
http://tinyurl.com/7rk7p93
Of course you found it to be a "very well done description of the greenhouse effect".

The Equations not only VIOLATE The 2nd Law they also VIOLATE The Law Of Conservation Of Energy....They CREATE Energy.

----------
PS:

Also, the IDIOT Author can't even do simple Math:

Last time I checked (163 w/m^2 / 5.67X10^-8)^0.25 = 231.55 K or -41.45 deg C......NOT 286 K or +13 deg C!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-i...

Doesn't Scientific American PROOF READ their Articles???

HAHAHAHA....HAHAHA....

What A HOOT!
Chimney

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23629
Feb 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
First, thank you for questions and responses that do not include many negative adjectives.
What will it take to convince me that AGW is real and needs to be mitigated. Scientific evidence.
I know you think there is scientific evidence, I don't see it, and as many times as I have requested, no one has produced it.
We see a trend of increasing temperatures correlated with rise in CO2 levels. That observation does not prove causality, but when the causal mechanism i.e. the so-called greenhouse effect, is known and accepted by scientists (even those skeptical of AGW), and can explain the observed positive correlation, you have to admit there is more than a smoking gun here.
What we see is conjecture and computer models. Neither of these would I accept as scientific evidence.
The greenhouse effect is not conjecture. It already matches the observed disparity in temperatures both on Earth and on Venus, compared with a pure black body model of how hot they should be.
The science is not based on the computer models. Rather, the computer models are based on the science of the greenhouse effect and then the extremely complex task of seeing how changes in GHG levels will drive any changes through a system loaded with complex feed-back mechanisms and other variables, including changes from solar intensity.
Solar activity is programed into models as you state, it isn't a factor. But studies by solar physicists refute that. And their predictions have been realized, unlike the predictions of the computer models.
Don't solar models fail to predict the rise over the last 30 years?

But in any case, why are you assuming "one or the other"? GHG levels are one driver among others. I tend to assume the other effects are likely to be stabilising on the basis that the earth has maintained a climate conducive to life for several billion years. Not that a Carboniferous period climate would be desirable right now, of course, but that is my reaction to "runaway heating" panic merchants.
Chimney

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23630
Feb 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to
accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
Do you understand what NOT POSSIBLE means?
There is no NET, just NOT POSSIBLE, you IDIOT!
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h...
http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/bl...

“Two black bodies that radiate heat toward each other have a NET HEAT FLUX between them. The NET FLOW RATE of heat between them is given by an adaptation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation”(see link for this).

"All bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat. The sun and the earth both radiate heat toward each other. This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must in direct line of sight of the other to receive radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, that body must also be radiating heat to the cool body. Since the hot body radiates MORE heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET FLOW of heat is from hot to cold, and the SECOND LAW IS STILL SATISFIED.“

Read it twice, since it seems so hard for you to comprehend.

From the site Engineer’s Edge.

Dumbass.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23631
Feb 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no 'definition' for "thermal pollutant" anywhere, the term doesn't exist in science.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.<quoted text>No, simply because it isn't.<quoted text>
-
<quoted text>You certainly can, but as the phrase doesn't exist in science, you'd be wrong to.<quoted text>Name them?<quoted text>Can you link to the relevant term in any dictionary, SpamBot?
While you're at it, please define "science people," child?
It seems that you have a reading comprehension disability.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23632
Feb 27, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the bottle experiment, I agree.
The bottle experiment just shows that CO2 has a physical effect of blocking IR which is why the earth has a lower reflectance (in the SB equations) for IR. It is still a valid experiment if you don't use 'red herrings' about the meaning of the experiement.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••