Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 Read more: Kansas.com 28,112

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 ...

Read more
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#23641 Feb 27, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, we can call it "thermal pollutant."
Others have posted similarly.
It is not a matter of whether I am correct in using the term. I could say "one is an integer" and he would put it in the 'list'.

He even has a thread on which only he posts references to everything I say that he is too dim to understand. The ultimate ad-hominem and it really doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. Some things he quotes accurately. Some things he quotes his own misleading quotes, etc. It is not worth bothering with him.
litesong

Everett, WA

#23642 Feb 27, 2012
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" didn't like my answer to his interpretation of AGW advocates' ideas. So I'll repeat......

"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
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.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23643 Feb 27, 2012
DumBozo wrote:
It seems that you have a reading comprehension disability.
How so, DumBozo?
Show me one citation for 'CO2 as a thermal pollutant' and I'll apologise?
Show me one citation for 'thermal pollutant' and I'll apologise?

The term 'thermal pollutant' doesn't exist, LessFact/Nobody made it up, just as he made up "fourty."
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23644 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
..
Not a chemist, but there is a connection between water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere, the more water vapor the more co2 the atmosphere can hold.
..
So you are not a chemist. We knew that all along.

.. it's physics: CO2 warms the atmosphere, and the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

So you are WRONG!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23645 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
.. They got it right, just weren't heard because their findings did support the premise.
I have been following this for a few years now. I saw the many papers published that were ignored. NASA just came out with statements that mimic the ones being made 10 years ago by solar phycisits not associated with NASA..
You are nuts. You have no science yet you comment on science. Were you born without integrity?

Gossip. All gossip. Where's your evidence? NONE!

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23646 Feb 27, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
It is not a matter of whether I am correct in using the term.
Yes, it is and you're not correct, the term doesn't exist.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
I could say "one is an integer" and he would put it in the 'list'.
You could say that, but it would be a deflection.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
He even has a thread on which only he posts references to everything I say that he is too dim to understand.
ROFLMAO.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
The ultimate ad-hominem and it really doesn't matter if I am right or wrong.
I only post your bloopers there, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Some things he quotes accurately.
All my quotes of you are accurate and I can link to each one.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Some things he quotes his own misleading quotes, etc.
That needs rewriting for clarification.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
It is not worth bothering with him.
Thanks for finally exposing yourself at last, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NobodyYouKnow was the originator of the first "thermal pollutant" post, now LessFact has admitted using the term.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23647 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
.. NASA just came out with statements that mimic the ones being made 10 years ago by solar phycisits not associated with NASA.
"Using modelling techniques, the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1869...
The above reference is to this paper.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07...
..
You have posted a few times the paper "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints." I replied to you once. This is another response.

Here's what four international scientists (two of whom are common with the reference paper) published in Nature, the premier science magazine in the world:

.. we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

The full abstract for "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years"

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

THERE YOU GO: solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

THE END.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23648 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste your time on bonehead gordhead. He is unteachable. I and others have tried numerous times but he persists in his misuse of the second law.
Well, others like Steve Case believe in Gord. They wrote so.

Hence, it is important to show Gord's errors as long as he continues to post. He prefers no replies himself because he uses obscene language to discourage discourse.

Of course, this is applicable to other deniers as well.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23649 Feb 27, 2012
SpamBot has agreed with DumBozo that LessFact/Nobody's "thermal pollutant" term is accurate.
Chimney

Dubai, UAE

#23650 Feb 27, 2012
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww, poor Chimney CAN'T POST ANY MEASUREMENT WHERE ANY HEAT FLOWS FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEATS-UP" THE WARMER BODY.
Isn't that RIGHT....you AGW A-HOLE?
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.

What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.

Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.

A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.

My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#23651 Feb 27, 2012
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.
Here for your daily workout?

These folks help keep you mentally fit anyway - trying to return volley on all their mental gyrations

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23652 Feb 27, 2012
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" didn't like my answer to his interpretation of AGW advocates' ideas. So I'll repeat......
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
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.
yep you start with those who oppose your view and then who ? soon someone will be after you and then no one left on the planet . so you see you proved my point about global population control . so let us know when you fire up the gas chambers .
litesong

Everett, WA

#23653 Feb 27, 2012
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
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.
//////////
'at home in lynching county' wrote:
.....so let us know when you fire up the gas chambers.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Tho my Native Tribes ancestors avoided euro advanced technology gas chambers, the euros & transplanted euros were able to exterminate half the 30,000 Native Tribes around the world & leave the rest as tattered shreds, nevertheless.

'at home in lynching county' need not worry. topix AGW deniers such as bob burns, JRS,'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' &" 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' & alleged 4-time threatener & 3-time proud threatener brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" have shown their strongest desires to be at the controls of higher technology gas chambers when AGW advocates are rounded up.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#23654 Feb 27, 2012
Marie wrote:
<quoted text>
Here for your daily workout?
These folks help keep you mentally fit anyway - trying to return volley on all their mental gyrations
Not really, they hardly introduce any new ideas, just repeat the same old thing over and over even when they have been brought to task. Not really mental, more menial at that! I am not understanding how politically or monetarily inspired sources are more believable than trusted and proven scientific institution.

Have you heard from xtp lately? I miss her input. Too bad that some unfeeling crumb hurt her.

I am back in Kansas. Miss the warm weather we had in Texas. We accomplished a lot but our numbers were down due to a death, and several medical situations. Age is creeping up on our group. We need some more younger folks to get involved.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#23655 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, they hardly introduce any new ideas, just repeat the same old thing over and over even when they have been brought to task. Not really mental, more menial at that! I am not understanding how politically or monetarily inspired sources are more believable than trusted and proven scientific institution.
Have you heard from xtp lately? I miss her input. Too bad that some unfeeling crumb hurt her.
I am back in Kansas. Miss the warm weather we had in Texas. We accomplished a lot but our numbers were down due to a death, and several medical situations. Age is creeping up on our group. We need some more younger folks to get involved.
Yes ~ the same ol' same ol gets boring.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#23656 Feb 27, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.
What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.
Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.
A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.
My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Gord wrote:
"Awww, poor Chimney CAN'T POST ANY MEASUREMENT WHERE ANY HEAT FLOWS FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEATS-UP" THE WARMER BODY.
Isn't that RIGHT....you AGW A-HOLE?"

And your reponse was:
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.
Gee, FINALLY you ADMIT that Cold Bodies DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Bodies!

But then you start talking about the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" like it does not require Heat Flow from the Colder Atmosphere to a Warmer Earth where it HEATS-UP the WARMER EARTH.

Once AGAIN, THE IPCC AR4 REPORT DEFINES THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" as BACK-RADIATION from a COLDER ATMOSPHERE "HEATING-UP" A WARMER EARTH!!

The DIRECT QUOTES from the IPCC AR4 REPORT are HERE:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

The IPCC AR4 REPORT and the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" is the CONSENSUS of ALL YOUR QUACK "AGW scientists" that all you AGW CULT MEMBERS keep on BABBLING ABOUT.

Since YOU NOW AGREE that HEAT DOES NOT FLOW FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEAT-UP" THE WARMER BODY, you are saying that the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" defined by the IPCC AR4 Report is a FRAUD.

Isn't THAT RIGHT, DUMBASS?
----------
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>

What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.
Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.
A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.
My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Don't you know that a body that COOLS MORE SLOWLY is STILL COOLING???

COOLING means that the Body's TEMPERATURE is DROPPING....NOT INCREASING!

DUH!

So explain how a +15 deg C Earth that is immersed in a -20 deg C Atmosphere and is COOLING can EVER HEAT-UP ?????

HOW CAN THERE BE "GLOBAL WARMING" OF THE EARTH if the EARTH IS COOLING...DUMBASS ???

What a HOOT!
litesong

Everett, WA

#23657 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
Not a chemist, but there is a connection between water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere, the more water vapor the more co2 the atmosphere can hold.
//////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
So you are not a chemist. We knew that all along.

.. it's physics: CO2 warms the atmosphere, and the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
So you are WRONG!
//////////
litesong wrote:
SpaceBlues is right, again. It is the man-machine generated, non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs CO2, methane, oxide of nitrogen, SF6, etc, that controls the amount of continually phase-changing infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor that the atmosphere can hold.
So the water vapor atmospheric increases that topix AGW deniers have been bragging about, actually means that topix AGW deniers have been bragging about man-machine generated increasing CO2.

“Failure Is Not An Option”

Since: Feb 12

Enterprise Al

#23658 Feb 27, 2012
Ha wow talk about dumbasses. If you really were astrophysicist or knew anything about it you would know that yes earths inertia and orbit keeps us from dragging closer to the sun but you would also know that since the sun has much more mass therefore gravity it is pulling the earth closer year by year but even though not even an inch it still is! And ha ha litesong what a fucking wannabe ha "professional astronomer" you sound so retarded. And a facility is something designed or installed for a specific purpose dumbass. Go back to school. And here's an example of one such explanation: it's called the Milankovitch theory. Named after the Yugoslav mathematician who first proposed it, it is the astronomical or orbital theory of climate variations. The theory identifies three types of variation in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which could act as mechanisms to change the global climate: changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity), changes in the shape of Earth's orbit (eccentricity) and the shifting of the equinoxes (precession). Plus a long time ago on the news it said how a group of scientists proved each year the earth is getting closer.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#23659 Feb 28, 2012
Knowyostuff wrote:
Ha wow talk about dumbasses. If you really were astrophysicist or knew anything about it you would know that yes earths inertia and orbit keeps us from dragging closer to the sun but you would also know that since the sun has much more mass therefore gravity it is pulling the earth closer year by year but even though not even an inch it still is! And ha ha litesong what a fucking wannabe ha "professional astronomer" you sound so retarded. And a facility is something designed or installed for a specific purpose dumbass. Go back to school. And here's an example of one such explanation: it's called the Milankovitch theory. Named after the Yugoslav mathematician who first proposed it, it is the astronomical or orbital theory of climate variations. The theory identifies three types of variation in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which could act as mechanisms to change the global climate: changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity), changes in the shape of Earth's orbit (eccentricity) and the shifting of the equinoxes (precession). Plus a long time ago on the news it said how a group of scientists proved each year the earth is getting closer.
Actually the Earth is receding from the sun due to a couple of factors. The Sun is very slowly losing mass due to fusion reaction and tidal forces are transferring momentum to the earth. Both cause the earth to very slowly move further from the Sun. But not to worry, before the earth gets far enough away to significantly change the energy profile, the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth!

The Milancovitch Cycles have been known for many years and are not a significant factor in the current warming.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#23660 Feb 28, 2012
Can somebody help me? An evil oil exec is holding a gun to my head and telling me what to research and type and think.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Kansas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News New Kansas Law Bans Spending Welfare Benefits A... Apr 18 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News Kansas governor rescinds order protecting gay s... Apr 14 Lawrence Wolf 64
News Report: Kansas tax system puts higher burden on... Apr 14 Relevance Matters 1
News Kansas to limit welfare recipients to $25 a day... Apr 6 KScowboy45 1
Who remembers the old AM rock radio stations fr... (Jan '10) Apr 1 BigEd 36
News Poll: Growing number of Americans incorrectly t... (Aug '10) Mar 30 Patriot AKA Bozo 8,000
News Brownback and Roberts block Obama nominees (Aug '09) Mar '15 Marie 20,101
More from around the web