oh my again

[Zafod Beeblebrox]

If you think that the global weather system is only affected by things that take place in the troposhpere, your sadly mistaken.

No, I don't think that weather is affected only by what happens in the troposphere. What is your point?

My point is, that you don't need to be posturing by trying to throw big words around.

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who has any real qualifications to make judgements on what affects man-kind could have on the atmosphere.  And I say it's insignificant.

So what is your basis of claim to say otherwise?

He is a follower of the Gore, and the Gore is all and all is the Gore!

[The Night Owl]

My point is, that you don't need to be posturing by trying to throw big words around.

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who has any real qualifications to make judgements on what affects man-kind could have on the atmosphere.  And I say it's insignificant.

So what is your basis of claim to say otherwise?

The point is that the troposhere is an extremely thin layer and if you honestly believe that constantly pumping large amounts of pollutants into it year after year and decades after decades has no significant effect, then you're nuts.

[Lauri]

When I see photo's like that it reminds me of how big a fool Al Gore is.

which begs the question: how much of a carbon footprint is the fire in California leaving on the planet?

what about if one of our volcanoes explodes? what is the govt going to do about that?

i think a lot of them have figured out how to score personally (as Big Al did) and they want in on the action ... they'll all be drowning in money, and we'll be out there paying all the bills.

its about time for an overthrowing of our govt again.  

[Lauri]

Control or even significantly affect.

What is the basis for your claim that mankind cannot significantly affect Earth? Surely the basis is not scientific.

prove to us that mankind can affect the sun? surely the basis is scientific?

[Lauri]

It simply requires the ability to think clearly.......

doc

Let us test your ability to think clearly. Here are some questions for you...

What is the average depth of the troposphere? And, how long would it take an average person to run that distance?

and that has what to do with man made global warming?

[Duke Nukum]

Those are some awe inspiring photos, Frank.

I talked to someone yesterday who is studying climatology on the graduate level and she is like panicking about the earth warming up and I said, "How do we know this isn't natural?  How do we know that 200-300 years from now there wont be a global cooling thing going on?" and she goes "Yeah, that's how the climate works?" and so I say, "okay then, why the panic?"

And really there wasn't a good response, I pointed out that I would rather live during a period of Global Warming(TM) than global cooling when people starve and she responded about current farming land being covered by salt water, which  I don't know, even if that were true I don't see a reason for panic if there is warming and I have heard that the warming gains were wiped out in the last few years.

Hey, is this bouncy?

[The Night Owl]

prove to us that mankind can affect the sun? surely the basis is scientific?

I haven't claimed that mankind can affect the Sun. That would be absurd.

[The Night Owl]

and that has what to do with man made global warming?

I'm pointing out the depth of troposphere to make the point that it is a distance which a good runner could traverse in less than an hour. In other words, the troposphere is very thin... a lot thinner than many people realize.

[Chris_]

My point is, that you don't need to be posturing by trying to throw big words around.

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who has any real qualifications to make judgements on what affects man-kind could have on the atmosphere.  And I say it's insignificant.

So what is your basis of claim to say otherwise?

The point is that the troposhere is an extremely thin layer and if you honestly believe that constantly pumping large amounts of pollutants into it year after year and decades after decades has no significant effect, then you're nuts.

Who - besides the Goracle and the idiots that believe his crap - has designated carbon dioxide a "pollutant", again?

I'm sure the plant life on this planet would disagree with that assessment.

[djones520]

My point is, that you don't need to be posturing by trying to throw big words around.

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who has any real qualifications to make judgements on what affects man-kind could have on the atmosphere.  And I say it's insignificant.

So what is your basis of claim to say otherwise?

The point is that the troposhere is an extremely thin layer and if you honestly believe that constantly pumping large amounts of pollutants into it year after year has no significant effect, then you're nuts.

Extremely thin layer?  7.4 miles would be it's average thickness. 

Do you have any idea how much the atmopshere "recycles" itself in a day?  6% water vapor is how much the atmopshere in any given area can hold before it begins to precipitate.  At that point, rain fall is created.  Cloud Condensation Nuclei, or CCN is required for water to turn from a vapor to a liquid.  Those "chemicals" we put up in the air are a signficant part of the CCN that is found in every bit of rain that touches this planet.  Those sulfates, carbon, and just about anything else you can think of come back down to the earth.  They aren't a part of the atmosphere anymore.

Then you need to think about all the CO2 that is eaten by the plant life on this planet.  Did you know that 10,000 years ago during the last ice age, large scale agriculture was impossible?  When the ice caps began to melt, enough CO2 was released for the allowance of agriculture to take root.  This led to the rise of our first civilizations, and the eventual point we are at today.  There was enough food for these plants to now exist.

The amount of arable land that we use for agriculture has risen drastically over the last century.  The amount of CO2 consumed by plant life has risen over the last century.  The plants that we eat absorb more CO2 then trees do.  They grow faster, so they require more fuel, so they absorb more.  The more we plant to feed our people, the more CO2 will be consumed by these plants.

So when I say I don't think we have that big of an effect, I say it with reason.  What we put into the air does not stay there.

[Zafod Beeblebrox]

My point is, that you don't need to be posturing by trying to throw big words around.

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who has any real qualifications to make judgements on what affects man-kind could have on the atmosphere.  And I say it's insignificant.

So what is your basis of claim to say otherwise?

The point is that the troposhere is an extremely thin layer and if you honestly believe that constantly pumping large amounts of pollutants into it year after year has no significant effect, then you're nuts.

Extremely thin layer?  7.4 miles would be it's average thickness. 

Do you have any idea how much the atmopshere "recycles" itself in a day?  6% water vapor is how much the atmopshere in any given area can hold before it begins to precipitate.  At that point, rain fall is created.  Cloud Condensation Nuclei, or CCN is required for water to turn from a vapor to a liquid.  Those "chemicals" we put up in the air are a signficant part of the CCN that is found in every bit of rain that touches this planet.  Those sulfates, carbon, and just about anything else you can think of come back down to the earth.  They aren't a part of the atmosphere anymore.

Then you need to think about all the CO2 that is eaten by the plant life on this planet.  Did you know that 10,000 years ago during the last ice age, large scale agriculture was impossible?  When the ice caps began to melt, enough CO2 was released for the allowance of agriculture to take root.  This led to the rise of our first civilizations, and the eventual point we are at today.  There was enough food for these plants to now exist.

The amount of arable land that we use for agriculture has risen drastically over the last century.  The amount of CO2 consumed by plant life has risen over the last century.  The plants that we eat absorb more CO2 then trees do.  They grow faster, so they require more fuel, so they absorb more.  The more we plant to feed our people, the more CO2 will be consumed by these plants.

So when I say I don't think we have that big of an effect, I say it with reason.  What we put into the air does not stay there.

[Miss Mia]

 

[Chris_]

and that has what to do with man made global warming?

I'm pointing out the depth of troposphere to make the point that it is a distance which a good runner could traverse in less than an hour. In other words, the troposphere is very thin... a lot thinner than many people realize.

You know if you AGW nuts quit hyperventilating that will significantly significantly reduce human-caused carbon monoxide emissions.

Gotta do your part, you know...

[The Night Owl]

You know if you AGW nuts quit hyperventilating that will significantly significantly reduce human-caused carbon monoxide emissions.

Gotta do your part, you know...

Who is hyperventilating here? As I have pointed out in the past, the consequences of climate change are yet unknown. In fact, I suspect that some parts of the Earth may actually benefit from climate change.

[djones520]

You know if you AGW nuts quit hyperventilating that will significantly significantly reduce human-caused carbon monoxide emissions.

Gotta do your part, you know...

Who is hyperventilating here? As I have pointed out in the past, the consequences of climate change are yet unknown. In fact, I suspect that some parts of the Earth may actually benefit from climate change.

Of course some would.  We'll get a short snap of "warming" and then we'll enter a new ice age as the oceans rapidly cool and the polar ice caps begin to refreeze at a rapid rate.  New land mass will be uncovered from the lowering sea levels, and in time will be considered arable as all the salts and stuff will have been washed off.

But you know what?  This will happen over a couple of thousand years.  Not 2050.  Not even 2500.

Climate change is an extremely slow process.  We won't speed things up.  We won't cause "The Day After Tomorrow" (which was a ****ing joke of a movie).

[The Night Owl]

Extremely thin layer?  7.4 miles would be it's average thickness.

Onions are said to have thin skin, are they not? If Earth were the size of an onion, the atmosphere would be thinner than the skin of an onion. That's thin.

Do you have any idea how much the atmopshere "recycles" itself in a day?  6% water vapor is how much the atmopshere in any given area can hold before it begins to precipitate.  At that point, rain fall is created.  Cloud Condensation Nuclei, or CCN is required for water to turn from a vapor to a liquid.  Those "chemicals" we put up in the air are a signficant part of the CCN that is found in every bit of rain that touches this planet.  Those sulfates, carbon, and just about anything else you can think of come back down to the earth.  They aren't a part of the atmosphere anymore.

CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries... more than enough time to **** the climate if we keep adding more CO2 than the planet can absorb. I can't imagine what on Earth is giving you the idea that the Earth can absorb as much carbon as we throw at it, but it certainly isn't science.

Then you need to think about all the CO2 that is eaten by the plant life on this planet.  Did you know that 10,000 years ago during the last ice age, large scale agriculture was impossible?  When the ice caps began to melt, enough CO2 was released for the allowance of agriculture to take root.  This led to the rise of our first civilizations, and the eventual point we are at today.  There was enough food for these plants to now exist.

The amount of arable land that we use for agriculture has risen drastically over the last century.  The amount of CO2 consumed by plant life has risen over the last century.  The plants that we eat absorb more CO2 then trees do.  They grow faster, so they require more fuel, so they absorb more.  The more we plant to feed our people, the more CO2 will be consumed by these plants.

As the following NG article points out, carbon absorption by huge carbon sinks such as the US and China are not enough to offset the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere by industry...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks.html

And, keep in mind that even though increased rainfall from global warming means increased plant growth, deforestation is still going on. And, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas we need to worry about.

[djones520]

You obviously didn't absorb a thing I just said...

[Splashdown]

You obviously didn't absorb a thing I just said...

He's a lib.

That surprises you?   

[Zafod Beeblebrox]

You obviously didn't absorb a thing I just said...

He's a lib.

That surprises you?   

[The Night Owl]

Who - besides the Goracle and the idiots that believe his crap - has designated carbon dioxide a "pollutant", again?

I'm sure the plant life on this planet would disagree with that assessment.

Scientists arent saying that CO2 is bad. What scientists are saying is that too much CO2 is bad.

[Lauri]

My point is, that you don't need to be posturing by trying to throw big words around.

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who has any real qualifications to make judgements on what affects man-kind could have on the atmosphere.  And I say it's insignificant.

So what is your basis of claim to say otherwise?

The point is that the troposhere is an extremely thin layer and if you honestly believe that constantly pumping large amounts of pollutants into it year after year has no significant effect, then you're nuts.

Extremely thin layer?  7.4 miles would be it's average thickness. 

Do you have any idea how much the atmopshere "recycles" itself in a day?  6% water vapor is how much the atmopshere in any given area can hold before it begins to precipitate.  At that point, rain fall is created.  Cloud Condensation Nuclei, or CCN is required for water to turn from a vapor to a liquid.  Those "chemicals" we put up in the air are a signficant part of the CCN that is found in every bit of rain that touches this planet.  Those sulfates, carbon, and just about anything else you can think of come back down to the earth.  They aren't a part of the atmosphere anymore.

Then you need to think about all the CO2 that is eaten by the plant life on this planet.  Did you know that 10,000 years ago during the last ice age, large scale agriculture was impossible?  When the ice caps began to melt, enough CO2 was released for the allowance of agriculture to take root.  This led to the rise of our first civilizations, and the eventual point we are at today.  There was enough food for these plants to now exist.

The amount of arable land that we use for agriculture has risen drastically over the last century.  The amount of CO2 consumed by plant life has risen over the last century.  The plants that we eat absorb more CO2 then trees do.  They grow faster, so they require more fuel, so they absorb more.  The more we plant to feed our people, the more CO2 will be consumed by these plants.

So when I say I don't think we have that big of an effect, I say it with reason.  What we put into the air does not stay there.

and apparently what goes into the ocean gets eaten by tiny microbes.. this is not to say we should purposely pollute, but our air is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago.

tell me TNO, why doesnt the earth get up in arms every time a volcano blows, or an earthquake causes mass destruction and puts crap out in the air?

[Lauri]

You know if you AGW nuts quit hyperventilating that will significantly significantly reduce human-caused carbon monoxide emissions.

Gotta do your part, you know...

Who is hyperventilating here? As I have pointed out in the past, the consequences of climate change are yet unknown. In fact, I suspect that some parts of the Earth may actually benefit from climate change.

Of course some would.  We'll get a short snap of "warming" and then we'll enter a new ice age as the oceans rapidly cool and the polar ice caps begin to refreeze at a rapid rate.  New land mass will be uncovered from the lowering sea levels, and in time will be considered arable as all the salts and stuff will have been washed off.

But you know what?  This will happen over a couple of thousand years.  Not 2050.  Not even 2500.

Climate change is an extremely slow process.  We won't speed things up.  We won't cause "The Day After Tomorrow" (which was a ******* joke of a movie).

but you gotta admit; knowing those wolves were poopin all over new york city must have made the GWN just ape crazy... no one to pick up their poop in plastic bags (that wont break down for a thousand years!!) oh the horror!!! 

[RightCoast]

great pictures.

[Lauri]

Extremely thin layer?  7.4 miles would be it's average thickness.

Onions are said to have thin skin, are they not? If Earth were the size of an onion, the atmosphere would be thinner than the skin of an onion. That's thin.

Do you have any idea how much the atmopshere "recycles" itself in a day?  6% water vapor is how much the atmopshere in any given area can hold before it begins to precipitate.  At that point, rain fall is created.  Cloud Condensation Nuclei, or CCN is required for water to turn from a vapor to a liquid.  Those "chemicals" we put up in the air are a signficant part of the CCN that is found in every bit of rain that touches this planet.  Those sulfates, carbon, and just about anything else you can think of come back down to the earth.  They aren't a part of the atmosphere anymore.

CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries... more than enough time to **** the climate if we keep adding more CO2 than the planet can absorb. I can't imagine what on Earth is giving you the idea that the Earth can absorb as much carbon as we throw at it, but it certainly isn't science.

Then you need to think about all the CO2 that is eaten by the plant life on this planet.  Did you know that 10,000 years ago during the last ice age, large scale agriculture was impossible?  When the ice caps began to melt, enough CO2 was released for the allowance of agriculture to take root.  This led to the rise of our first civilizations, and the eventual point we are at today.  There was enough food for these plants to now exist.

The amount of arable land that we use for agriculture has risen drastically over the last century.  The amount of CO2 consumed by plant life has risen over the last century.  The plants that we eat absorb more CO2 then trees do.  They grow faster, so they require more fuel, so they absorb more.  The more we plant to feed our people, the more CO2 will be consumed by these plants.

As the following NG article points out, carbon absorption by huge carbon sinks such as the US and China are not enough to offset the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere by industry...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks.html

And, keep in mind that even though increased rainfall from global warming means increased plant growth, deforestation is still going on. And, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas we need to worry about.

no no, the earth is not absorbing the CO2... the air does, and all the other living things do..

and forests are not endangered species. i wish you enviro-nuts could get that; we are in NO danger of losing trees on this planet. we can plant more... move on.

[Lauri]

Who - besides the Goracle and the idiots that believe his crap - has designated carbon dioxide a "pollutant", again?

I'm sure the plant life on this planet would disagree with that assessment.

Scientists arent saying that CO2 is bad. What scientists are saying is that too much CO2 is bad.

and how do they measure what is "too much" out there?

we still havent been to the depths of the ocean on this planet..