The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: franksolich on July 08, 2008, 09:27:23 PM
-
Well, the nocturnally foul one should stop worrying about how man is going to destroy the eart--er, planet.
These are photographs--amateur photographs--of that storm that laid Omaha low on Friday, June 27 (it might have been June 20, but I think it was June 27), at 5:00 p.m. central time, 4:00 p.m. mountain time. The storm came out of nowhere (it abruptly appeared on radar screens about 50 miles west of Omaha; just dropped out of the clear sky), and spent 40 minutes blowing down Omaha. Winds were in excess of 80 mph.
This was at rush hour; it doesn't get dark here until about 9:00 p.m.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2379941399_9a4e3981fb_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2500108297_4d69f16c47_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2551921270_2ff0146b96_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2553893831_40540729ae_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2553893935_7e9d59516c_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2566086179_4b23fbe7fb_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2566345351_fbf44b3ea6_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2569342640_e329914410_o.jpg)
-
Those are some amazing photos.
-
Wow.
-
Those are pretty remarkable photographs for an amateur.
-
My gosh.
Neat photos, but I hope no one was hurt.
-
The first one is fantastic! Thanks for sharing. I love pictures of wacky weather.
-
That first photo is of the cloud cover for an alien space ship.... remember the Movie "Independence Day".
I just love a good con-spear-ricey theory.
-
Beautiful! Nature is awesome.
-
The first one is fantastic! Thanks for sharing. I love pictures of wacky weather.
The first one illustrates a phenomenon that must be based upon atmospheric conditions in Nebraska; one sees things like this in the Sandhills all the time.
It appears one can just reach up and over, and touch the bottom of those clouds.....but actually those clouds are tens of miles away, and high up in the sky. There are millions of Hiroshimas in that storm as shown, but God and nature decreed that something like 99-44/100ths (some really monstrously high percentage) of the energy packed in it stays high up in the skies. Probably if even just 1% reached the ground, human life on eart--er, the planet--would become extinct, burned out.
That is not a tornado; there were no tornadoes that day.
Some minutes after these photographs were taken, the lights went out; lights were not fully restored in the city until the day before the 4th of July.
No one in Omaha--a major metropolitan area, remember--was hurt or killed, but two teenagers in Council Bluffs, Iowa, right across the Missouri River from Omaha, were killed when a tree landed on top of their motor vehicle, crushing them.
As for the quality of the photographs, the person who took them is a "weather watcher" hobbyist. There had been only a few minutes' warning this was coming.....and it came right at the beginning of the late-afternoon rush hour, everybody headed west into it.
The second and third photographs are the way most who were there, saw it, although as already mentioned, within a few minutes, all those lights (and many windows) went out.
-
Those are some incredible photos. Thanks for sharing them, Frank.
-
Beautiful! Nature is awesome.
Amen to that! H5!
-
Well, the nocturnally foul one should stop worrying about how man is going to destroy the eart--er, planet.
I have never suggested that I'm worried about mankind destroying the Earth.
By the way... thank you for posting the beautiful pictures.
-
One of the many reasons I will never live in the middle and lower Midwest. It's bad enough we get those kinds of storms sometimes in Minnesota.
-
Beautiful photos!
Man is at the height of hubrus when he thinks he can control Mother Nature.
-
When I see photo's like that it reminds me of how big a fool Al Gore is.
-
Beautiful photos!
Man is at the height of hubrus when he thinks he can control Mother Nature.
Control or even significantly affect.
-
Control or even significantly affect.
What is the basis for your claim that mankind cannot significantly affect Earth? Surely the basis is not scientific.
-
What is the basis for your claim that mankind cannot significantly affect Earth? Surely the basis is not scientific.
It simply requires the ability to think clearly.......
doc
-
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?
-
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?
If you think that the global weather system is only affected by things that take place in the troposhpere, your sadly mistaken.
-
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?
My ability to think clearly has never been in question......your questions are therefore irrelevant......
doc
-
Even at its most violent, nature is breathtakingly beautiful!
-
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?
-
That first photo is of the cloud cover for an alien space ship.... remember the Movie "Independence Day".
I just love a good con-spear-ricey theory.
Like these?
(http://www.monkeytime.org/Site%20Images/mammatus.jpg)
(http://www.dnr.state.ne.us/floodplain/mitigation/mammatus3.jpg)
(http://scijinks.jpl.nasa.gov/en/educators/gallery/clouds_atmos/Mammatus2_L.jpg)
(http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2006/27jun06/Kocka1.jpg)
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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. :banghead:
-
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?
-
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?
-
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? :diebouncy:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://mothersisterbklyn.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/08/ohsnap.jpg)
-
(http://mothersisterbklyn.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/08/ohsnap.jpg)
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
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...
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
You obviously didn't absorb a thing I just said...
-
You obviously didn't absorb a thing I just said...
He's a lib.
That surprises you? :-)
-
You obviously didn't absorb a thing I just said...
He's a lib.
That surprises you? :-)
(http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb241/laprincesse83301/oh_snap.jpg)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!!! :bawl:
-
great pictures.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
Let me do you one better: the consequences of climate change are as yet unknowable. Until they make a climate model that can accurately project a single season, much less 10 or 100 years then it is just tea leaf reading. Add to that the impossibility of knowing if human activity has any effect and AGW becomes so much "hot air."
But good to know you can see how good the possible AGW can be, if true.
-
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 have been to the depths of the ocean on this planet..
Too much = that which liberals decide.
-
Well, the nocturnally foul one should stop worrying about how man is going to destroy the eart--er, planet.
These are photographs--amateur photographs--of that storm that laid Omaha low on Friday, June 27 (it might have been June 20, but I think it was June 27), at 5:00 p.m. central time, 4:00 p.m. mountain time. The storm came out of nowhere (it abruptly appeared on radar screens about 50 miles west of Omaha; just dropped out of the clear sky), and spent 40 minutes blowing down Omaha. Winds were in excess of 80 mph.
This was at rush hour; it doesn't get dark here until about 9:00 p.m.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2379941399_9a4e3981fb_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2500108297_4d69f16c47_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2551921270_2ff0146b96_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2553893831_40540729ae_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2553893935_7e9d59516c_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2566086179_4b23fbe7fb_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2566345351_fbf44b3ea6_o.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2569342640_e329914410_o.jpg)
Actually the estimates for the wind are closer to 110 - 115 MPH.
-
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.
Care to quote me three that aren't on the Goracle's payroll? Also, care to define the nebulous term "too much CO2", and lay out exactly what makes that level cross the "too much" threshhold?
Subjective, emotionally charged terms like that are such a pain in the ass in a "scientific discussion". ::)
-
This:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/2379941399_9a4e3981fb_o.jpg)
Leads to this:
(http://www.waroftheworlds.com/downloads/desktops/tripodart/wp_t1_800x600.jpg)
Only our precious, bacteria-laden CO2 can save us!
-
Care to quote me three that aren't on the Goracle's payroll? Also, care to define the nebulous term "too much CO2", and lay out exactly what makes that level cross the "too much" threshhold?
Subjective, emotionally charged terms like that are such a pain in the ass in a "scientific discussion". ::)
6 novembre 2006
How much CO2 emission is too much?
Classé dans: IPCC Greenhouse gases Climate Science— david @ 3:18 PM - () ()
This week, representatives from around the world will gather in Nairobi, Kenya for the latest Conference of Parties (COP) meeting of the Framework Convention of Climate Change (FCCC) which brought us the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the task facing the current delegates is to negotiate a further 5-year extension. This is a gradual, negotiated, no doubt frustrating process. By way of getting our bearings, a reader asks the question, what should the ultimate goal be? How much CO2 emissions cutting would it take to truly avoid "dangerous human interference in the climate system"?
On the short term of the next few decades, the line between success and excess can be diagnosed from carbon fluxes on Earth today. Humankind is releasing CO2 at a rate of about 7 Gton C per year from fossil fuel combustion, with a further 2 Gton C per year from deforestation. Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher than normal, the natural world is absorbing CO2 at a rate of about 2 or 2.5 Gton C per year into the land biosphere and into the oceans, for a total of about 5 Gton C per year. The CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is rising because of the 4 Gton C imbalance. If we were to cut emissions by about half, from a total of 9 down to about 4 Gton C per year, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would stop rising for awhile. That would be a stunning success, but the emission cuts contemplated by Kyoto were only a small step in this direction.
Eventually, the chemistry of the ocean would equilibrate with this new atmospheric pCO2 concentration of about 380 ppm (the current concentration), and its absorption of new CO2 would tail off. Presumably the land biosphere would also inhale its fill and stop absorbing more. How long can we expect to be able to continue our lessened emissions of 4 Gton C per year? The answer can be diagnosed from carbon cycle models. A range of carbon cycle models have been run for longer than the single-century timescale that is the focus of the IPCC and the FCCC negotiation process. The models include an ocean and often a terrestrial biosphere to absorb CO2, and sometimes chemical weathering (dissolution of rocks) on land and deposition of sediments in the ocean. The models tend to predict a maximum atmospheric CO2 inventory of about 50-70% of the total fossil fuel emission slug. Let's call this quantity the peak airborne fraction, and assume it to be 60%.
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/
-
^I stopped reading after the citation that this claptrap is brought to you by the same bunch of clowns that authored the Kyoto Protocol.......
More UN-driven pseudoscience.....
doc
-
Well this is obviouly another sad attempt by TNO to prove that,
(http://www.mobilesmania.com/forum/uploads/post-28910-1202843502.jpg)
And the answer is no.
-
Those pictures are amazing.
-
^I stopped reading after the citation that this claptrap is brought to you by the same bunch of clowns that authored the Kyoto Protocol.......
More UN-driven pseudoscience.....
doc
(http://th204.photobucket.com/albums/bb101/jonescru/th_oh_snap.gif)