Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:43 AM
19 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), yorkiee (2 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,631 Year: 3,668/19,786 Month: 663/1,087 Week: 32/221 Day: 3/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Scam
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 1 of 177 (585413)
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


Global Warming - *science*

Global Warming is about as *scientific* as Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

In point of fact, the hockey stick graph which has made millions of dollars for Al Gore, reflects a basic misrepresentation.

The increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, from ~315 ppm in 1999 to ~370 ppm today in always shown in the finest scale, totally out of relationship to its place in the atmosphere.

This misrepresentation is made the worse by the fact that anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.

Set to scale in the totality of the atmosphere, if anthropogenic carbon dioxide were one pixel, the total carbon dioxide concentration would be 27.81 pixels beginning at 1999, and 29.3 pixels today. 29 pixels is about two lines of this font, from the bottom of this row to the top of the letters above it.

Now go up an additional 740 pixels, which represents water vapor, argon, and miscellaneous gases. 740 pixels will be about three-fourths of the way up the screen.

Another 14,476 pixels high will take you through oxygen, ~19% of our atmosphere. That's 14 screens high, just for oxygen.

Nitrogen, 80% of our atmosphere, is 60,952 pixels high.
61 screens higher.

Man-made carbon dioxide, I say again, is one pixel high.

You follow the dictates of Al Gore and *environmentalists* everywhere, particularly those who will be flying to Cancun, Mexico in November, to dine yet again on lobster and shrimp, as they attempt to mold the world into the pawns they wish everyone else to be. Twenty thousand of them went to South America to preach their cynical, dishonest gospel.

So many went to Malaysia last year that their private jets used up all the space in the airport.

Videoconference, you say? Mais porquoi, when sappy taxpayers will foot the bill for lovely trips to Cancun, there to scuba dive, eat, drink, and be very merry indeed.

http://atmosphericcomposition.blogspot.com

http://theglobalwarmingscam.blogspot.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 1:39 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 10-08-2010 1:42 PM BarackZero has responded
 Message 6 by frako, posted 10-08-2010 1:58 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 2:00 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Blue Jay, posted 10-08-2010 2:02 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-08-2010 2:26 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 3:19 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 10-08-2010 4:14 PM BarackZero has responded
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2010 8:56 PM BarackZero has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 177 (585493)
10-08-2010 1:19 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 3 of 177 (585494)
10-08-2010 1:22 PM


You misunderstand the problem.

If most of the gas emissions that cause global warming are not man made but natural, that simply means that we must reduce the man made contributions to zero and then also find a way to reduce the parts nature contributes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:38 PM jar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16241
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 4 of 177 (585498)
10-08-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


BarackZero writes:

Blah blah blah.... Nitrogen, 80% of our atmosphere, is 60,952 pixels high.
61 screens higher.

Man-made carbon dioxide, I say again, is one pixel high.


Your point is long-winded but irrelevant. It isn't the size of the villain that counts, it's the size of the effect he causes.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 5 of 177 (585500)
10-08-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


In point of fact, the hockey stick graph which has made millions of dollars for Al Gore, reflects a basic misrepresentation.

Which "hockey stick"? Be specific. You're aware that there are over a dozen independent models that show anomalous warming and CO2 levels, right?

This misrepresentation is made the worse by the fact that anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.

That's yearly. And if that's, say, 3% more than the natural carbon sinks are able to absorb, that's an accumulating tonnage of atmospheric CO2 due entirely to anthropogenic causes. Over a year? Not a big deal. Over the hundred years that we've been doing that as a species? A very big deal indeed. Anthropogenic activity now accounts for an additional 100 ppmv of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Keep in mind that we know from the paleoclimate record that shifts in CO2 concentration on the order of 3-4 ppm can cause dramatic climate change.

Man-made carbon dioxide, I say again, is one pixel high.

We don't measure atmospheric gas concentrations in pixels, but in ppm.

Nitrogen, 80% of our atmosphere, is 60,952 pixels high.

Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas because it has no dipole moment and is therefore IR-inactive.

Climate change is very real. The last decade had the highest recorded global average temperatures of any point in human history. (Claims that "global warming has ended" or that we're now experiencing "global cooling" are outright falsehoods.) Global CO2 levels are now the highest they've ever been in 650,000 years. To deny that the two are unrelated is idiotic. To deny that human release of CO2, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, is the height of irresponsibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 6:20 PM crashfrog has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 6 of 177 (585502)
10-08-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


You follow the dictates of Al Gore and *environmentalists* everywhere, particularly those who will be flying to Cancun, Mexico in November, to dine yet again on lobster and shrimp, as they attempt to mold the world into the pawns they wish everyone else to be. Twenty thousand of them went to South America to preach their cynical, dishonest gospel.

Muhaha yes we envioramentlists are the new world order, we have the money and the power to force our will uppon you MUHAHAHAHA!
We will make you breathe CLEAN air, be so dispicable that you will haveto drink CLEAN water MUHAHAHA, and if we have our way your kids will suffer the same clean enviorment MUHAHAHAHA we are so evil !!!!!

So many went to Malaysia last year that their private jets used up all the space in the airport.

Well what do you expect we are evil and there is money to be made in green energy MUHAHAHAHAH!!!! not like the inocent money made from fossil fuels.

Videoconference, you say? Mais porquoi, when sappy taxpayers will foot the bill for lovely trips to Cancun, there to scuba dive, eat, drink, and be very merry indeed.

just like the G8-G20 meetings we want to robe you of your cash and unlike the polititians we acctualy do nothing there MUHAHAHA !!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 7 of 177 (585503)
10-08-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


Global Warming - *science*

Global Warming is about as *scientific* as Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

I guess that's why no-one regards him as a scientific authority. Could you try making an ad hominem attack on someone who is so regarded?

Or you could produce some actual relevant data, but that might be beyond you.

The increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, from ~315 ppm in 1999 to ~370 ppm today in always shown in the finest scale, totally out of relationship to its place in the atmosphere.

This misrepresentation is made the worse by the fact that anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.

Set to scale in the totality of the atmosphere, if anthropogenic carbon dioxide were one pixel, the total carbon dioxide concentration would be 27.81 pixels beginning at 1999, and 29.3 pixels today. 29 pixels is about two lines of this font, from the bottom of this row to the top of the letters above it.

Now go up an additional 740 pixels, which represents water vapor, argon, and miscellaneous gases. 740 pixels will be about three-fourths of the way up the screen.

Another 14,476 pixels high will take you through oxygen, ~19% of our atmosphere. That's 14 screens high, just for oxygen.

Nitrogen, 80% of our atmosphere, is 60,952 pixels high.
61 screens higher.

Man-made carbon dioxide, I say again, is one pixel high.

And the relevance of these figures is?

Take a liter of water. Add 1 milligram of LSD (to put this in perspective, the typical modern recreational dose is between 20 and 80 micrograms).

Represent the situation the same way. One pixel representing LSD, and a million pixels representing water.

But if I invited you to drink it, the question uppermost in your mind would not be "can I draw a graph representing the quantity of LSD as negligible compared to something else?" but rather "what would happen to me if I drank it"?

Your talk of pixels does not even begin to address the corresponding question concerning AGW. The question is not whether the quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is small compared to some other quantity such as naturally occurring nitrogen. The question is: what effect does that carbon dioxide have?

You follow the dictates of Al Gore and *environmentalists* everywhere, particularly those who will be flying to Cancun, Mexico in November, to dine yet again on lobster and shrimp, as they attempt to mold the world into the pawns they wish everyone else to be. Twenty thousand of them went to South America to preach their cynical, dishonest gospel.

So many went to Malaysia last year that their private jets used up all the space in the airport.

Videoconference, you say? Mais porquoi, when sappy taxpayers will foot the bill for lovely trips to Cancun, there to scuba dive, eat, drink, and be very merry indeed.

What of it? If I smoke and tell you that cigarettes cause cancer, then the apparent inconsistency of my behavior does not constitute an argument that cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Once again, I invite you to offer some data that is relevant.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 8 of 177 (585504)
10-08-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


Hi, BarackZero.

Can I point out that the average human mass sits somewhere between 75-85 kg (75,000-85,000 g) and contains, on average, about 0.05 grams of iodine.

If you take 0.05 g of iodine and divide it by 75,000 grams of body mass, we see that iodine makes up about 1/1,500,000th of the human body mass, or 0.000000667 (6.67E-7) % of the human body mass.

Yet, curiously enough, look what happens when humans fail to get that 0.05 g of iodine:

Goiter.

For comparison, take your numbers: take 370 ppm (CO2 in the atmosphere), multiply it by 0.034 (% of atmospheric CO2 that is anthropogenic), and divide by 1 million (for the "parts per million"), and you discover that anthropogenic carbon is 0.000126 (1.26E-5) % of the atmosphere (which is low, because this percentage is based on particles, not on mass, as my calculations above are; and CO2 weighs more than the other molecules you mention).

If a difference of 6.67E-7 % in the human body can cause goiter, what makes you think a difference of 1.26E-5 %* in the atmosphere can't also cause big problems?

If it might cause problems, what exactly do you have against Al Gore wanting to fix it?

Edited by Bluejay, : "CO2" instead of "C" and the "and CO2 weighs more..." part added


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 177 (585511)
10-08-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


A 55ppm increase in Carbon Monoxide in your bedroom is something to be alarmed about, despite how small that is compared with the other things that make up the atmosphere of your bedroom.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 3:43 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 10 of 177 (585523)
10-08-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


Set to scale in the totality of the atmosphere, if anthropogenic carbon dioxide were one pixel, the total carbon dioxide concentration would be 27.81 pixels beginning at 1999, and 29.3 pixels today. 29 pixels is about two lines of this font, from the bottom of this row to the top of the letters above it.

Now go up an additional 740 pixels, which represents water vapor, argon, and miscellaneous gases. 740 pixels will be about three-fourths of the way up the screen.

So what would happen if we took away carbon dioxide and the other trace gases responsible for the greenhouse effect?

"Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 C (59 F)[note 1] colder than at present."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

That's right, that tiny fraction of our atmosphere made up by greenhouse gases increases the average temperature of our planet from the freezing point of water to a nice balmy 60 degrees F (or 33 C for our European crowd).

So what do you think happens when we increase the concentration of these greenhouse gases? Could it just be that more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 11 of 177 (585529)
10-08-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
10-08-2010 2:26 PM


A 55ppm increase in Carbon Monoxide in your bedroom is something to be alarmed about, despite how small that is compared with the other things that make up the atmosphere of your bedroom.

I think that that's slightly less of a good analogy than mine, because in the case of carbon monoxide the concentration is a factor, which is why the number of parts per million is the relevant figure.

In the case of my LSD analogy, the absolute quantity is relevant; and it seems to me that this is a better analogy to greenhouse gasses: we would not dilute the effect of carbon dioxide by (were it possible) adding more nitrogen to the atmosphere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-08-2010 2:26 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 3:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 12 of 177 (585533)
10-08-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
10-08-2010 3:43 PM


We could also mention that at 3,500 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide a human will die in 1 minute. But perhaps the author would scoff at this since HCN would only make up 0.35% of the total atmosphere. What we should really be worried about is that uber toxic nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 3:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1047 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 13 of 177 (585535)
10-08-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 8:56 AM


Hot Air
Your grasp of physics has been demonstrated to be pixel-thin already. Those posts were fun to read.

So we can cross that pixel crap right out.

The environmentalists are going to Cancun to eat the lobster and shrimp that they can't get anywhere else? Unlike the rest of us poor slobs, who have to go to the supermarket or Red Lobster or the local clam shack... No, wait, that doesn't work. Unlike the hordes of college students and vacationing families who descend on Cancun every year? No, that doesn't work, either.

All those wealthy bastards are just dying to go to Mexico on our dime, instead of the French Riviera and Monaco on their own?

Right.

Well, there goes the shellfish crap.

Al Gore is an idiot who flunked out of Divinity School? Well, no, actually he withdrew after one year and switched to law. Of course, he had already completed studies at Harvard with honors and volunteered for service in Vietnam. He went on to serve in Congress as both a rep and a senator, then was elected to the vice-presidency, then the presidency... No, wait, five conservatives on the SCOTUS took care of that last bit, despite his winning the popular vote, by refusing to allow the recount mandated by Florida law.

Nonetheless, we can cross out the Al Gore slander crap, which was irrelevant anyway. Still, I'd love to hear how your achievements dwarf his. Feel free to post your vita.

After careful sifting you have...

quote:
Global Warming - *science*
Global Warming is about as *scientific* as Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

In point of fact, the hockey stick graph which has made millions of dollars for Al Gore, reflects a basic misrepresentation.

The increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, from ~315 ppm in 1999 to ~370 ppm today in always shown in the finest scale, totally out of relationship to its place in the atmosphere.

This misrepresentation is made the worse by the fact that anthropogenic carbon dioxide constitutes only 3.4% of the total amount produced.

Set to scale in the totality of the atmosphere, if anthropogenic carbon dioxide were one pixel, the total carbon dioxide concentration would be 27.81 pixels beginning at 1999, and 29.3 pixels today. 29 pixels is about two lines of this font, from the bottom of this row to the top of the letters above it.

Now go up an additional 740 pixels, which represents water vapor, argon, and miscellaneous gases. 740 pixels will be about three-fourths of the way up the screen.

Another 14,476 pixels high will take you through oxygen, ~19% of our atmosphere. That's 14 screens high, just for oxygen.

Nitrogen, 80% of our atmosphere, is 60,952 pixels high.
61 screens higher.

Man-made carbon dioxide, I say again, is one pixel high.

You follow the dictates of Al Gore and *environmentalists* everywhere, particularly those who will be flying to Cancun, Mexico in November, to dine yet again on lobster and shrimp, as they attempt to mold the world into the pawns they wish everyone else to be. Twenty thousand of them went to South America to preach their cynical, dishonest gospel.

So many went to Malaysia last year that their private jets used up all the space in the airport.

Videoconference, you say? Mais porquoi, when sappy taxpayers will foot the bill for lovely trips to Cancun, there to scuba dive, eat, drink, and be very merry indeed.


...nothing. No, wait, there is something there...

"cynical, dishonest"

Ah. Just so.


Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:55 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 14 of 177 (585545)
10-08-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-08-2010 1:22 PM


jar:

You misunderstand the problem.

If most of the gas emissions that cause global warming are not man made but natural, that simply means that we must reduce the man made contributions to zero and then also find a way to reduce the parts nature contributes.

=========

Barack:

No, you misunderstand, and very badly at that.

1. It is extremely dishonest to misrepresent the facts. This is done constantly by Al Gore and millions like him. The graph explained above is Exhibit 1.

2. You assume there IS "a problem." That has yet to be demonstrated. In point of fact, a careful study of long-term carbon dioxide concentrations, minute as they are, follow temperature changes by ~700 years. If, as AlGorians claim, carbon dioxide causes temperature increases, the graphs would be reversed, but they are not. Q.E.D.

3. In any event, would it not be prudent for AlGorians to practice what they preach and demand of everyone else? This they do not do, beginning with the not-so-smart Al Gore himself. He trots around the world, frightening people with doomsday scenarios, which they all drive for miles around to hear, and pay for.
What a bunch of suckers.

4. Then too we have *scholars* and teachers and researchers of every stripe, trotting all around the globe, often in search of more research dollars, to help *prove* what AlGorians all claim has already been as established a fact as gravity or Darwinism.

Google environmental conferences and click on the schedule of them, worldwide. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, everywhere. Everyone huddling together in large rooms to speak in frightened terms of how we're all going to die, and soon, unless we all stop doing what they did to get to their huddle.

When the left stops taking vacations, and stops going to parties, and to movies, and to plays, and to concerts, and when the left stops air conditioning their own residences in summer, and heating them in winter, and when the left cuts their own carbon dioxide emissions by the 80% they insist upon for everyone else, then I may think about believing they are serious about what they preach so hypocritically.

I won't hold my breath until then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 1:22 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 5:43 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 6:01 PM BarackZero has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 15 of 177 (585547)
10-08-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by BarackZero
10-08-2010 5:38 PM


You never bothered to address the issue.

If most of the gas emissions that cause global warming are not man made but natural, that simply means that we must reduce the man made contributions to zero and then also find a way to reduce the parts nature contributes.

Edited by jar, : fix grammerrr


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by BarackZero, posted 10-08-2010 5:38 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019