Climate change
- Thread starter Cypress187
- Start date
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Now who is clueless. Ostrich.
https://www.enovaenergygroup.com/which-types-of-energy-source-produces-the-most-pollution/
Bananaman
Chumono
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 1,575
What’s free about non clean energy?
Cypress187
Masterpiece
Dumping the byproduct in nature without permits or any costs (dumping carbon dioxide into the air in this case).
Bananaman
Chumono
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 1,575
In your scenario you speak of irreversible damage to the climate system. Are you saying that man is the total arbitrator of what happens to this planet from now on? I just wish to know how you rationalize your beliefs. What if plants are in charge of the planet? Your whole argument is moot. Your argument is pretty arrogant in the big picture of the universe. Your whole argument is predicated on the longevity of your life and your progeny and be damned everyone else.
papymandarin
Shohin
for anyone looking at the state of degradation in which the planet is (and not talking there only about CO2) it's quite obvious that humanity rather than natural forces caused all the damages made in just a few centuries.
Bananaman
Chumono
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 1,575
Maybe where you live it’s free. It’s not free here. I pay lots of money to purchase renewable cans and bottles. Gas taxes in California. Huge license fees to drive a gross polluter pick up truck. The increased costs of by annual smog checks on my gross polluter and the catalytic converter that is on my California car. Don’t tell me it’s free.
Bananaman
Chumono
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 1,575
Let’s change it up then. How about bitchin about all those insensitive plants and trees 300 million years ago that polluted the earth with all that dirty oil and coal.
You have to step back and not get all caught up in all the hype. I told you what needs to be done early on in this thread. You had nothing to say about it. Unplug from all dirty energy and do for yourself. Set the example. Walk the walk not just talk the talk. Don’t be another Al Gore. Talking the talk while flying all over the world and riding in limousines and living in a huge house using so much energy it’s crazy.
There’s an old saying in the Marines. Take the hill. But we don’t have much ammo. Take the hill. But half our guns are broke. Take the hill. But we are low on rations. Take the hill. Stop giving me excuses and just take the damn hill.
I challenge you to do the same. Unplug. Take the damn hill and stop bitching, it’s getting monotonous to hear the bitching from some but they never do anything or offer a solution.
papymandarin
Shohin
well you are the one assuming that i'm not doing anything, you don't have the slightess cue about that either
and why would i bitch plants, they are not the one releasing that carbon, they fixed it, and produced the oxygen we breathe
and why would i bitch plants, they are not the one releasing that carbon, they fixed it, and produced the oxygen we breathe
And what's that link supposed to teach me? I already know what ''pseudo science'' is. It's a question on who you believe is practicing it at any given situation. I can give you any number of pseudo scientific findings put out by global warming catastrophe proponents. This link means nothing to me. There's no point understanding the meaning without knowing where to accurately apply that knowledge which so obviously still need to discover. .
You have given a link to a commercial alternative energy company. What do you expect them to say? Also, as we now seem to have resorted to name calling - so often the sad tactic used by warmists - I reserve the right to place my own title on you when I see fit. Ok with you?
,
The trouble with people like you is that, sheep-like, you just follow the leader without an original thought to be seen. I do not consider co2 a pollutant. Any scientist worth their salt would not. Neither do your bonsai by the way. What am I denying exactly? You use the word denying but you have no idea what you really mean by that. You are Straw man!
0soyoung
Imperial Masterpiece
Please explain how greenhouses work; specifically, why does it heat up inside a greenhouse when the sun is shining?
TN_Jim
Omono
that's complicated
think it had something to do with how O behaves without C attached, in a greenhouse
papymandarin
Shohin
i let people decide if they choose to read the link i put who is really denying or doing pseudo science . But i don't really feel i'm the one denying the scientific consensus or implying more or less implicitly that scientists are all dumb or dishonest (with no evidences)....
and again your graph just show a decrease in particulate matters, nearly all the rest show increase in emissions ( and particulate matter is not CO2). CO2 is not a pollutant? (if the argument is that plant absorb CO2, they also absorb heavy metals and nitrates or phosphates, would you say they are not earth/water pollutant either?) Anything in excess compared to what is naturally found is a pollutant. But you seem to do the definitions yourself to satisfy your views.
so your graph is misleading (particularly given its title, since when most curves curves going UP show a "sharp down trend"? and i'm the one not thinking? ) and off the point. And i'm the sheep having no brain or the straw man? It's always funny that those denying science accuse science of their own logical flaws.
and again your graph just show a decrease in particulate matters, nearly all the rest show increase in emissions ( and particulate matter is not CO2). CO2 is not a pollutant? (if the argument is that plant absorb CO2, they also absorb heavy metals and nitrates or phosphates, would you say they are not earth/water pollutant either?) Anything in excess compared to what is naturally found is a pollutant. But you seem to do the definitions yourself to satisfy your views.
so your graph is misleading (particularly given its title, since when most curves curves going UP show a "sharp down trend"? and i'm the one not thinking? ) and off the point. And i'm the sheep having no brain or the straw man? It's always funny that those denying science accuse science of their own logical flaws.
Last edited:
Simply put, Ultraviolet light passes through the glass and strikes objects inside which covert the energy to heat - infra red - which is radiated out and stopped or slowed from escaping by the glass. At night that heat is lost through the glass by conduction.
Why do you ask? I know, you think the planet works the same way right?
The ''greenhouse effect'' is a made-up simplified description of the how the planet receives and gives off energy that doesn't really hold true.. It can get extremely complicated and you need to be a physicist (which I'm not) to even begin to understand all the permutations and variables and that is exactly where the real issues lie. That's what this whole global warming hypothesis is sitting on. Basically the out-going infra red radiation is slowed from escaping by greenhouses gases, 90% of which is water vapour and about 3% co2. The predicted heating has not eventuated with the increasing co2 concentrations and most climate scientists acknowledge this fact. They speculate that the missing heat must be hiding somewhere - possibly in the deep ocean. There is no evidence of this. There is however good evidence showing that heat emissions back into space have not decreased as the co2 models show they should. The satellite data has it actually flat lining (red) just as the temperatures (blue) have. See below. Basically, the troposphere (where we all live) is not heating up much if at all. The blue line below averaged out from two satellite data sets shows about a 0.2 difference in temperatures between 1979 and 2011. And no rise at all for the l5 years starting 2000. (look up ''the pause'') The 0.2 trend over thirty years matches nicely with the rock steady sea level figures posted earlier.
So if co2 was such an efficient greenhouse gas we would see outgoing long wave radiation decreasing as more is absorbed by co2 and troposphere temperature increasing. The data does not show this.
Co2 is increasingly been shown to be a fizzer!
Attachments
You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm arguing with a school boy. Did you know that for millions of years the co2 concentration was up to 10 times what it is now? Life thrived back then so temps would not have been much hotter than would allow life to exist, not just exist but explode! Was that pollution too? Try thinking for a change. You're not a vegan too by chance are you?
papymandarin
Shohin
There is a little problem with your EPA report (which is public so anybody can verify what i'm saying here) : 1) the graph you showed formerly doesn't appear in it (there are similar graphs but the one you showed had been obviously edited and retitled from a graph of the actual report) 2) this report is adresing probems about air pollutants known to have direct effect on human health when breathed (SO2, O3, Pb and such) but it is not talking AT ALL about CO2, actually in the 277 pages of it the word CO2 is not even written once. So this report is completely irrelevant to the topic we are speaking of here. Talk about dishonest scientists lol
And your last message is just an insult to the scientific training i got, do you think a trained bioogist don't know about the history of earth and life on earth? i think you should do some checks of what your claiming, the first photosynthtic organisms producing the oxygen were are breathing and actually absorbed the CO2, the result was INDEED a cooling of the planet (leading to the snowball phase of the earth) When this phase ended (probably through intense volcanism that released a lot of CO2, what warmed the earth again) the cambrian explosion happened (note there that animal life was still only underwater life), Then land plants appeared and increased the change the composition of atmosphere again by releasing more 02 what allows animal life to conquer earth. SO life flourished on earth only after the atmosphere was depleted of most of its initial CO2 levels
And your last message is just an insult to the scientific training i got, do you think a trained bioogist don't know about the history of earth and life on earth? i think you should do some checks of what your claiming, the first photosynthtic organisms producing the oxygen were are breathing and actually absorbed the CO2, the result was INDEED a cooling of the planet (leading to the snowball phase of the earth) When this phase ended (probably through intense volcanism that released a lot of CO2, what warmed the earth again) the cambrian explosion happened (note there that animal life was still only underwater life), Then land plants appeared and increased the change the composition of atmosphere again by releasing more 02 what allows animal life to conquer earth. SO life flourished on earth only after the atmosphere was depleted of most of its initial CO2 levels
papymandarin
Shohin
for the observed increase greenhouse effect observed by satellites (again you should provide complete source rather than a graph of unknown origin)
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
"you have no idea what your talking about" seem to be your only argument line (without giving evidence of it) but most of what you show is rather showing you are the one not able to deal with/understand scientific material.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
"you have no idea what your talking about" seem to be your only argument line (without giving evidence of it) but most of what you show is rather showing you are the one not able to deal with/understand scientific material.
papymandarin
Shohin
precision about my comments on past CO2, i admit my answer is a bit of topic as it adresses the initial drop of CO2 in atmosphere, BUT even if a life filled earth happened with higher co2 levels during prehistoric times, you cannot compare it with the present situation, first it's not really the level of of CO2 but rather the levels of O2 that allows life to flourish, and natural climate drivers were not "tuned" in the same way they are nowadays, so only comparing co2 levels is also irrelevant without wheighting them against the other natural drivers of climates (what climate scientists have done in their studies of current climate trends) .