sensible conservation is is good. public policy based on eco-KOOK fraud is criminal.
nothing wrong with 'going green'..saves money, and it DOES impact the environment less.
Well that settles it. Sandorski says so.....
..and I'm correct.
Sorry but in science the burden is not on me to disprove your idea. The burden is on science to prove it.
So all the ice that melted is still there?
Just a figment of imagination that it's gone?
And as I stated, there is no denying that global warming is occurring. How many times do I have to state that? It is the two words that proceed that I feel lack evidence(if you didn't know that doesn't mean MMGW is false).
The funny thing is that I am not a denier(I am honestly on the fence). I am just not compelled by the studies and evidence I have read.
But you guys do nothing but a disservice to your "cause" and to science. Instead of presenting solid evidence to support your positions, you would rather just treat everyone who doesn't immediately take your position as an idiot.
BTW Dave, I have no idea what is part of your imagination after the vinegar incident
There are couple of other indisputable facts that are worth mentioning while we are this subject.
1. CO2 is only about 3% of the global warming gases. Most is water vapor.
2. CO2 becomes less effective at trapping heat as its concentration increases. The difference in heat trapping ability between 280ppm and 350ppm is very little.
There are couple of other indisputable facts that are worth mentioning while we are this subject.
1. CO2 is only about 3% of the global warming gases. Most is water vapor.
2. CO2 becomes less effective at trapping heat as its concentration increases. The difference in heat trapping ability between 280ppm and 350ppm is very little.
But the atmosphere of Venus has lots of CO2 and the surface temperature is the melting point of lead, therefore driving Escalades kills polar bears. It's logic!
Water vapor is a dependent variable. It depends on temperature, and varies on the scale of days, so it acts as a feedback. CO2 is much more permanent. It took millions of years to sequester the CO2 we are currently putting back in the atmosphere over the course of about 150-200 years.
But the atmosphere of Venus has lots of CO2 and the surface temperature is the melting point of lead, therefore driving Escalades kills polar bears. It's logic!
That's because it's been done Ad Nauseum and has had no affect to the debate. Time has come to just call a Spade a Spade and save energy for something else.
This is true as well, or otherwise we'd all be dead by now. Transformation of IR heat to kinetic heat via CO2 is not linear. The more direct problem with too much CO2 wouldn't be heat in my opinion, but just a bad air mixture to breath.
So all the ice that melted is still there?
Just a figment of imagination that it's gone?
Then why participate in the thread?
I will admit that I rarely(almost never) come into P&N. It isn't worth the time and effort. I just couldn't resist the whole misrepresentation that correlation=causation.
You post reminds of something I'm curious about.
Perhaps some MMGW hobbyist can answer - if all that ice has melted as claimed, why hasn't the sea level risen? Can it be that either no significant melt has ocurred contrary to the claims, or that significant melt won't have the catastrophic effects as claimed.
What's the answer in your opinion (not necessarily you Dave)?
Fern
You post reminds of something I'm curious about.
Perhaps some MMGW hobbyist can answer - if all that ice has melted as claimed, why hasn't the sea level risen? Can it be that either no significant melt has ocurred contrary to the claims, or that significant melt won't have the catastrophic effects as claimed.
What's the answer in your opinion (not necessarily you Dave)?
Calling a Spade a Spade, that still needs done.
You keep repeating Correlation/Causation as if it applies. It does not. If we Measured Warming and then Measured CO2 increase and just made the claim the 2 are related without knowing the various properties of CO2, then you would have a point. However, it is well known and indisputable that CO2 causes a Warming effect, negating that whole argument. It is expected to cause Warming, not just present where Warming has occurred.
So do you want to discuss this or not? I don't want to waste my time or yours......
We've been discussing it all along.
Oh, and CO2 is not a dependent variable? In case you missed one of the big gaping holes (read: lies) in Algore's ridiculous theory, changes in CO2 levels TRAIL changes in temperature, not the other way around.
There are couple of other indisputable facts that are worth mentioning while we are this subject.
1. CO2 is only about 3% of the global warming gases. Most is water vapor.
2. CO2 becomes less effective at trapping heat as its concentration increases. The difference in heat trapping ability between 280ppm and 350ppm is very little.
The current increase in CO2 ppm is due to our burning of fossil fuels. It's not a trailing dependent variable released by warming caused by something else. I don't know how much more clearly I can explain that.
The percentage that matters is the percentage increase in energy retention and the effect that change has on average global temprature.