|
stop eating beef
mine methane deposits
|
|
|
Greenhouse gases highest for 800,000 years
How could they possibly know this from an ice core?
Water vapor is the principal GHG in the Earth’s troposphere and these trapped bubbles in the ice cores contains no data regarding variations in the planet’s hydrological cycle, excepting of course the differing rates that the ice formed in that particular location.
One wonders what story that tells regarding climate variability and temperature changes over the past 800,000 years?
Safe to say it was drier when it was colder and wetter when warmer.
Peace,
Post Modified: 05/15/08 17:40:25
|
|
|
Greenhouse gases highest for 800,000 years
... which is another way of saying ‘Today’s CO2 levels totally natural.’
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://picasaweb.google.es
yous guys make me laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Water vapor typically 1% to 4% near surface
Carbon dioxide 0.03811%
Other 0.002%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“stop eating beef”
|
|
|
gwhunta has become indistinguishable from the crazy homeless guy on the street who keeps yelling silly bullshit at people who are too smart to listen
|
|
|
|
At this point it’s like the homeless guy decided to set up shop outside UC Berkeley and start yelling at the scientists and insisting vehemently that Argon isn’t a noble gas by citing the crazy etchings on his forehead.
|
|
|
|
hehheheh
yeah CO2 water vapor whatever
your old and spend too much time on the computer
im drunk and spend too much time seducing tourists
this ones is from israel
and im pretty sure her name is yael
gotta jam
the apocalypse kicks ass
|
|
|
people who are too smart to listen
Yes! We CAN control Climate Change.
[We start tomorrow. Time for a kool-aid run.]
|
|
|
|
And you can post on the internet. Usually when you do something, you can do it.
|
|
|
|
the last time CO2 was this high, beavers were this big:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may be the first person who’s iq scores in the negatives. Congratulations, retard.
|
|
|
|
I dunno, bodo may put up some stiff competition on that front…
|
|
|
I keep coming back to gnn
always with the hope
that the same old repeater trolls
will have something genuine to say
or something original
or something revolutionary
Today is just another day
|
|
|
|
(By revolutionary he means agreeing with him and alex jones)
|
|
|
it’s really upsetting to see how far the level of discussion on this topic has fallen around here.
|
|
|
Toad – it’s really upsetting to see how far the level of discussion on this topic has fallen around here.
I agree. I wish it could have been held to the lofty standards we applied to the 9-11 stuff…
|
|
|
not really
fags
(edited to include TCS)
Post Modified: 05/16/08 02:07:52
|
|
|
|
sis shouldn’t you be digging a bunker or something
|
|
|
|
I have one already. And it’s dark here now.
|
|
|
|
I’m actually working on binding some lattice structures for tomatoes tonite. I needed a break, thus here.
|
|
|
|
And it’s dark here now.
now that’s just quitter talk
|
|
|
|
heh, the neighbors don’t like when I have fires large enough to dig by. You should check out this peak oil site/video I came across recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since GW began posting his hypothesis, I’ve become much more aware of the increased transpiration we’re creating via pumping water out or the ground for irrigation, and the large number of inland, man made water resevoirs; both of which add to evaporation, and hence increased water vapor in out atmosphere. This is indisputable is it not?
How large is this effect. I don’t know. Is it significant? I don’t know this either.
Is it worth investigating further? I think yes, it is. Is he correct? Time will tell, and our willingness to entertain multiple hypothesis just might increase the rate at which we understand our climate, our sustenance, the most fundamental rythymn of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time will tell
Not in our lifetime.
|
|
|
|
heh. thats some mighty fine beaver ya got there.
it’s really upsetting to see how far the level of discussion on this topic has fallen around here.
? did you really expect to learn anything regarding this topic from discussion on this site? from alex jones NWO paranoiacs? cmon man. the few of us who actually are qualified to comment on ecoscience gave up on trying to discuss this stuff with the tards here a long, long time ago. its makes for a good drinkin’ game, though. pm me if ya want the rules and drink list.
time will tell. oh yeah oh yeah. maybe in a couple more decades there will be a scientific consensus and a global cultural movement to address greenhouse gas emissions… oh wait.
hey sis
hows shit in OR
things are swell here
the wildlife is fucked but i keep hearing rumors of some sort of jungle elves running amok
good times
live durty die purty
|
|
|
|
your old and spend too much time on the computer
I’m 49 and been around long enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
As for time spent on GNN, you’re may be correct regarding time spent on debate with “the few of us who actually are qualified to comment on ecoscience“ on the site.
There is no debate.
There are however a few that actually have the intellectual capacity to read through and give thought to that which I’ve espoused here and at least consider the actual Truth of the matter.
For those of you who wish to go on believing that a simple correlation equals causation, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary and a solid, verifiable explanation of our actual anthropogenic impact, it’s your mind and totally up to you to decide what to put in it.
Same for eating fast food “beef.”
Your choice to feed from the ground up remains of an animal that was pumped full of antibiotics, growth hormones and fed the sulfur loaded leftovers from an ethanol plant.
Maintain that closed mind and open appetite.
You are what you eat…....
.......and think.
Peace,
Post Modified: 05/16/08 14:58:56
|
|
|
|
the last time CO2 was this high, beavers were this big
Hey, bacchus I’ve seen that display. Where’d you find the image?
Peace,
|
|
|
the last time CO2 was this high, beavers were this big
and about as hairy
|
|
|
I am sure tired of seeing so much pissing in every thread that has anything to do with Co2. There is so much misinformation that it leaves nothing but doubt. In that doubt come questions. From those questions come more misinformation.
For the truth about atmosphere’s cooling and heating from solar radiation look at the people that maintain artificial environments for plants. When I raise my greenhouse Co2 to around 1200ppm I find that my temps will not change but the humidity will drop about 10%. If my humidity rises from 70% to 90% I can see night time temps rise as much as 10 degrees. Water vapor is such a good insulator that on nights that frost if you keep the humidity above 90% your greenhouse will be warm and muggy in the morning. Co2 on the other hand would have helped you none because it is not a good insulator nor a very powerful greenhouse gas.
There is no one thing that causes an environment to heat or cool. Many collective factors wage a never ending war on averages and trends. So why is it that we look for one thing to blame. How about we step back and look at our impact in all it’s destructive and creative beauty. Co2 is just the flea on the balls of the man-bear-pig we have been enslaved to create.
|
|
|
|
Some good points there.
Your humidity drops when you raise the CO2 levels to 1200ppm because the plants transpire less as photosynthesis becomes more efficient and the plants utilize less water.
Raising the humidity in the greenhouse stores large amounts of additional energy sequestered in air trapped within the greenhouse on cold nights and this latent heat is returned as sensible heat whenever any condensation occurs within it.
The cycling of water to water vapor is the most critical element of weather and climate.
Peace,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Global Warming solution will mitigate the problems of pollution, the destruction of animals’ natural habitat, the spread of invasive species, and the overexploitation of species
Wrong. The collapse of industrial civilization will take care of all those problems eventually.
|
|
|
|
“Wrong. The collapse of industrial civilization will take care of all those problems eventually.”
Oh yeah.
|
|
|
|
The collapse of industrial civilization
That’s a side issue. Meanwhile, eco-collapse progresses.
|
|
|
|
yeah, they’re totally unrelated. Tool.
|
|
|
did you really expect to learn anything regarding this topic from discussion on this site? from alex jones NWO paranoiacs?
paranoiacs?
You’re clueless, man.
err, i mean false flag terrorism is just a nutty conspiracy theory!!!
Governments have never been corrupt and would never dream of actively manipulating the public or carrying out atrocities. Or at least, if they did, they certainly would never cover it up…
If Alex Jones says it, it can’t be true.
Seriously though, the day you read anything other than koala digest is the day I’ll be able to read your flubbery text without taking anti-emetics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why don’t you address an argument someone actually made, genius?
It’s a bit hard these days, Livingston doesn’t really make any points and the rest of you just make “alex jones lol” posts.
|
|
|
|
Do you just skip over the post you can’t comprehend then?
|
|
|
|
Why do you guys laugh at us?
Is it not true that there are those who want to centralize power with the ultimate aim being world government?
Is it untrue that they are extremely well represented in the western world’s media and governments and the UN?
Is the IPCC not completely under the control of the governments?
Will the carbon trading scheme not give the UN a buttload of power?
while we’re at, it why does your world scientific consensus not include Russia and China?
|
|
|
|
Do you just skip over the post you can’t comprehend then?
What?
|
|
|
|
it wasn’t a strawman, I was responding to the term he used — Paranoiacs.
|
|
|
|
Why do you guys laugh at us?
They’re parroting what they’ve learned from trolls like apr, who plays right into their tedious arrogance.
It’s the best way for them to self-justify their perpetual neglect of these pressing questions and criticisms.
What they don’t understand is that the more they resort to these simpleton tactics, the more they debase their own argument (or lack thereof). They end up looking like total fools.
Awareness of the nwo is growing and no amount of educated ignorance can stop it.
|
|
|
|
and before you start quacking “Alex Jones prisonplanet retard conspiracy theorists” at me, know that I get most of my information from reading actual government documents or the words of the elite psychopaths themselves.
Alex Jones does the same thing for the most part, what a nut!
Now go read some Derrick Jensen and relax, contented in the absolutist faith that civilization will soon collapse and all the world’s troubles will come to an end.
Ecovangelism.
Post Modified: 05/17/08 04:43:03
|
|
|
|
Ecovangelism.
It’s all that and then some.
Apocalyptic excuses to turn us against one another.
The real problem is the lack of common sense, basic education and civility.
And of course the courage of conviction.
Sometimes no Peace
|
|
|
|
Ecovangelism.
It’s all that and then some.
Apocalyptic excuses to turn us against one another.
The real problem is the lack of common sense, basic education and civility.
And of course the courage of conviction.
Sometimes no Peace
|
|
|
|
TRACE GAS HYSTERIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Why do you guys laugh at us?”
Because you’re a joke.
“Is it not true that there are those who want to centralize power with the ultimate aim being world government?”
That is true. There are also those who want other things. And there are those that want the same things that don’t even pretend to give a fuck about the environment. The main problem with you guys is that you’re working backwards. You think that because some people are using global warming to gain money or power, that global warming must not be real, or I don’t know, it’s real, but we should pretend it isn’t because of what could happen. It’s like blaming evolution for eugenics (which a lot of the same people do, oddly enough). As if the fact that something is happening can be negated by what some are using it for or bastardizing it for. My problem is that you don’t begin with reality, then move on from there: which would seem to be the logical way to go about things.
“Is it untrue that they are extremely well represented in the western world’s media and governments and the UN?”
Sure, then there are also those who just want money and/or power. So?
“Is the IPCC not completely under the control of the governments?”
You’ll have to ask the scientists on here that, but I was under the impression that it was made up of scientists.
“Will the carbon trading scheme not give the UN a buttload of power?”
So? Are people on gnn really arguing for carbon trading? Was that one of the solutions in Livingston’s article? Have Tango and Snark really been up to bat for it? Carbon trading is a pretty new idea, much newer than the understanding of global warming. So if the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc is after this therefore because of this, then what would your argument be, before this therefore because of this? How does that work exactly?
“while we’re at, it why does your world scientific consensus not include Russia and China?”
There aren’t Chinese or Russian scientists in there? I don’t know why, because China doesn’t want to admit that they need to curb their consumption, and the people are too repressed to bring it up? Or maybe it’s because of the same reason they’re shitty to every animal species over there besides pandas? Just because they think that something is fine and dandy in relation to the environment isn’t exactly proof that it is.
“The real problem is the lack of common sense, basic education and civility.”
That and environmental destruction, fuckhat.
Post Modified: 05/17/08 19:27:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My problem is that you don’t begin with reality, then move on from there: which would seem to be the logical way to go about things.
No, the problem is that you won’t accept the realities I listed and laugh at our argument on it’s face.
That’s my whole point, it’s not ridiculous at all.
You won’t look at anything that supports our argument.
Meanwhile you’re so fucking pig-ignorant that you’ll post this…
You’ll have to ask the scientists on here that, but I was under the impression that it was made up of scientists.
“IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change.
The panel decides whether an assessment is needed, and then engages scientists to conduct it.”
Professor Martin Parry, Co-chair, IPCC Working Group II
Carbon trading is a pretty new idea, much newer than the understanding of global warming. So if the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc is after this therefore because of this, then what would your argument be, before this therefore because of this? How does that work exactly?
They haven’t done anything else though!!!!1
FFS!!!
If the carbon trading is the only result of your grass-roots intergovernmental movement (except for ethanol which is actually worse for the environment) then the only reasonable conclusion to my eyes is that those calling the shots don’t give a fuck about carbon levels and in fact just want to make money on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“the only reasonable conclusion to my eyes is that those calling the shots don’t give a fuck about carbon levels and in fact just want to make money on it.”
Even if that was true, so what? So that’s why it’s become publicized worldwide, but it doesn’t actually come close to anything resembling an argument against global warming.
“No, the problem is that you won’t accept the realities I listed and laugh at our argument on it’s face.”
Your arguments have either been dismantled, or are irrelevant.
“Meanwhile you’re so fucking pig-ignorant that you’ll post this”
So, scientists do the research. Same difference.
“People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors”
|
|
|
but then why would the IPCC report be so much milder than the independant Climate Code Red report?
and how can you explain this?
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. 1. “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”. 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings. 4. “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”. 5. “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”. 6. “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.” They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years(9).
Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases(12).
“the only reasonable conclusion to my eyes is that those calling the shots don’t give a fuck about carbon levels and in fact just want to make money on it.”
granted, but what the fuck does that have to do with the actual science of climate change? seriously, can you explain why the US gov’t would censor scientists talking about global warming, and why the IPCC report is so much less damning about climate change than the independent Climate Code Red Report?
|
|
|
|
“granted, but what the fuck does that have to do with the actual science of climate change? seriously, can you explain why the US gov’t would censor scientists talking about global warming, and why the IPCC report is so much less damning about climate change than the independent Climate Code Red Report?”
word
|
|
|
|
If the carbon trading is the only result of your grass-roots intergovernmental movement (except for ethanol which is actually worse for the environment
yeah, it’s a well-known fact that environmental groups support ethanol.
dearest aaron, your stupidity never ceases to impress me.
|
|
|
|
granted, but what the fuck does that have to do with the actual science of climate change?
Why does it have to have anything to do with it?
I thought we had established that there is a difference between the science and the politics.
I don’t bother with the science.
But I’m told the debate is over so I choose to concentrate on the politics.
seriously, can you explain why the US gov’t would censor scientists talking about global warming,
Do I have to explain to you that the US government is not monolithic?
Put simply, some are beholden to the predominantly European GW crowd and some are beholden to other interests (ie big oil).
They fight amongst themselves and this issue seems to be having a polarizing effect.
and why the IPCC report is so much less damning about climate change than the independent Climate Code Red Report?
Maybe you guys are right about CC and the IPCC are gatekeepers?
Maybe this quote from Livingston best addresses it…
“the real troof about global warming is that folks like me who are approaching it based on greenhouse gas emissions get funding. you’ll see as time progresses that we will continue to get support and more funding.”
Maybe the IPCC’s bosses aren’t satisfied with the level of panic created by the IPCC and are funding stronger lines of argument now.
Sure, that’s conjecture on my part, I don’t know who funds the CCRR.
But if you don’t like my conjecture then don’t ask for it, especially since I’m talking about the IPCC, not CCRR.
yeah, it’s a well-known fact that environmental groups support ethanol.
STFU village idiot
Post Modified: 05/19/08 06:06:33
|
|
|
|
no, aaron, that article discusses something called a company, which is different from an environmental organization. Your reading comprehension is, as always, abysmal.
|
|
|
|
It’s an article posted by Livingston about making your own ethanol, you fucking drip.
|
|
|
|
yes aaron, that is not talking about an environmental group, but a company. I guess you don’t understand the difference between the two. You are in waaay over your head here friend.
|
|
|
|
Silly apr: becoming self sufficient and environmentally benign is part of the problem, you twit. It plays into the NWO by giving them mon…um, it destroys the envi…it’s just…bad.
|
|
|
|
I think that a pro-ethanol article posted by Livingston (who unlike you is given credibilty on environmental issues around here) is extremely relevant.
The environmental groups were either silent about it before it was introduced or they were ignored.
If they were silent they are idiots. If they were ignored then they don’t have as much say in their supposedly grass-roots movement after all.
Which is it since you know so much?
|
|
|
|
environmentally benign
FFS
Are you anti-carbon or not?
Post Modified: 05/17/08 23:30:15
|
|
|
|
“I think that a pro-ethanol article posted by Livingston (who unlike you is given credibilty on environmental issues around here) is extremely relevant.”
Aw, shucks, someone who doesn’t believe in science doesn’t give me credibility on environmental issues on gnn. dammit.
|
|
|
|
Who was talking to you, useless shithead?
Since when have the scientific community become infallible? Recognizing that there are just as many whores, sycophants and just plain sickos in their group as any other doesn’t make me a creationist.
And how the fuck is ethanol benign when it produces more CO2 than gasoline?
|
|
|
fuck you guys are entertaining.
keep up the grayt werk.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I get the feeling the jokes on me for bothering…
laters
|
|
|
|
it suddenly becomes clear to everyone involved that aaron did not actually read the article
|
|
|
|
“Recognizing that there are just as many whores, sycophants and just plain sickos in their group as any other doesn’t make me a creationist.”
And, no one’s arguing with that sentence.
“And how the fuck is ethanol benign when it produces more CO2 than gasoline?”
Have you asked Livingston what he thinks about it? So, ethanol’s as bad or worse than oil. Fine. That’s the fun thing about having an open mind. It can change. And maybe it will change again.
|
|
|
|
fuck you guys are entertaining.
keep up the grayt werk.
thanks shifty. glad we could keep it fun.
Have you asked Livingston what he thinks about it? So, ethanol’s as bad or worse than oil. Fine. That’s the fun thing about having an open mind. It can change. And maybe it will change again.
just because i posted a headline about ethanol doesn’t mean i am pro ethanol – folks that follow my angst ridden environmental babbling here should knwo by now that i desire the planet to be transferred from industrial era to ecological era – away from ridiculous and destructive “solutions” like ethanol.
Yeah, I get the feeling the jokes on me for bothering
yes. now you’re getting it. the drinks on ya too.
que mas…
fucking fuck shit balls anthropogenic CO2 emissions dick fart ass Vostok ice core data turd butt fag!
deny that, suckas
|
|
|
|
just because i posted a headline about ethanol doesn’t mean i am pro ethanol – folks that follow my angst ridden environmental babbling here should knwo by now that i desire the planet to be transferred from industrial era to ecological era – away from ridiculous and destructive “solutions” like ethanol.
cite plz
|
|
|
|
just because i posted a headline about ethanol doesn’t mean i am pro ethanol
That is so ridiculous. You posted an article plugging a do-it-yourself ethanol kit but you’re not pro-ethanol?
Post Modified: 05/20/08 01:56:51
|
|
|
|
Tread lightly, Tiger…
|
|
|
|
(You’re not supposed to know that they know that you know that they really don’t know)
|
|
Forum : Environment
Related Headline
