Comments 1 - 40 of 54 Next » Last » Search these comments
“Our computers...” Err, this is a Zerohedge piece taken from some site called ArmstrongEconomics.com. Why would you post this up rather than a link to actual scientific research?
anon_6ae12 says“Our computers...” Err, this is a Zerohedge piece taken from some site called ArmstrongEconomics.com. Why would you post this up rather than a link to actual scientific research?
Yeah but there are references to recent NASA studies in the piece. The future is looking a bit cooler now, even in the mainstream.
Who still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?
Concentrations of trace gases trapped in ice are considered to develop uniquely from direct snow/atmosphere interactions at the time of contact. This assumption relies upon limited or no biological, chemical or physical transformations occurring during transition from snow to firn to ice; a process that can take decades to complete. Here, we present the first evidence of environmental alteration due to in situ microbial metabolism of trace gases (methyl halides and dimethyl sulphide) in Polar snow. We collected evidence for ongoing microbial metabolism from an Arctic and an Antarctic location during different years. Methyl iodide production in the snowpack decreased significantly after exposure to enhanced UV radiation. Our results also show large variations in the production and consumption of other methyl halides, including methyl bromide and methyl chloride, used in climate interpretations. These results suggest that this long neglected microbial activity could constitute a potential source of error in climate history interpretations, by introducing a so far unappreciated source of bias in the quantification of atmospheric+derived trace gases trapped within the Polar ice caps.
Onvacation saysWho still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?
Actually nobody argues that CIC
Who still wants to argue that limiting co2 will stop the planet from warming?
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is well documented and established.
probably
let's talk about something that would literally require us to live like cavemen to solve... not happening.
Who still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?
Who still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?
Onvacation saysWho still wants to argue that co2 warms the planet and it's not the sun?
This statement shows you don't know what you are talking about. Nobody has ever argued that the sun does not provide the heat to warm the planet. If you thought that was what people are saying then it shows you don't listen to what they are saying.
Unless you are a scientist I think we really shouldn't listen to what you and sniper have to say because all you're doing is parroting back what others say. Your fight is so fierce it's seems you might even be paid to do this.
Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:
This statement shows you don't know what you are talking about. Nobody has ever argued that the sun does not provide the heat to warm the planet.
Unless you are a scientist I think we really shouldn't listen to what you and sniper have to say
winter temperatures increasing more than summer temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
etc, etc...
Nobody has ever argued that the sun does not provide the heat to warm the planet.
Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:
@Patrick - Can we just ban climate change threads? Even if the science is 100% true, there's nothing we're doing or can do to stop it. So we get these stupid back and forth arguments that don't matter if you think about it.
Why do we need an artist redition of the sun? That's not even a real image of the sun.
Actually it is, but there are more here:
On this page you will find the latest solar imagery
Those that understand can explain it to those that don't.
Remove greenhouse gasses & let's see how warm the planet stays with just sunlight.
When these hydrocarbons are burned, they are putting back into the air carbon dioxide and water vapor taken from the air long ago.
Since water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, why do we only hear of a "carbon footprint" and not a "hydro footprint?"
HEYYOU saysThose that understand can explain it to those that don't.
Sure. I can explain it to you.
Greenhouse gasses, mostly water vapor, traps the heat from the sun and stops the earth from becoming an icy ball in space. After the temp rising slightly over the last century we are now going into a solar minimum where there will not be as much solar heat to warm our world.
If we are lucky the cooling will be minimal.
HeadSet saysWhen these hydrocarbons are burned, they are putting back into the air carbon dioxide and water vapor taken from the air long ago.
Hmmm, just completing a cycle.
Why haven't any of the "Alarmists" chimed in on these facts with their rebuttals?
don’t know what the solar minimum is.
anon_6ae12 saysdon’t know what the solar minimum is.
Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun. During this time, sunspot and solar flare activity diminishes, and often does not occur for days at a time. This causes the sun to radiate less heat.
So what do YOU think the solar minimum is?
Comments 1 - 40 of 54 Next » Last » Search these comments
#politics