AHHHHahahaha!!!

robert 14617

Well-Known Member
Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.

it is well known too that volcanos let out co2 thats been happening since the start of this planet however there looks to be an fairly good equilibrium between volcano's output and the earths ability to absorb the co2
just look back at the co2 lvl's in the ice cores and you'l quickly see that co2 was pretty stable up until we started the industrial revolution and starting adding very large quantities of our own...
 

CrackerJax

New Member
True, but it hasn't swung the temps, and that's the problem.

Should we produce the cleanest air possible? OF COURSE..... but there is NO crisis concerning carbon.

But pol's need to whip things up, so they can GATHER the $$$$$
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
True, but it hasn't swung the temps, and that's the problem.

Should we produce the cleanest air possible? OF COURSE..... but there is NO crisis concerning carbon.

But pol's need to whip things up, so they can GATHER the $$$$$

it is not the only factor driving the temp's but co2 levels DO effect the temps
a rise in co2 concentration = rise in temps....

someone here must have a good co2 monitor then you can show once and for all what an increase of 100ppm does to temperature. would you doubt the results of such experiment?
 

Straight up G

New Member
Oh my God, hahahaha, did anyone else see this gay ass save the polar bear commercial??? Holy shit, I think I peed myself. What a crock of shit, I can't believe people actually believe this crap.

www.joinwwfusa.org
You are a crock of shit and what a surprise, where can you be found- the politics forum, real funny, maybe 1 day a bear will tear you a new asshole to laugh out of
 

CrackerJax

New Member
No, the carbon one. the chart that shows the correlation between carbon output and global temp swings ...

there isn't one.

My money for real man made change is on Methane, not Carbon.
 

robert 14617

Well-Known Member
i was reading on this topic, one theory is that the added methane in conjunction with the co2 rise may be trumping the temp increase
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Methane is a pwerful agent in the atmosphere. it only lasts a decade but it packs a punch. carbon does not.

Look into CFC's (remember them ... think aerosols). Our temps have followed their decline in the atmosphere much better than carbon data shows. but that problem has been basically solved ... and no pol can gather $$$$ from it.

Global warming is not scientific, at least not now. it's politics and that right there is enough to know they are WRONG!
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
No, the carbon one. the chart that shows the correlation between carbon output and global temp swings ...

there isn't one.

My money for real man made change is on Methane, not Carbon.
lol cycling here cracker? i have already shown that co2 increases temperature i have even invited you to replicate that simple easy experiment....

methane for sure is a real danger for us too and as such is regulated to an extent (we might see beef slowly slipping off the menu in the future)
the scary part is that huge amounts of methane is locked up in various eco systems round the would like the artic tundra now if the permafrost was to melt and release all that natural stored up methane then we would start seeing real bad effects pretty quickly..
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
But science cannot replicate what you have taken for granted ... :sad:
lol what science? the sattelite data showing no increase in sun output?
or the easily replicated scientific experiment showing the correlation between co2 concentration and temperature?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
[youtube]oa3M4ou3kvw[/youtube]

save the polar bears?? fuck them look what will be let loose when the ice disappears There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra

when that goes up then everyone and everything we know will go...
 

kappainf

Well-Known Member
You are a crock of shit and what a surprise, where can you be found- the politics forum, real funny, maybe 1 day a bear will tear you a new asshole to laugh out of
When global warming causes the entire earth to freeze and polar bears are everywhere, I might actually receive that new asshole. By the way, I hope that commercial didn't make you cry G.

Look everybody it's a warmer, isn't that cute, that's almost as cute as a kid that believes in Santa.
 

brainwarp

Active Member
Not one single polar bear will be saved if you send them money. It will only make some A-holes rich. They'll take in a couple hundred thou, and pay Noah Wylie (or maybe they suckered him into doing it for free...actors are morons). They will spend a couple hundred on token efforts on behalf of polar bears (maybe buy a few hundred McD cheezburgers for them). The rest will be spent on "administrative costs." Which is to say, pay themselves a handsome salary.

But don't beat them too bad about it. EVERY charity does the same thing. In particular, televangelists, organized religions, and the rest of the ilk. My "favorite" charity is the Catholic Church (of which I once belonged.) The money they con out their brainwashed congregations goes to paying victims of child abuse at the hands of their priests. The leaders have covered it up for decades. In one case, they transferred a priest who had molested several boys to a SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND. If your that priest, how cool was that!

Anyone that still gives money to the Catholic Church now that this is common knowledge, is an accomplice to those CRIMES. Anyone who thinks heeds what an actor says, is just as stupid. If they seem smart, it's because they are acting smart.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
lol what science? the sattelite data showing no increase in sun output?
or the easily replicated scientific experiment showing the correlation between co2 concentration and temperature?
Ur right about the sun not increasing ... one of the reasons why the earth is ... drum roll ... cooling. :wink:

Now, that's called a correlation. But keep on swingin!! :lol:
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
we'd have to see everything stop melting first.....

East Antarctic ice sheet may be losing mass


By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website


The mass loss is probably driven by processes occurring on the coast


The East Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass for the last three years, according to an analysis of data from a gravity-measuring satellite mission.
The scientists involved say they are "surprised" by the finding, because the giant East Antarctic sheet, unlike the west, has been thought to be stable.
Other scientists say ice loss could not yet be pinned on climate change, and uncertainties in the data are large.
The US-based team reports its findings in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The data comes from Nasa's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) mission.
It energises me as a scientist, but I'm not convinced that as yet it should energise anyone else



Professor Richard Alley

Grace has previously shown that the smaller West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing mass.
These two bodies of ice contain enough water to raise sea levels by about six to seven metres (20ft) each if they melted completely.
Melting the East Antarctic sheet would raise sea levels by much more - about 50-60m.
But scientists have generally discounted the possibility of it happening because the region is so cold.
The Grace measurements suggest there was no net ice loss between 2002 and 2006.

But since then, East Antarctica has been losing 57 billion tonnes (Gt) per year.
"We felt surprised to see this change in East Antarctica," study leader Jianli Chen from the Centre for Space Research at the University of Texas in Austin told BBC News.
The loss still looks small by contrast with West Antarctica, which is losing 132Gt per year, and with Greenland, where a recent analysis combining Grace data with other measurements indicated an annual figure of 273Gt.
Previous Grace analyses - and those from other satellites - had given an inconclusive picture for the giant ice body.
The twin Grace satellites fly in close formation, detecting minute changes in the Earth's gravity through the marginal changes this causes in their relative positions.
Eastern energy
Measuring Antarctic ice loss is a tricky issue because the continent itself is rising and deforming.

Its ice cover was significantly thicker during the last Ice Age; as the ice melted, the weight pressing down on the rock abated, and the rock is "isostatically rebounding".
Readings from satellite missions have to be adjusted to allow for this rebound - and that is one source of uncertainty when trying to assess the significance of the new research, according to Richard Alley, one of the world's leading glaciologists.
"The first thing is that lots of this is dependent on the isostatic [rebound] model, and (recent work has) cast some doubt on the istostatic models that people are using," commented the Penn State University researcher (who was not involved in the paper).
"And then you get into the age-old question of 'is it climate or is it weather?'
"So it energises me as a scientist, but I'm not convinced that as yet it should energise anyone else."
Rising potential
The Grace data gives a picture of where ice is being lost across the continent; and these areas are mainly on the coast.
It is not clear what physical processes could be driving any loss of mass here, although it is not simply melting due to high air temperatures, because temperatures are well below zero.
One clue could lie in research published last year by Leigh Stearns and colleagues, showing that lakes under the ice sheet can periodically overflow, with the liquid water then acting as a lubricant to speed glaciers on their way towards the sea.
The Grace satellites provide a twin eye on gravity at the Earth's surface

Commenting on the new research, Dr Stearns told BBC News: "In these coastal regions the ice loss could be driven by some interaction with the oceans or some weather patterns, or it could be a sub-glacial lake that drained and caused some thinning - so it might not be climate-related.
"It's easy to jump to the conclusion that it's exceptional because it's the first time we've recorded it, but we do need a baseline of how things have been in the past so we do need to be cautious," said the University of Kansas researcher.
"Nevertheless, it awakens us to the fact that the East Antarctic sheet is more dynamic than we thought, and we do need to pay attention to it because its potential for sea level rise is so much greater than in West Antarctica or Greenland."
Dr Chen said that one of his team was currently conducting airborne surveys of one of the regions where mass loss had been detected, hoping to shed some light on the mechanisms involved.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Ur right about the sun not increasing ... one of the reasons why the earth is ... drum roll ... cooling. :wink:

Now, that's called a correlation. But keep on swingin!! :lol:
lmao how many times have you said the sun drives the climate then you bring out a graph of sun output next to temps.... that graph of sun output has got no correlation to the satellite data from the last 30 years so saying it proves your point and thats why the earths cooling is nonsense.. there is no peak in sunlight to have caused the recent warming...?
 

mismos00

Well-Known Member
Um, why are you arguing with these morons? Don't quote them science... science is a conspiracy, along with the news and 'facts'.

If you want to get a point across to these inbreeds try quoting people out of context and pointing to meaningless anecdotes... or simply stating the opposite of what the general consensus is... They won't respond reasonably to any cogent arguments... they will just send you links from conspiracy web sites.

Intellectual dyslexics prefer sexy soap opera stories of grand world-wide conspiracy rather than sitting down and studying an issue like a grownup. Maybe it's laziness, maybe fear, maybe too much TV. I guess some of us will always need wild fantasies to satisfy their imaginations, rather than face the boring, everyday world honestly.
 
Top