| Science Forum Index » Geology - Meteorology Forum » Methane's role in global warming underestimated... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| crunch... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-global-warming_N.htm
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
as far as it goes. Methane is more of a
culprit than CO2.
My personal position is that aggressive geoengineering
is completely unnecessary to damp down the
global warming, such as has occured. I am not that alarmed
in part because I feel that Dr. Svensmark's ideas
have been underestimated.
On pollution I don't see how anybody can
be against effective regulation for air and sea.
On global warming per se one focus of mine
is to monitor accurately sea level rise over
time to guage whether my alarm threshold
should change. Caveat - wind from storms
can raise the level temporarily in spots.
David Christainsen - Meteorologist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:17 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-g...
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
as far as it goes. Methane is more of a
culprit than CO2.
[/quote]
You're whacked. You're just following along like a sheep. There is
no way from reading this article that you could possibly have an
educated opinion on this.
Go ahead. Explain the science that supposedly underlies this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| richp... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:36 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 7:17 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-g...
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
as far as it goes. Methane is more of a
culprit than CO2.
You're whacked. You're just following along like a sheep. There is
no way from reading this article that you could possibly have an
educated opinion on this.
Go ahead. Explain the science that supposedly underlies this.
[/quote]
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"crunch" <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c1314df-d317-4843-8ab5-4cad8a109b99 at (no spam) f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
[quote]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-global-warming_N.htm
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
as far as it goes. Methane is more of a
culprit than CO2.
..[/quote]
Did this study compare the thermal (Boltzman) emissivity of methane to that
of CO2?
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir David... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:34 pm, Carl mounted his hobbyhorse:
[quote]Carl posts a link to an erudite and impressive scholarly journal called "USA Today"
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
[/quote]
Carl rides his hobbyhorse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mrbawana2u... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 4:14 pm, richpussytard <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 7:36 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 7:17 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-g....
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
as far as it goes. Methane is more of a
culprit than CO2.
You're whacked. You're just following along like a sheep. There is
no way from reading this article that you could possibly have an
educated opinion on this.
Go ahead. Explain the science that supposedly underlies this.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on
[/quote]
pussytard got nothing.
Pathetic little cornholer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| richp... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 7:00 am, mrbawana2u <mrbawan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 4:14 pm, richpussytard <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 7:36 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 7:17 am, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-g...
I accept the scientific findings of this study,
as far as it goes. Methane is more of a
culprit than CO2.
You're whacked. You're just following along like a sheep. There is
no way from reading this article that you could possibly have an
educated opinion on this.
Go ahead. Explain the science that supposedly underlies this.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on
pussytard got nothing.
Pathetic little cornholer.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
you have a thing about calling people libtards, pussytards, and
fucktards. corn holer is that the way you do sex |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
