Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Environment Forum  »  The CO2 Effect Is Tiny
Page 3 of 3    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
0BZN0
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:58 pm
Guest
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:7b851d74-f8bc-4e04-9f74-8e18769a0998@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 4:57 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 30, 8:15 am, "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote:
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western
Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus
on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental
and engineering geology.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

KLC: You'd agree there is a small effect of CO2; the insulating
blanket
effect.

DJE: That's why we have a nice, warm, cozy planet.

KLC: They're careful in the way they parse words. Everyone believes
CO2
affects our surface temperature.

DJE: That's why we have a warm planet.

KLC: The question is, how much? Is it significant?

DJE: The CO2 effect is tiny. The eight one-thousandths of
one-percent
contributed by human activity won't do much. Human-caused warming is
dogma, pure and simple. That Al Gore won't debate scientists, won't
talk
to the press, and all he'll say is 'The debate is over, stupid,'
says a
lot for the validity of the argument. There is a list of ten things
in
his movie, The Inconvenient Truth, that are totally false. I have
verified those myself-the Gore assertions are false. To be unkind,
they
are lies he won't back off from. Hansen, his principal advisor, is
upping the ante by saying the sea level change might not be twenty
feet,
instead, it might be 250. Al Gore will go probably down in history
as
the guy who claimed to have invented the Internet and human-caused
Global Warming, and they're both bogus claims. It's a hoax, frankly.
--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

: "They don't tell you, that, in their computer models, it's assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the
result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It's garbage in,
garbage out. If you don't program the computers to cause
temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,
Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University

The CO2 effect is non existent. CO2 is physically incapable of
"greenhouse gas " activity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
gotta love the logic here. AGW denier 1 states:

"there is a small effect of CO2; the insulating blanket effect.
DJE: That's why we have a nice, warm, cozy planet.
KLC: ... Everyone believes CO2 affects our surface temperature.
DJE: That's why we have a warm planet."

denier 2 states:
"CO2 is physically incapable of "greenhouse gas " activity."

then they nod, satisfied that they are in agreement against the crazy
AGW nuts.
***********************

The CO2 effect is LOGARITHMIC (look it up!) so that
any additional CO2 has far, far less effect than the original.
Is that simple enough for you??


--



Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada
Whata Fool
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:21 pm
Guest
Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Quote:
On 30/04/08 17:14, in article fva2c0$vsu$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu, "Ouroboros_Rex"
its@casual.com> wrote:

Without it the earth would be a ball of ice.

You're speculating, Earl.

Why do you lie?

p.s. Your craven cowardly response redirect to us.invest fixed.
Apparently, you never ever learn. lol


I would not call it a lie. What is true is that the snowball hypothesis
is plausible and serious scientists are working on it and publishing
peer review papers. Next, there is NO DOUBT scientifically that
the earth would be a snowball if the CO2 levels got low enough
and no other GHG (i.e. methane) was present. So the final word
is not in but it still is not a wild guess like on the stock market.

Talk about silly, it is obvious that water vapor provides
80 percent or more of any "greenhouse effect", and you are able
to omit that fact without using a smiley.

Any vague suggestion that all the oceans were ever frozen
over is pitifully fanciful, and an obsession with that theory
borders on the absurd.

It suggests the obsessed is totally ignorant of the huge
amount of energy that would need to be removed to freeze water,
and the fact that dry air will cause ice to sublimate at many
degrees below freezing.

And it seems oblivious of all the self regulating mechanisms
at work in the presence of water that keep temperatures within the
ranges seen.
Whata Fool
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:54 am
Guest
"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com> wrote:

Quote:
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 30/04/08 11:56, in article
7rqdnY7RRYbN34XVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@comcast.com,
"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com> wrote:

Without it the earth would be a ball of ice.

You're speculating, Earl.

I am not alone. In fact I am a follower not a
leader.

These are people from Caltech, Harvard, not the
Fred Singers of science.

http://www.snowballearth.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth


http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

Correction, you AND they are speculating.

Just as those who subscribe to Gamma Ray Bursts
causing drastic climate change. Pick your
favorite and go for it.

There is a lot of difference between Gamma Ray bursts causing
clouds and a really dumb whole Earth snowball theory that would
require huge amounts of energy transfer.

Gamma Rays can be measured, dumb ideas cannot.
Paul E. Lehmann
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:33 am
Guest
Whata Fool wrote:

Quote:
"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com> wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 30/04/08 11:56, in article
7rqdnY7RRYbN34XVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@comcast.com,
"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com
wrote:

Without it the earth would be a ball of ice.

You're speculating, Earl.

I am not alone. In fact I am a follower not a
leader.

These are people from Caltech, Harvard, not
the Fred Singers of science.

http://www.snowballearth.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth


http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

Correction, you AND they are speculating.

Just as those who subscribe to Gamma Ray Bursts
causing drastic climate change. Pick your
favorite and go for it.

There is a lot of difference between Gamma
Ray bursts causing
clouds and a really dumb whole Earth snowball
theory that would require huge amounts of energy
transfer.

Gamma Rays can be measured, dumb ideas
cannot.

You are correct. There was a good program on
"Discovery" channel the other day about the Gamma
Ray Bursts theory. I don't remember the exact
details but I believe there was supporting data
presented along with the theory. It had to do
with mass extinctions of fauna and flora during
certain periods in Geologic time. I do not think
Geology is Earl's strong subject so he sticks
with his chemical explanations as Roger does his
"Statistical" explanations because I don't think
he has a good grasp of Science period - chemistry
or Geology or physics.
Ouroboros_Rex
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:49 am
Guest
"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:q-2dnfYZwpsdN4TVnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote:
Whata Fool wrote:

"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com> wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 30/04/08 11:56, in article
7rqdnY7RRYbN34XVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@comcast.com,
"Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@anywhere.com
wrote:

Without it the earth would be a ball of ice.

You're speculating, Earl.

I am not alone. In fact I am a follower not a
leader.

These are people from Caltech, Harvard, not
the Fred Singers of science.

http://www.snowballearth.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth


http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

Correction, you AND they are speculating.

Just as those who subscribe to Gamma Ray Bursts
causing drastic climate change. Pick your
favorite and go for it.

There is a lot of difference between Gamma
Ray bursts causing
clouds and a really dumb whole Earth snowball
theory that would require huge amounts of energy
transfer.

Gamma Rays can be measured, dumb ideas
cannot.

You are correct. There was a good program on
"Discovery" channel the other day about the Gamma
Ray Bursts theory.

Which mentioned nothing about cloud generation effects like the denialists
envision.


I don't remember the exact
Quote:
details but I believe there was supporting data
presented along with the theory. It had to do
with mass extinctions of fauna and flora during
certain periods in Geologic time.

From radiation.


I do not think
Quote:
Geology is Earl's strong subject so he sticks
with his chemical explanations as Roger does his
"Statistical" explanations because I don't think
he has a good grasp of Science period - chemistry
or Geology or physics.

You continutally make this kind of stuff up, does it serve the function of
a pacifier?
 
Page 3 of 3    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:19 pm