Global Warming culprit.

CO2 doesn't absorb heat. It re-radiates it. The first 10PPM of CO2 accounts for 90% of the potential infrared rays that CO2 can possibly re-radiate.
You warmers are dangerously ignorant.
 
You can't continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere without repercussions. Have you watched Ken Burns new documentary "The Dust Bowl" by any chance. It was shown on PBS so I can safely assume you didn't. Are you aware that approx 2/3 of the US is currently having the worst drought in decades and the Oglala is down to a 50 foot depth? Fracking wastes with pollution large amounts of water, and the "pipeline" requires huge amounts of water to move the sludge....all this is polluting water but Bush bought up a huge water reserve in Paraguay so I guess if we can afford it we can buy water from them. Nothing to worry about...enjoy your turkey.
 
tinfoil said:
CO2 doesn't absorb heat. It re-radiates it. The first 10PPM of CO2 accounts for 90% of the potential infrared rays that CO2 can possibly re-radiate.
You warmers are dangerously ignorant.
Click to expand...

How does it 're-radiate" it first if it hasn't absorbed it?lol

Oh fuck. I didn't know there were climatologists on JPP! (note sarcasm) ROTFLOL!!!

Do you have any scientific evidence to back your unscientific claim?

Here have a read:

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124154725AAIj7sA

CO2 (MW=44) is a bit heavier than nitrogen (MW=28) or oxygen (MW=32), but is nevertheless well-mixed in the atmosphere from top to bottom due to convection (wind) at the bottom and a long mean free path at the top. The earth absorbs visible light from the sun and re-radiates in the infrared. Initially the emitted photons are headed for space.(For more detail, look up the Plank black body distribution for sun and earth.) When CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, the molecule goes into an excited state. (For spectra and absorption cross sections, consult the HITRAN database.) If the excited molecule collides with another molecule, the energy from the excited state can be transferred into kinetic energy (heat) of the colliding molecules. Alternately, the excited state can relax by re-emitting an infrared photon. The emission process is isotropic, so on average half of the photons are emitted toward the ground and half toward space. The process of absorption and emission is repeated many times in the atmosphere, so the energy transport can be thought of as a diffusion process. The hindrance to energy flow into space is the greenhouse effect.

P.S> It looks like you are the ignorant one. This is climatology 101. Basically kindergarten knowledge for them!
 
Haiku said:
You can't continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere without repercussions. Have you watched Ken Burns new documentary "The Dust Bowl" by any chance. It was shown on PBS so I can safely assume you didn't. Are you aware that approx 2/3 of the US is currently having the worst drought in decades and the Oglala is down to a 50 foot depth? Fracking wastes with pollution large amounts of water, and the "pipeline" requires huge amounts of water to move the sludge....all this is polluting water but Bush bought up a huge water reserve in Paraguay so I guess if we can afford it we can buy water from them. Nothing to worry about...enjoy your turkey.
Click to expand...

The scientists have also tied all these global earthquakes to fracking. But hey, people die all the time! What is important is that we remain addicted to oil so the oil industry can continue to rack in huge profits!(note sarcasm)!!!!

This is one of the MANY reports linking earthquakes to fracking(Just google fracking and earthquakes). You think the increase in oil drilling and the increase in earthquakes are unrelated? Think again. Fracking involves drilling near fault lines.

http://news.yahoo.com/unusual-dallas-earthquakes-linked-fracking-expert-says-181055288.html

Unusual Dallas Earthquakes Linked to Fracking, Expert Says
By Eli MacKinnon, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer | LiveScience.com – 4 hrs ago
 
They think money will save their asses...it won't. I'm aware of the link fracking has to earthquakes...I wonder if they'll pay for the damage when the New Madrid fault lets loose....like they did the gulf....you think? Nah...they never pay like we little folk do. We had a quake here from fracking...something unknown previously.
 
Haiku said:
They think money will save their asses...it won't. I'm aware of the link fracking has to earthquakes...I wonder if they'll pay for the damage when the New Madrid fault lets loose....like they did the gulf....you think? Nah...they never pay like we little folk do. We had a quake here from fracking...something unknown previously.
Click to expand...



Haiku, very soon the people will realize the scam of the worthless paper money that is used to not only enslave them to a line of credit(national debt), but USED to buy the world's wealth using money with no real value. The only thing keeping this lie alive is that people recognize this paper money as having value.

"Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed." - John Maynard Keynes, ibid.

"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).

Anyways, back on topic. Yes, maybe they should go after these oil companies to pay for the earthquake damages caused by their fracking! That will give them yet another reason to think GREEN!!!!
 
Last edited:
wiseones2cents said:
How does it 're-radiate" it first if it hasn't absorbed it?lol

Oh fuck. I didn't know there were climatologists on JPP! (note sarcasm) ROTFLOL!!!

Do you have any scientific evidence to back your unscientific claim?

Here have a read:

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124154725AAIj7sA

CO2 (MW=44) is a bit heavier than nitrogen (MW=28) or oxygen (MW=32), but is nevertheless well-mixed in the atmosphere from top to bottom due to convection (wind) at the bottom and a long mean free path at the top. The earth absorbs visible light from the sun and re-radiates in the infrared. Initially the emitted photons are headed for space.(For more detail, look up the Plank black body distribution for sun and earth.) When CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, the molecule goes into an excited state. (For spectra and absorption cross sections, consult the HITRAN database.) If the excited molecule collides with another molecule, the energy from the excited state can be transferred into kinetic energy (heat) of the colliding molecules. Alternately, the excited state can relax by re-emitting an infrared photon. The emission process is isotropic, so on average half of the photons are emitted toward the ground and half toward space. The process of absorption and emission is repeated many times in the atmosphere, so the energy transport can be thought of as a diffusion process. The hindrance to energy flow into space is the greenhouse effect.

P.S> It looks like you are the ignorant one. This is climatology 101. Basically kindergarten knowledge for them!
Click to expand...


Absorb is a word for use when something becomes part of another. It's incorrect usage despite numerous warmers using it that way.

Look it up!

Basically, CO2 blocks the IR waves and they bounce off. They are not absorbed
 
tinfoil said:
Absorb is a word for use when something becomes part of another. It's incorrect usage despite numerous warmers using it that way.

Look it up!

Basically, CO2 blocks the IR waves and they bounce off. They are not absorbed
Click to expand...

I did look it up and most articles I have read say your full of shit.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html

Here's another.

http://www.bigissueground.com/scienceandfuture/blair-co2andglobalwarming.shtml

I think it perfectly acceptable to say that CO2 "absorbs heat". Infrared radiation that would otherwise pass through an atmosphere goes in one side (here the bottom) and does not come out the top. It has been "absorbed". The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being "warmer".

If anyone thinks that the transfer of IR energy (commonly called "heat") into the earth's atmosphere will not result in any change, they should offer some explanation as to just what they think happens to that extra energy. And besides more energy there is also a change in the energy distribution of the atmosphere. More heat absorbed in the lower atmosphere would mean less made it to the upper atmosphere: the lower would be warmer, but the upper would be cooler. So to measure this effect, it is important just which part of the atmosphere is examined.
 
Haiku said:
You can't continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere without repercussions. Have you watched Ken Burns new documentary "The Dust Bowl" by any chance. It was shown on PBS so I can safely assume you didn't. Are you aware that approx 2/3 of the US is currently having the worst drought in decades and the Oglala is down to a 50 foot depth? Fracking wastes with pollution large amounts of water, and the "pipeline" requires huge amounts of water to move the sludge....all this is polluting water but Bush bought up a huge water reserve in Paraguay so I guess if we can afford it we can buy water from them. Nothing to worry about...enjoy your turkey.
Click to expand...

You should commit suicide and avoid the rush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top