The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

Who has the most affect on global warming?

  • Total voters
    19
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
To be a scientist, you have to adhere to certain rules. Using ACC as an example, one of those rules would be "don't forget about volcanoes..."

Also, if volcanic CO2 is the cause of climate change, why are some of the posters here and on other threads saying CO2 is good for the environment? Besides Doer's theory about heating the planet to avoid an ice age in a half a century, nobody has given any valid explanation about why increasing CO2 levels would be good for the atmosphere
Click to expand...

How can it be my theory, when it is all over the news?

The timeline is this. You are right about the CO2, btw.

- 180 years ago the assumption was we were simply cooling in the vast expanse of space (they didn't know the sun was heating in the Main Sequence)

- a fellow challenges that notion and was met with similar venom, but the Ice Age Theory was born then. The hunt was on to knock it down, but, no. It has stood every test so far.

- Carl Sagan sees a connection between an obscure idea in the peer review, of climate change, and what he is seeing on Venus, he thinks. Worth a paper. And sure enough, it got us thinking Greenhouse.

- The question is looked at according to the baseline of Earth's Orbit. It is known by then the gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn in their slow orbits have an effect over about 21,000 years. Basically, we are now being pulled outward by that effect. Each orbit is a bit more round than the last, and we don't get to ellipse in for a Summer Run.

- So, the baseline should be cooling and it is not. That is vexing.

- By now, the ice core from the glaciers are showing we are well above the recent (10,000 years ago, CO2 levels)

- Surveys are conducted and 2/3s of the stations reporting are heating, but the data is crappy. Historical records are are compared, but data is crappy. New Sat data won't match.

- Satellites are sent up and laser and radar telemetry of all sorts are gathered,

- The portion that man contributes is shown to be identifiable by radio-carbon techniques.

The conclusion is that:

1) The next glaciation period, when the Ice begins to move down is in 1500 years. But, we are holding that up. And we need to stop that. (why?)

2) the Ice Shelves will let go and the seas will rise in about 150 years. Nothing at all perhaps, that we can do. We will get a 5c rise in global average temp.

3) If we don't stop burning the fossil fuel, it will run out in about 300 years and no matter what we do the ice age can only be delayed about 500 years anyway. The orbit is moving outward, for a long, long time.

4) If we put the breaks on the oil economy and emergency downshift to crash research for advanced plentiful fuel like hydrogen, a few will possibly survive,

But, then we will have the Ice Age faster and lose that prep time for the majority of mankind that won't be allowed to burn wood. They can't afford the Carbon Credit.

The Carbon Trader colonies will survive and in 30,000 years the Earth will be nice again.

So, tell me how I am wrong.



-

-
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You are excluding the temperature increases. Plants also enjoy a certain temperature window - the environment they evolved in over millions of years - if that fluctuates too much or too little, the consequences it could have on plant life is uncertain. That's an unnecessary gamble we don't need to take.

I like pie, I'd probably like 2 pieces of pie more than 1 piece of pie, but if I'm sitting in a room and someone tells me I can have all the pie I can eat, but every bite raises the temperature of the room by 1 degree, I would reach a point where I no longer wanted any more pie
Click to expand...
You might have a point if all plants had the same specific temperature range but that would be silly...

You asked for a reason. Higher CO2 promotes ALL plant growth. It is what they breathe... Plant growth is almost always good. That is your reason.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You might have a point if all plants had the same specific temperature range but that would be silly...

You asked for a reason. Higher CO2 promotes ALL plant growth. It is what they breathe... Plant growth is almost always good. That is your reason.
Click to expand...
now if only plants would get their asses in gear and take away the millions and millions of years of CO2 that we are taking out of the ground and putting into the air over the course of mere decades.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Serious question; Do you think scientists don't account for CO2 emitted by volcanoes when they run their experiments?
Click to expand...
since nobody is really sure exactly how much Co2 is released every day by geologic processes, and nobody has yet figured out a method for predicting volcanic eruptions, no, they do not.

hell, they dont even know how many fumaroles vents and volcanoes are on the sea floor, and in 1943 a new volcano popped up in mexico, in a goddamned corn field.
nobody expected that shit either.

http://www.unmuseum.org/7wonders/paricutin.htm

apparently you think "Scientist" means something very different than the rest of the world



Protip: That's NOT a "Scientist"
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You are excluding the temperature increases. Plants also enjoy a certain temperature window - the environment they evolved in over millions of years - if that fluctuates too much or too little, the consequences it could have on plant life is uncertain. That's an unnecessary gamble we don't need to take.

I like pie, I'd probably like 2 pieces of pie more than 1 piece of pie, but if I'm sitting in a room and someone tells me I can have all the pie I can eat, but every bite raises the temperature of the room by 1 degree, I would reach a point where I no longer wanted any more pie
Click to expand...


the "Science is Settled":

Pie causes Global Warming.

you heard it here first.

how long before the EPA institutes Shortening Controls and Blueberry Offset Credits?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
since nobody is really sure exactly how much Co2 is released every day by geologic processes, and nobody has yet figured out a method for predicting volcanic eruptions, no, they do not.

hell, they dont even know how many fumaroles vents and volcanoes are on the sea floor, and in 1943 a new volcano popped up in mexico, in a goddamned corn field.
nobody expected that shit either.

http://www.unmuseum.org/7wonders/paricutin.htm
Click to expand...
The premise of this thread is that Ian Plimer measured the amount of ash released from a volcano and it "NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions".

So how did he measure the CO2 increases emitted?

Dr Kynes said:
political blogs quoting political organizations trumps a geologist who should know summat about volcanoes...

Science! it's a mysterious thing indeed.
Click to expand...
Here you seem to be agreeing Plimer successfully measured the amount of CO2
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The premise of this thread is that Ian Plimer measured the amount of ash released from a volcano and it "NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions".

So how did he measure the CO2 increases emitted?



Here you seem to be agreeing Plimer successfully measured the amount of CO2
Click to expand...
yes, a SINGLE SPECIFIC VOLCANO

not EVERY volcano vent fumarole black smoker, or tectonic expansion joint on the planet, he estimated the output of ONE volcano

you seem to not understand this so ill speak slowly...

One, (a, singular, more than zero, less than two) volcano erupted (that means it went off) and he estimated (that means he didnt actually measure all of it, just some, and then he used math) it's output. (the stuff that came out)

further, NOBODY, Not even this world renowned "Scientist" (seen here, communing with the earth to glean it's secrets) saw it coming.



if you knew it was gonna go off, why didnt you warn anybody?

did you know about mt St Helens too?
did you laugh when all those people died?

youre a monster!

nobody knows how much co2, suplhur dioxide, methane and other shit comes out of the earth, they can only estimate KNOWN sources, but have no metric for the UNKNOWN sources, nor can they predict eruptions which emit far more than the usual amount even from a known source.


seriously. this isnt that difficult to understand.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yes, a SINGLE SPECIFIC VOLCANO

not EVERY volcano vent fumarole black smoker, or tectonic expansion joint on the planet, he estimated the output of ONE volcano

you seem to not understand this so ill speak slowly...

One, (a, singular, more than zero, less than two) volcano erupted (that means it went off) and he estimated (that means he didnt actually measure all of it, just some, and then he used math) it's output. (the stuff that came out)

further, NOBODY, Not even this world renowned "Scientist" (seen here, communing with the earth to glean it's secrets) saw it coming.
Click to expand...
Interesting..

I suppose they went around and measured the emissions of every single termite on the planet, even the unknown ones...


You can have one argument or the other, you can't have both
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Interesting..

I suppose they went around and measured the emissions of every single termite on the planet, even the unknown ones...

You can have one argument or the other, you can't have both
Click to expand...

if you had read the material, you would know that they sampled various regions, and determined how many termites per square mile they found.

they then did some math, multiplying that # of termites/sq mile times the number of sq miles of that terrain type.

net result: an approximate estimate of the number of termites on earth.

then they determined how much co2 a given termite mound of various species produces, and multiplied that by the number of termite mounds from the previous data set.
then they have an estimate of the amount of co2 termites produce globally every year (5x10 to the 16th grams per year)

since termites dont live under the oceans, there are unlikely to be any significant unexamined termite species in the abyssal depths.

termites also, do not periodically explode in number, increasing exponentially, creating new mountains with their mound building, and expelling gigatonnes of co2.

volcanoes do.

im starting to feel bad about calling you retarded, stupid and moronic.

you really have no idea whats going on inside that head of yours do you?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
if you had read the material, you would know that they sampled various regions, and determined how many termites per square mile they found.

they then did some math, multiplying that # of termites/sq mile times the number of sq miles of that terrain type.

net result: an approximate estimate of the number of termites on earth.
Click to expand...
I suppose such an approximate estimation of the number of CO2 emitted via geological processes is impossible because you said so.. You should let all those scientists know..

Dr Kynes said:
im starting to feel bad about calling you retarded, stupid and moronic.

you really have no idea whats going on inside that head of yours do you?
Click to expand...
You're incapable of having a civil conversation with somebody you disagree with. I haven't said anything inflammatory towards you this entire thread and every post you add something like this into it. Why can't you just state your opinion and leave the emotion at the door? You cry about how Buck responds to you and other members all the time and yet you're the exact same way, it's completely hypocritical. The difference is he does it to troll, you're actually an asshole.

So if you want to have dialogues like you and Buck do with me, you're going to be expending a lot of energy for no benefit. I don't read half the long winded posts you make already.

People with points don't need pages to prove them
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't read half the long winded posts you make already.
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT. You and every lib in this section, read every fucking word he types. Only an idiot would believe you don't.

And, on the off chance you don't, who fucking cares wtf YOU do or don't do. Kynes is the most interesting person contributing in the Politics section, whether I agree with him or not. On the other hand, almost to a person, you fuckers are dull as shit.

If you think brevity is a noble trait, go post on Twatter.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
actually, 50 gigatonnes.

the citation was in the previous thread.
Click to expand...
why didn;t you ever answer my simple question the other day?

you stated that verifiable, repeatable science was the only thing that mattered.

i asked you to comment on the verifiability and repeatability of these termite fart experiments you keep citing, which produce wildly disparate results.

why are you such a pussy that you run away from any questions like this?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
BULLSHIT. You and every lib in this section, read every fucking word he types. Only an idiot would believe you don't.

And, on the off chance you don't, who fucking cares wtf YOU do or don't do. Kynes is the most interesting person contributing in the Politics section, whether I agree with him or not. On the other hand, almost to a person, you fuckers are dull as shit.

If you think brevity is a noble trait, go post on Twatter.
Click to expand...
your man crush for the white nationalist is noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top