If CO2 is so bad then why...

Status
Not open for further replies.
your welcome.
I like your sig, re government

"like fire it is a force"

They now will use GW and "carbon taxes" to suck money out of us and we dare not protest or be labeled a person who does not care about our enviroment.
 
While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's inconsequential compared to the major contributor, water vapor. Seen any plans to reduce the "emission" of water vapor? Not much to tax and spend there I guess. The historical climate data is interpreted to show that CO2 increases are a result of warming, not a cause. Climates get warmer and cooler on their own schedule and natural factors such as sun output, and moderate warming doesn't sound bad when compared to the next ice age which is due just about now.

Drive and be happy.
 
carbon monoxide helps ragweed and other plants produce more allergens . Which ups the visits to physicians for health care that leads to higher costs for insurance . It's a creeping vine climbing up your leg and reaching into your wallet . :- )
 
Originally Posted By: keith

While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's inconsequential compared to the major contributor, water vapor. Seen any plans to reduce the "emission" of water vapor? Not much to tax and spend there I guess. The historical climate data is interpreted to show that CO2 increases are a result of warming, not a cause. Climates get warmer and cooler on their own schedule and natural factors such as sun output, and moderate warming doesn't sound bad when compared to the next ice age which is due just about now.

Drive and be happy.

I like they way you think I dont feel so alone
28.gif
 
Originally Posted By: hone eagle


Arctic ice is NOT shrinking,seems the data was out by 200.000 square miles. sensor drift

It seems that it is:
WASHINGTON – New NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning.
The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008. That's losing more volume of ice than water in Lake Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_sc/us_sci_arctic_ice_1
 
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: hone eagle


Arctic ice is NOT shrinking,seems the data was out by 200.000 square miles. sensor drift

It seems that it is:
WASHINGTON – New NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning.
The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008. That's losing more volume of ice than water in Lake Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_sc/us_sci_arctic_ice_1

that is the data that was a opps ,NASA sat was out of calibration ,read the link.dont drink the kool-aid.
 
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
It seems that it is:
WASHINGTON – New NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning.
The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008. That's losing more volume of ice than water in Lake Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_sc/us_sci_arctic_ice_1

There was a major melt in 2007, so of course there will be less older ice.
33.gif
Pretty much all of it grew back last year, but they don't tell you that. Pure fear mongering by NASA to keep their budget rolling in.

Arctic temperature is still not above 0°C – the latest date in fifty years of record keeping:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/ar...80%A6%E2%80%9D/
 
Tempest, what's the temperature difference between an ice cube just starting to melt, and the liquid that is a fully molten ice cube ?
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
You mean there are other Forums other than BITOG?
shocked2.gif

yup but honestly with few exceptions,the posters here are the most thoughtful and respectful of others,and open minded.
Check out the gasbuddies web site for neanderthal brain power on display.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Tempest, what's the temperature difference between an ice cube just starting to melt, and the liquid that is a fully molten ice cube ?

I don't see a correlation. Put an ice cube on a hot plate and the ice will be cooler than the plate, but the water will quickly heat.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Tempest, what's the temperature difference between an ice cube just starting to melt, and the liquid that is a fully molten ice cube ?




I dont know.
Whats the differance between a billion tons of iceburg and a ice cube?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Tempest, what's the temperature difference between an ice cube just starting to melt, and the liquid that is a fully molten ice cube ?

I don't see a correlation. Put an ice cube on a hot plate and the ice will be cooler than the plate, but the water will quickly heat.


The btu required to transition from ice to water (both are @ 32F) is much more than what it takes to transition from 32-33 ..lots more.

It's the same thing going from 212 liquid to 212 saturated steam. I don't know if their the same numbers ..but it's more than either side of the threshold.

The point being ..just melting a little ice is a WHOLE BUNCH OF HEAT.
 
And while it's melting, it's a constant temperature process.

i.e. an ice cube, or the water generated, won't go above zero C until it's all melted.
 
Originally Posted By: hone eagle
Originally Posted By: StevieC
You mean there are other Forums other than BITOG?
shocked2.gif


yup but honestly with few exceptions,the posters here are the most thoughtful and respectful of others,and open minded.
Check out the gasbuddies web site for neanderthal brain power on display.


Been there, done that... Got a T-Shirt from one of them that says "I'm with Stupid". Don't wear it though, not really fitting IMO.
LOL.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom