Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 16, 5:24 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:37 pm, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
These seem like noble causes. These seem like much better causes than
pretending that CO2 has an effect on atmosphere temperatures despite
the fact there is and has never been any scientific basis for this
assertion.
We know that carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light as well as
short-wave infrared.
Baloney. All atmospheric gasses can be so described.
We know that it is opaque to long-wave infrared.
As with all bad science AGW consists of a lot of these kind of
propagandistic statements. There is no experimental data or even
definable theory.
We know that really hot bodies like the Sun emit lots of energy in the
form of visible light and short-wave infrared.
Less hot objects are only red hot, and very cold objects emit their
heat energy in the form of radio waves. The Earth's temperature means
that it radiates its heat in the form of long-wave infrared. Heat
radiating away from Earth into the blackness of space is the reason
you can, even on a hot night in the desert, cool water in a properly
insulated container.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. This is all anecdotal nonsense. Sorry, but its
that simple. Why don't you go to sci.environment and ask around for
the experimental data. Do expect to never get a rational response to
your request and a lot of accusations that you are one of them--them
being anybody that asks the kind of question you just asked. That was
my experience in sci.environment and alt.global-warming.
So we have a scientific basis for global warming, like we have one for
the proposition that water will make things wet, or bullets can kill.
When we actually see it happen, it'll be too late to do anything about
it.
It's never too late to get an education. In the meantime don't get
your panties in a wad. Take it from somebody that has a lot of
experience in the more controversial aspects at the cutting edge of
science, global warming is dudu. There is no there there.
It's not as if we have to stop using energy and go back to the dark
ages. What about nuclear power?
Well, actually, the problem with nuclear is, partly, that we don't get
the benefits of CO2 to increase crop yields that we do with oil, coal
or other carbon based sources of energy. Did you ever consider that?
Your concerns regarding CO2 purported effect on atmospheric
temperatures have, I assure you, more to do with indigestion than
science.
Don't bother to dispute me about any of this. Just go to this
website:
Junkscience.com
You're lucky,. The prize is yet unclaimed. You should submit your
solution--unless its a secret or something. That kind of thing seems
to be happening more and more these days.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: Quadibloc
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- References:
- Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: caldervangogh@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- From: Quadibloc
- Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- Prev by Date: Re: Elephant Ancestor Found to be Aquatic!
- Next by Date: Re: Elephant Ancestor Found to be Aquatic!
- Previous by thread: Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- Next by thread: Re: Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|