the global warming swindle

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2525356
Do you have a graph depicting CO2 chemical effectiveness versus year? Especially in a place like Hawaii with a high humidity, the CO2 is damn near non-existant. This is also why plants can extract it fromt the air so easily, the water vapor is almost pushing it out.
Global warmers would have more clout arguing about the poles where CO2 can actually contribute to the activty of the gaseous mixture.
I'm not a Global Warmer, I'm simply answering sciknen.
Nearly non-existant does not equal absent. She stated that greenhouse gasses are not in the atmosphere and asked me to prove that the atmosphere contains CO2. Kind of a silly request, but I believe you could easily back me up on this.

 

[darthtang aw]

To take it one step further...I am alive. There for I know there is CO2 present in the atmosphere....Unless I no longer breath in O2 and exhale co2......

 

[cowfishrule]

2 quotes from an article on cnn today
article
But like many experiments with alternative fuels, the price is very high and the long-term outcome is unknown. Proponents of hydrogen technology have long had a chicken-and-egg dilemma over whether to build million-dollar fueling facilities or to wait until more vehicles are in use.
Energy companies are reluctant to pour money into expensive fueling stations without a lot of hydrogen vehicles around, but consumers are not likely to buy a vehicle without adequate places to fill up.
here lies a tricky situation. a person from ny isnt going to buy a car where the nearest fill-up is in virginia, and a company isnt going to build a fill-up station and operate it where there might be 1, 2 cars that would use it.
you could have the car maker and hydrofuel company make an agreement on a location, but is that un-ethical?
and quote 2
At the Boggy Creek Hydrogen Fueling Station in Orlando, the hydrogen is produced on-site. "We are doing a process called steam methane re-forming, which is natural gas to hydrogen," said Puneet Verma, manager of biofuels and hydrogen at Chevron Technology Ventures, one of the players involved in the project.
During a careful fueling process, technicians check for leaks of the highly flammable hydrogen -- leaks both in the bus and the fuel pump.
Because a fossil fuel, methane, is used to make the hydrogen, the buses are about 12 percent cleaner than gasoline or diesel when their entire carbon footprint is measured.

hmm- they make hydrogen fuel out of natural gas, which is also in somewhat short supply.
Here's your sign....

 

[sciknen]

ok wikipedia is not a good source. and im not a she no worries
and im saying fusion kinda stuff down the road darknes
that you dont need coal for
nothing today

 

[sciknen]

all that proves darktang is that there is co2 on our level no tin the atomosphere. and the co2 we are breathing can just as well be stored in the troposphere which is what the argument is

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2525357
I'm not a Global Warmer, I'm simply answering sciknen.
Nearly non-existant does not equal absent. She stated that greenhouse gasses are not in the atmosphere and asked me to prove that the atmosphere contains CO2. Kind of a silly request, but I believe you could easily back me up on this.
Bang guy, sorry, I didn't mean to offend you or any others. I was just trying to find the most efficient way to say global warming advocates.
Yes, CO2 is quite abundant. I don't see how this can be argued.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
http:///forum/post/2525420
2 quotes from an article on cnn today
article
here lies a tricky situation. a person from ny isnt going to buy a car where the nearest fill-up is in virginia, and a company isnt going to build a fill-up station and operate it where there might be 1, 2 cars that would use it.
you could have the car maker and hydrofuel company make an agreement on a location, but is that un-ethical?
and quote 2
hmm- they make hydrogen fuel out of natural gas, which is also in somewhat short supply.
Here's your sign....
NG is not exactly in short supply. In fact I remember when I worked in exploration, most companies were estimating that we had only tapped into about 35 to 45% of known NG reserves. The wild card is China, who has exponentially increased their extraction/productiong. We will see. I will submit though that many NG reserves are still in hard to reach places. It will be a while before its worth it to get them. When the Indian subcontinent struck the Asiatic landmass, it created a huge pocket of crude oil, and natural gas basins. Its really incredible to look at a NG basin map of China, Russia, India, Kazahstan, Pakistan. They are everywhere. So far I believe there are only 8 pipelines extracting from the area.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2525468
Bang guy, sorry, I didn't mean to offend you or any others. I was just trying to find the most efficient way to say global warming advocates.
Yes, CO2 is quite abundant. I don't see how this can be argued.

I'm definately not offended by anything you've written.

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2525482
NG is not exactly in short supply. In fact I remember when I worked in exploration, most companies were estimating that we had only tapped into about 35 to 45% of known NG reserves. The wild card is China, who has exponentially increased their extraction/productiong. We will see. I will submit though that many NG reserves are still in hard to reach places. It will be a while before its worth it to get them. When the Indian subcontinent struck the Asiatic landmass, it created a huge pocket of crude oil, and natural gas basins. Its really incredible to look at a NG basin map of China, Russia, India, Kazahstan, Pakistan. They are everywhere. So far I believe there are only 8 pipelines extracting from the area.
noted.
i think my short supply should have been high demand.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2525441
all that proves darktang is that there is co2 on our level no tin the atomosphere. and the co2 we are breathing can just as well be stored in the troposphere which is what the argument is
What arguement? There was no arguement. Do you even remember what you asked for?
Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2523646
i would love for someone to show me some facts about how CO2 causes rising temp. just for educational purposes of course non argumentative
The answer is that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. This is how CO2 could cause a rising temperature.

 

[sciknen]

ok but greenhouse gases are not stored in the atomosphere. it is stored in the troposphere. so by that alone your statements are false. the troposphere would be warmer if the CO2 was absorbing all this heat, but its not warmer then at sea level. i wish you watch the video it would make everything much easier then havin to repeat myself.
the response to darkthang is in response to his post not yours.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2525772
ok but greenhouse gases are not stored in the atomosphere. it is stored in the troposphere. so by that alone your statements are false. the troposphere would be warmer if the CO2 was absorbing all this heat, but its not warmer then at sea level. i wish you watch the video it would make everything much easier then havin to repeat myself.
the response to darkthang is in response to his post not yours.
My statement is not false. CO2 absorbes infrared radiation. There is nothing untrue about this statement. It is absolutely undeniably true. It has no bearing on what's in the troposphere or how many marbles are under your bed, it's just a fact. We weren't discussing where greenhouse gasses are stored, you asked about CO2 and how it could raise temperatures. You stated that there is no CO2 in the atmosphere and you were wrong.
Now you are trying to state that greenhouse gasses ate not stored in the atmosphere but you do not show any proof. Show me that there are no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Start with water vapor and Carbon dioxide. I'll read whatever link you provide.

 

[sciknen]

well did u read it because i already posted it on page 1. the video is under the global warming swindle. but i guess those scientist at MIT are wrong.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2526078
well did u read it because i already posted it on page 1. the video is under the global warming swindle. but i guess those scientist at MIT are wrong.
They didn't say there was no CO2 or water vapor in the atmosphere. Try again.

 

[sciknen]

"they didint say there was no co2"
Its hard to understand what you are trying to say. I guess you need them to say those exact words. My bad. Atleast they proved we are not causing global warming. Sorry that they said that all green house gases are in the troposphere and didn't address the atmosphere. Now you must realize that CO2 isn't causing global warming,unless you think they are wrong about that too. My thing with you BangGuy is that there is proof that the greenhouse gases, that are present wherever they may, be are not storing heat. It is in fact the sun,which gives us heat in the 1st place, that is changing out temp.

 

[sciknen]

Can you show me a link with information presented by scientists that say water vapor and CO2 are in the atomosphe?
(not wikipedia)
You wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. Well at my college its not allowed.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2526409
Can you show me a link with information presented by scientists that say water vapor and CO2 are in the atomosphe?
(not wikipedia)
You wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. Well at my college its not allowed.
Just, you know, exhale, and you've released carbon dioxide and water into the air. I'll assume this makes more sense in the context of the long discussion I haven't read.
I've said it before on these boards, and I'll say it again: Why are people so against prioritizing green energy sources even if the scientific evidence for global warming was as poor as Bill O'Riley or whoever is harping on these posts incorrectly thinks it is? Look at what the oil economy is doing... look at how untenable continuing to grasp to a dwindling resource is... Whether or not catastrophe could come of global warming, we have good reason to get off of oil and onto unlimited, clean sources of energy. It's sad that this has become such a right vs. left or right vs. al gore issue. it need not be so partisan.

 

[sciknen]

breathing out does not prove there is CO2 in the atomsphere. it proves we produce CO2. im saying it is in the troposphere. can you prove that green house gases are being store in the atomosphere and not the troposphere?
i have nothing against green energy. hell im in the hobby because i love the environment. i want to breed fish so we dont have to take them from the ocean. my problem is the lieing, and the money it costs us from the lies.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2526407
"they didint say there was no co2"
Its hard to understand what you are trying to say.
I'm very sorry that you are unable to understand. It's obviously beyond your understanding so we'll just have to drop it I guess. It's like trying to teach a fish to count, they're just not ever going to get it.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by sciknen
http:///forum/post/2526409
Can you show me a link with information presented by scientists that say water vapor and CO2 are in the atomosphe?
(not wikipedia)
You wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. Well at my college its not allowed.
Is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a good enough source?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr...ex.html#global
As far as water vapor, open up your newspaper and look at relative humidity. I can't believe I'm even responding to such childish questions. This is 3rd grade stuff we're discussing.