Prev: {BS} Rush Limbaugh-"I got the best health care in the world"
Next: I probably got this link wrong but...
From: Mike Hunter on 7 Jan 2010 15:00
You are missing the point. We all know that the green house effect is what
makes life possible on earth and how it works. When most folks think of the
green house EFFECT they think of a ....... GREEN HOUSE. Our atmosphere is
in fact NOT a GREEN HOUSE, it is NOT an enclosure, it is and ever thinning,
even cooling, collection of ever less dense air. The higher you go the
cooler and thinner it becomes until you reach space, then the temperature
sours and you enter a vacuum. An explosion in space does not even make a
sound because the is no air over which it can travel

The problem of all of us is, the global warming theorist are telling us the
CO2 produced by MAN, is what is causing the average temperature on earth to
go up. Ask people what they think is the percentage of CO2 in the
atmosphere and you will discover most believe it is between forty and eighty
percent!

The fact is there is no scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the
comprise LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.

Until SCIENCE can prove that fact, why should we believe their hypothesis
that CO2, a gas the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our
atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the earth either up or
down.

There is science upon science, in the geological record, that PROVES the
natural forces of natures all well beyond the control of man, are what
causes the average temperature of the earth to goes up or down.


"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hi588d$78m$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message
> news:4b46153a$0$13126$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net...
>> Evidence? We are still waiting for the >>
>> Why do you bury your head in the sand and deny that there is NO
>> scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the comprise less than one
>> tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect the average
>> temperature of the earth either up or down
>>
>>
>
> I'm not here to advance the theory of global warming, but the notion is
> that you can erect a wooden framework in your backyard and cover it with a
> thin layer of plastic, and the temps inside the structure will be warmer
> than those outside. The plastic is clearly an insignificant barrier in
> any practical sense in terms of mass or any other measure, but the air
> trapped inside can support growing springtime plants in the dead of
> winter, so the idea that the air inside is warmer than the air outside is
> irrefutable.
>
> So, the theory goes that a thin layer of CO2 acts just like the plastic --
> it traps air inside that is warmer than the air outside. (What is really
> trapped is solar energy, which warms the air.)
>
> Your argument, Mike, that the theory isn't proven is a bit of a misnomer.
> Your argument that the effect is insignificant is probably a better one to
> stand on. The greater cause of climate change is natural cycles of solar
> energy, and we can't do anything about that.
>
> One thing the greenhouse does that is not talked about is that it levels
> out temperature changes through out the day. As the sun rises, the barrier
> traps cold air from the night before and keeps the inside of the
> greenhouse cool for hours, then as the sun sets in the afternoon the
> greenhouse remains relatively warm, again, for hours. The heat source
> turns on and off -- the sun rises and sets -- yet the temps inside the
> greenhouse go up more slowly and go down more slowly. The temps inside the
> greenhouse are flatter than the temps outside.
>
> On a global scale, the cycles of warming and cooling would obviously not
> be days or weeks, or even years. The cycles would be decades or centuries,
> or even millinia, but the cycles would be the same. Heat Rise is phenomena
> that says when heat is applied to a point then removed, the heat will
> continue to rise several degrees, or at the very least remain at the same
> level for some period of time before it drops. Then the heat will fall or
> remain flat for a period after the heat is reapplied. Think of how your
> oven works, or a pot of boiling water. On a global scale, this lag time
> would take a very long time to be seen, and the global warming alarmists
> could be explaining today something that really happened thousands of
> years ago, and what's happening today will not be seen for thousnads of
> years.
>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Global Wrming Alarmists are
> catching the temps inside the greenhouse after the sun has set, yet the
> temps have not fallen off yet. They are demanding public policy that will
> in effect take down the structure in the backyard so you can only grow in
> summer, yet they are ignoring the shortages that will result when Climate
> Change swigns to the sunset side of the pendulum once again.
>
> The planet has gone from hot to an ice age back to hot again. How hot? I
> can't tell. Will it go cold again? Why wouldn't it?
>
> If you take a block of ice out of the freezer and put it on the table
> outside, it will remain for some period of time. As it melts, the rate of
> melting speeds up as the ice is nearly gone. Most of North America was
> once covered with an ice sheet that began melting. We are nearing the end
> of the ice, so the rate of melting of the remaining ice speeds up. It's
> the whole Thermal Mass thing, where the mass of cold is diminishing so the
> rate that the mass recedes speeds up. The problem for the Global Warming
> Alarminsts is that they are trying to portray the increase in the rate of
> decline of the thermal mass as a manmade phenomena, but this measure --
> loss of thermal mass -- is not nammade at all. They, the global warmign
> alarmists, have spent decades compiling data of the loss of thermal mass,
> and portraying that loss as human caused, but anybody that watches ice
> melt can see what I'm talking about.
>
>
>
>
>
>


From: in2dadark on 8 Jan 2010 14:03
On Jan 6, 2:06 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> 180,000,000 people in the US will be effected by arctic air this week,
> with much lower than usual temperatures.
>
> Oh, wait. I forgot what Clinton said: "And you need to realize, some
> areas will be getting colder."
>
> Um, FLORIDA?!?!?!?!
>
> More K00l-Aid, anyone?

Hasn't been this cold in Florida since the year I moved here (89)..

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/jan/08/temperatures-expected-to-fall-tonight-through/
From: C. E. White on 8 Jan 2010 14:47

"Jeff" <jeff.utz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11fed307-ff1a-4c13-a1c7-78f7a6e0c2ee(a)q41g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 2:06 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>> 180,000,000 people in the US will be effected by arctic air this
>> week,
>> with much lower than usual temperatures.
>>
>> Oh, wait. I forgot what Clinton said: "And you need to realize,
>> some
>> areas will be getting colder."
>>
>> Um, FLORIDA?!?!?!?!
>>
>> More K00l-Aid, anyone?
>
> You're talking about weather. Weather and climate are two different
> things. While the weather is quite cold, the average temperature is
> still much higher over the entire year than it was before CO2
> started
> to rise.

OK which years are you comparing? This is what I hate about the Global
Warming enthusiasts - they carefully pick data, carefully pick time
periods, and say these custom made comparisons prove they are right.
All it proves is that they are good at manipulating data to try and
validate their pet theory.

Even if they are right about global warming - does that mean we should
turn the world upside down becasue the climate may change? It has and
will change no matter what we do. Either way there will be winners and
loosers. As far as I can tell, most of the global warming enthusiasts
are just trying to make rules that assure they win no matter whether
their winnng is the best outcome for humanity as a whole. I am not
sure I want to be on their team..so I am not at all comfortable with
their plans.

Ed


From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 8 Jan 2010 10:14
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:47:39 -0500, C. E. White wrote:

>
> "Jeff" <jeff.utz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11fed307-ff1a-4c13-a1c7-78f7a6e0c2ee(a)q41g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 6, 2:06 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>>> 180,000,000 people in the US will be effected by arctic air this week,
>>> with much lower than usual temperatures.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait. I forgot what Clinton said: "And you need to realize, some
>>> areas will be getting colder."
>>>
>>> Um, FLORIDA?!?!?!?!
>>>
>>> More K00l-Aid, anyone?
>>
>> You're talking about weather. Weather and climate are two different
>> things. While the weather is quite cold, the average temperature is
>> still much higher over the entire year than it was before CO2 started
>> to rise.
>
> OK which years are you comparing? This is what I hate about the Global
> Warming enthusiasts - they carefully pick data, carefully pick time
> periods, and say these custom made comparisons prove they are right. All
> it proves is that they are good at manipulating data to try and validate
> their pet theory.
>
> Even if they are right about global warming - does that mean we should
> turn the world upside down becasue the climate may change? It has and will
> change no matter what we do. Either way there will be winners and loosers.
> As far as I can tell, most of the global warming enthusiasts are just
> trying to make rules that assure they win no matter whether their winnng
> is the best outcome for humanity as a whole. I am not sure I want to be on
> their team..so I am not at all comfortable with their plans.
>
> Ed

Good luck getting those points across...i've been saying the same thing
for years...



From: in2dadark on 9 Jan 2010 18:29
On Jan 8, 6:08 pm, Scott in Florida <WhoKn...(a)outa.here> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:03:50 -0800 (PST), in2dadark
>
> <in2dad...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 6, 2:06 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> 180,000,000 people in the US will be effected by arctic air this week,
> >> with much lower than usual temperatures.
>
> >> Oh, wait. I forgot what Clinton said: "And you need to realize, some
> >> areas will be getting colder."
>
> >> Um, FLORIDA?!?!?!?!
>
> >> More K00l-Aid, anyone?
>
> >Hasn't been this cold in Florida since the year I moved here (89)..
>
> >http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/jan/08/temperatures-expected-to-fall-...
>
> The people with heat pumps are finding out how lousy a technology that
> is.
>
> Mine is the old fashioned heat strips.  Works like a charm!
>
> brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>
> --
>
>  Scott in Florida

It's 6pm and it's 38 degrees here..!?! I thought for a minute there I
was in the wrong state..

I've got a heat element in my central AC (here). It's not a heat
pump. Up north I have a heat pump and, as a back up, heat strips and,
as a back up to that, a gas fireplace. The heat pump has been the
most effcient of the three. So, I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe the
older ones?

I mostly use space heaters (in both places), despite the fact that
I've never been to space..Today I'm so cold I'm using the space heater
and the central heat..
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: {BS} Rush Limbaugh-"I got the best health care in the world"
Next: I probably got this link wrong but...