Author Topic: Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years (Read 4613 times)

Angus · « **Reply #45 on:** September 05, 2006, 05:54:58 PM »

Is Yeager still alive?

Hello?? ?

Wolf14 · « **Reply #46 on:** September 05, 2006, 06:25:54 PM »

After all this talk of fuel burning and stuff nobody has yet mentioned cow farts. They emit alot of CO2 and methane gas.

Hell add in all the other creatures that fart to. Couldnt it be said that in conjunction with all the farting going on, they put out more polution that cars even?

Has a study been done? I think there was one done for just the cows, but one for everybody. Quick call the "Lets Do a Study" Organization and get them on that right quick.

Oh and somebody should talk to all the valcano's going off. They need to be told that they should have some consideration for us lowly folks. When they go off they blow polutants higher into the atmosphere than anything man made.

xrtoronto · « **Reply #47 on:** September 05, 2006, 06:34:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolf14
Hell add in all the other creatures that fart to. Couldnt it be said that in conjunction with all the farting going on, they put out more polution that cars even?

I believe iPod's may be part of the problem. Since I got my iPod, I've noticed that while I'm walking around the city I am farting much more often (I just don't know how loud they are cuz I can't hear them wearing the earphones)

I'm sure if someone did a graph comparing the number of farts while wearing and not wearing an iPod, you would see an increase while wearing.

indy007 · « **Reply #48 on:** September 05, 2006, 06:45:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eureka101
Indy - no, I'm comparing my environs to Lazs's environs, since it was he who suggested that the reason some of us go on foreign trips is because our own environs are uninteresting. The FACTS tell a different story!

I think the facts really do speak to the quality of the Disney experience.

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #49 on:** September 05, 2006, 07:36:00 PM »

air trapped in the pyramids has killed people opening sealed compartments, and that was only 2200 odd years ago.

why do these tards think that a pocket of frozen air from EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND years ago is going to be a reliable source for studying 800,000 year old air samples? even with the preservation of deep freezing, it doesnt mean a damn thing.

like taking samples of moon dust, mixing them into a sand pit, then doing the testing on what you had left almost 1,000,000 years later..

Rolex · « **Reply #50 on:** September 05, 2006, 09:05:14 PM »

Man-made contribution of CO2 to our system, and man-made reduction of capacity to absorb that CO2 contribution are both worthy of study, since they are both controllable by man. It is neither a liberal/conservative issue, nor a topic for class warfare - the uneducated vs. the educated.

Our system is experiencing a net CO2 increase and an increased system temperature. That is undeniable. Dismissing it and calling scientists "tards" is the stuff of Pol Pot and the dark ages.

|

Rolex · « **Reply #51 on:** September 05, 2006, 09:06:51 PM »

Angus · « **Reply #52 on:** September 05, 2006, 09:20:18 PM »

Rolex:
"Our system is experiencing a net CO2 increase and an increased system temperature. That is undeniable. Dismissing it and calling scientists "tards" is the stuff of Pol Pot and the dark ages."

Not only the

But more. The next step is always "ok ok , ok,, OK, it's so, but we can't do doodly squat about it"

First denialism, and then surrender.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #53 on:** September 05, 2006, 09:57:35 PM »

Quote

link Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) X 10^22 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (per unit area of the Earth’s surface). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #54 on:** September 05, 2006, 10:06:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex

Our system is experiencing a net CO2 increase and an increased system temperature. That is undeniable. Dismissing it and calling scientists "tards" is the stuff of Pol Pot and the dark ages.

i didnt call all scientists tards did i?

just the ones that count 800,000 year old frozen air to be a reliable source for testing 800,000 year old carbon statistics...

comphrension problems?

lukster · « **Reply #55 on:** September 05, 2006, 10:14:23 PM »

I kinda like the projections for global warming on Texas. Increased precip in summer months, decreased in winter but overall annual increase resulting in increased forestation.

100 years from now our great great grandchildren may look back and at laugh at today's alarmists as they enjoy longer and more bountiful growing seasons. Only time will tell.

storch · « **Reply #56 on:** September 05, 2006, 11:22:51 PM »

well documented fact that latent mummy flatulence is often far worse than the daddy type BF. besides so far it's only killed british subjects.

Excel1 · « **Reply #57 on:** September 06, 2006, 12:05:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
That is an attitude Hitler would have loved.
Fortunately (for him it was UNfortunately) the Brits didn't feel that way.

Declaring war on industrialization to turn the clock back to pre-industrialization days to halt global warming is not going to happen, well, not by choice anyway. And some alarmist say that even if that were done it probably would be too late anyway, the damage has already been done. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. But if the alarmist are right there is fug all you and I can do about it. The kyoto protocol or any of the other feel good 'save the world' measures are not going to imo make a blind bit of difference.. the cards have been dealt, we have to play out our hand.

And your mistaken if you think my realist views and cynism of junk science would equate to an apathetic acceptance hitler. Far from it

Angus · « **Reply #58 on:** September 06, 2006, 04:50:12 AM »

Hehe, This:
"After all this talk of fuel burning and stuff nobody has yet mentioned cow farts. They emit alot of CO2 and methane gas.

Hell add in all the other creatures that fart to. Couldnt it be said that in conjunction with all the farting going on, they put out more polution that cars even?

Has a study been done? I think there was one done for just the cows, but one for everybody. Quick call the "Lets Do a Study" Organization and get them on that right quick."

Here is a challenge for you. Some facts.

1. In a western country like I live in, there are actually much more cars than cattle. (That counts down to little calfs, and the country is completely self sufficient with both beef and milk products)
2. Cows, as well as other ruminants have been around for a long time. Very long, just undergoing some species changes. (In the USA you killed all them buffalos and replaced somewhat with the cow. (Smaller)
3. You eat the cows. You eat the milk products. There is normally better economy in producing grain/vegetables/fruits of the same ground for direct human consumption, so ruminants, or generally most of animal husbondry is on a large scale decided by the humans.
4. As a sidenote, the most efficient meat production is pig/poultry. However, as they are not basically grazing animals, cattle will thrive where pigs and chicken won't. Sheep will thrive nicely on a terrain which is very difficult for cattle. However, the milk will give the best output of all, way better than meat.

All down to the humans.......

BTW · « **Reply #59 on:** September 06, 2006, 08:03:24 AM »

The lefties have a whole army that go around the world injecting ice bubbles. I seen a few!:noid

Author Topic: Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years (Read 4613 times)

storch