Jump to content
bsjkki

Oaks on Global Warming and Trump

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

My post was that man does not contribute to "global warming" in any significant way if at all. I do not care man emits more CO2s than do volcanoes. In fact, if we do I take pride in ut. Let's burn more. More industrialized develpment means a better life overall according to Denier Darren. :)

I know what you said. Unfortunately you are wrong. We have more than doubled the CO2 in our atmosphere in the last 100 years or so. CO2 traps heat. I'm all for development I live an upper middle class American lifestyle. I LIKE IT. However I  do realize that some developments have a far greater impact on our environment than others. As I said I generate my own electricity while not adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. More burning doesn't equal better development. Why don't we burn whales anymore?

SEE

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

With that, good night calm. 

You mean you aren't here to correct those who are wrong?  Doesn't that keep you up at night?

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

You mean you aren't here to correct those who are wrong?  Doesn't that keep you up at night?

 

No mam. It doesn't keep me up at night at all. :)

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I know what you said. Unfortunately you are wrong. We have more than doubled the CO2 in our atmosphere in the last 100 years or so. CO2 traps heat. I'm all for development I live an upper middle class American lifestyle. I LIKE IT. However I  do realize that some developments have a far greater impact on our environment than others. As I said I generate my own electricity while not adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. More burning doesn't equal better development. Why don't we burn whales anymore?

SEE

 

Beyond theory, more CO2 into the atmosphere does not equal increase global warming.

Share this post


Link to post

I am so thankful this morning to duck my head under H2O this morning in the shower and live to tell the tale. Also, I am thankful to have helped destroy this planet by driving my fossil fuel car to work. I am thankful to live on this planet God made exclusively for global warming alarmists.

Good morning people!

...oh, and good morning Nehor.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2017 at 10:51 PM, Darren10 said:

"And though neither of us necessarily agreed or changed our basic ideals, there were moments that we could find something in common to agree with or potential merit in our positions." - Yup. I do that a lot when driving for Uber and my riders get political. My best and most favorite conversation was from a young lady I picked up from a Bjork concert self-described ultra Progressive and I'm very ultra NOT Progressive. We had a great conversation. We laughed a lot and talked a lot on common ground with finances which is her profession at Goldman Sachs. In fact, after I told her I supported Ted Cruz for President until the very end she said, "oh, my boss is Heidi Cruz and I absolutely love that lady! She is the most kind and brilliant woman I've ever known". Before that that we talked a lot about President Trump and we are bot apprehensive about him. I dropped her off at the liquor store of her choice and she said, "yeah, now my street cred's ruined, having the need to get a drink". "I said, hey, we just talked a lot about President Trump, I totally understand why you may need a drink right now. Enjoy!". :) 

Fun Darren! I wish my conversations with my brother could go as well. He is a huge Trump supporter but he goes overboard on some issues such as Muslims being in our country etc. I'm the opposite and I have to end the conversation swiftly before I completely change my mind on helping him (he's in a rehab and then going to live with me until he gets on his feet). ;)

More than ever I see the need to not discuss politics when people disagree with such stark contrast.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Fun Darren! I wish my conversations with my brother could go as well. He is a huge Trump supporter but he goes overboard on some issues such as Muslims being in our country etc. I'm the opposite and I have to end the conversation swiftly before I completely change my mind on helping him (he's in a rehab and then going to live with me until he gets on his feet). ;)

More than ever I see the need to not discuss politics when people disagree with such stark contrast.

Thanks Tacenda. I really enjoy the many people I get to meet driving for Uber. Keep in mind though that these are temrporary settings to chit chat. Overall I spend very little time with each of my riders during the day and chances are that once I drop them off I will not see them again. This is very different than a sibling which can get contentious. As for Muslims, I do say that Islam is in dire need of a reformation but overall Muslims are very fine people and I fully welcome them into the US and to practice their religion freely. I'm on the conservative end of the political spectrum and your brother seems to be more on the nationalistic side which while it has its virtue, there are aspects of it which I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Incorrect. It was established in the 1800's that CO2 is a green house gas.

SEE http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

SEE

 

Sir, yes, it is a greenhouse gas like methane and nitrogen. It does trap heat and can cause specified areas to heat up but I am talking about *global* tempuratures. Thus far there is no connection between CO2 emissions and *global* tempuratures.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Sir, yes, it is a greenhouse gas like methane and nitrogen. It does trap heat and can cause specified areas to heat up but I am talking about *global* tempuratures. Thus far there is no connection between CO2 emissions and *global* tempuratures.

CO2 traps heat. CO2 is pretty uniformly dispersed throughout our atmosphere. Methane is a potent green house gas, but is largely trapped underground. Methane is not persistent in the atmosphere. By melting the permafrost in the Arctic we are releasing more Methane. Nitrogen is not a Greenhouse Gas.

SEE

.

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

CO2 traps heat. CO2 is pretty uniformly dispersed throughout our atmosphere. Methane is a potent green house gas, but is largely trapped underground. Methane is not persistent in the atmosphere. By melting the permafrost in the Arctic we are releasing more Methane. Nitrogen is not a Greenhouse Gas.

SEE

.

When combined with oxygen, nitrogen becomes nitrous oxide which not only is a greenhouse gas abut a very powerful one.

Beyond theory, there still is no connection between increasing CO2 and increasing *global* temperatures. The number one greenhouse gas, by far, that which has the most impact on our atmospheric temperatures, is water vapor. Shall we regulate that?

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post

Reid A. Bryson is pretty much the pioneer of Climatology. In an interview, he provides my all-time favorite quote regarding CO2 and global warming:

Quote

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

:wub:

The interview was originally published here: http://wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1 but this appears to be no longer available. I did find what looks like a preservation of that same interview here: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/dr-reid-a-bryson-father-of-scientific-climatology.35106/, click on the first "Expand".

 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

When combined with oxygen, nitrogen becomes nitrous oxide which not only is a greenhouse gas abut a very powerful one.

Beyond theory, there still is no connection between increasing CO2 and increasing *global* temperatures. The number one greenhouse gas, by far, that which has the most impact on our atmospheric temperatures, is water vapor. Shall we regulate that?

Nitrogen itself is not a Greenhouse Gas. Oxides of Nitrogen are a problem. The major source of which is the burning of fossil fuels.

SEE https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-fossil-fuels

Please explain your idiosyncratic definition of the word theory. Water vapor and climate change.

SEE https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Yes; We should control water vapor as much as possible. We already do it on a small scale in our individual homes, and cars. That condenser coil on your HVAC unit removes water from the air. BTW Water vapor is temperature dependent. The warmer it gets the more water our atmosphere can hold. Cool it off a little bit and we get rain.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Nitrogen itself is not a Greenhouse Gas. Oxides of Nitrogen are a problem. The major source of which is the burning of fossil fuels.

SEE https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-fossil-fuels

Please explain your idiosyncratic definition of the word theory. Water vapor and climate change.

SEE https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Yes; We should control water vapor as much as possible. We already do it on a small scale in our individual homes, and cars. That condenser coil on your HVAC unit removes water from the air. BTW Water vapor is temperature dependent. The warmer it gets the more water our atmosphere can hold. Cool it off a little bit and we get rain.

Theory means things *could* happen. When has *global* temperatures risen due to CO2 emissions?

We control water vapor for comfort which I am all for. Houston summers are a living testimony that the air conditioner is the world's greatest invention. We do not control it for global temperature regulations so far as I am aware. In fact, H2O, Nehor's favorite chemical makeup, has to be somewhere on the earth. So if you remove it from one's home or hospitals, it gets sent somewhere thus regulating it does not affect *global* temperatures.

And while nitrogen oxide is most definitely a greenhouse gas, how it's a "problem" is beyond me. Not only is the Ozone layer OK, but its close cousin, nitric oxide, is very good for plant growth.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Theory means things *could* happen. When has *global* temperatures risen due to CO2 emissions?

We control water vapor for comfort which I am all for. Houston summers are a living testimony that the air conditioner is the world's greatest invention. We do not control it for global temperature regulations so far as I am aware. In fact, H2O, Nehor's favorite chemical makeup, has to be somewhere on the earth. So if you remove it from one's home or hospitals, it gets sent somewhere thus regulating it does not affect *global* temperatures.

And while nitrogen oxide is most definitely a greenhouse gas, how it's a "problem" is beyond me. Not only is the Ozone layer OK, but its close cousin, nitric oxide, is very good for plant growth.

NO! A Scientific Theory is not a "Could" happen. It is the best explanation we have so far for any observation.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Global Temperature rise with added CO2.

SEE https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

I lived in Huntsville; Alabama. Humidity control is more than just for human comfort. We have to have some H2O and some CO2 just to have life on this planet. There is neither on our moon. I don't see many Quakers living there.

Too much of anything isn't a good idea. IE; We have an essential B vitamin based on cyanide. Too much cyanide isn't good for you. Oxides of Nitrogen are a major source for air pollution. Too much of which can kill.

SEE http://www.greenfacts.org/en/nitrogen-dioxide-no2/

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

NO! A Scientific Theory is not a "Could" happen. It is the best explanation we have so far for any observation.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Global Temperature rise with added CO2.

SEE https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

I lived in Huntsville; Alabama. Humidity control is more than just for human comfort. We have to have some H2O and some CO2 just to have life on this planet. There is neither on our moon. I don't see many Quakers living there.

Too much of anything isn't a good idea. IE; We have an essential B vitamin based on cyanide. Too much cyanide isn't good for you. Oxides of Nitrogen are a major source for air pollution. Too much of which can kill.

SEE http://www.greenfacts.org/en/nitrogen-dioxide-no2/

Exactly. It is not what could happen but that's precisely what societies have been taught based on computer models...what could happen. We needed to cut CO2 emissions to save the polar bears from catastrophe despite their growing populations. Save them because they *could be* endangered if we don't cut CO2s. World temperatures *could* raise if we don't cut CO2s. Not that it has been shown to be the case, but it *could* happen "theoretically".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...