@MassiveAttack

You were so predictable this is not even fun seeing your transparent face.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

STOP bickering!!!

_________________
¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤

(No, I didn't type that with a straight face.)

@all


Is Co2 a "smog" gas? or does Co2 create "smog"? or would the reduction of Co2 reduce "smog"?


Still waiting for thoughts on this???????

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

As far as I know 'smog' is just filth and unburned particles that 'stick' around in especialy dense city areas on warm days with almost no wind to blow them away.

I dont think CO2 has anything to do with it directly.

_________________
Theres a time to live and a time to die
When its time to meet the maker
Theres a time to live but isnt it strange
That as soon as you're born you're dying

@Interesting

Did you Google it?

Smog isn't really related to CO2, it's related to smoke and SO2. It can be formed from sunlight hitting a mixture of things like NOx, ozone, methane etc.

So you guys can debate the effects of CO2 as much as you want, but please don't let the debate take away focus from what IS certain: Pollution is bad, mkay?

Last edited by olegil on 23-May-2009 at 04:40 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

So you guys can debate the effects of CO2 as much as you want, but please don't let the debate take away focus from what IS certain: Pollution is bad, mkay?

Sure. Except it is off topic and by large (see the thread's title?).

Still waiting for empirical evidences demonstrating the causative link between CO² and temperature.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

My though on 'CO² as smog' is that this ineptitude is likely to have followed this way to born:



The currently falsified AGW hypothesis also used this cycle except that it is now the grandma who is modelling climate in front of the computer.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Yo

Quote:

STOP bickering!!!

Why? I am improving my sociolinguistic skill...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

I agree with the pic and you TMT. The US president is now looking for a "replacement word" for Global warming as the people are not buying into it.

Now cap and trade is in the congress, a pure mess.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @NoelFuller Quote: My answer is that warming, unfortunately for us continues. What is paradoxically funny is that warming is definitively a good trend is all possible directions for me: better crops,

I bet you see this as a good trend as long as you do not happen to live in areas where this warming causes thunderstorms more frequently and with increasing intensity.

Hail e.g. can lead to complete crop losses:
Hail causes considerable damage to U.S. crops

Increasing frequency of hurricanes and tornados with increasing intensity can develop the potential to destroy complete cities:
hurricanes

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: more rains,

More rain will lead to accelerated erosion in certain areas:
Soil erosion after rain

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: better weather,

I somehow fail to see how "more rains" is "better weather"...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: more tourists, etc. I failed to find an adverse effects of slight warmer temperatures herein.

more tourism will cause even more problems

I'm glad to help you to find "adverse effects of slight warmer temperatures herein"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Still that does not answer the following embarrassing questions about temperature and CO² (AGW hypothesis): 1/ Earth had no acid oceans and no runaway greenhouse when the atmospheric CO² was hundreds of times higher than now, why? 2/ if CO² increases temperature, why were there past ice ages when the atmospheric CO² content was many times greater than at present?

Unexpected growth in atmospheric CO2

Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago:
"Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50
million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level
that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to
preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth
is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to
be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the
target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target
may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting
agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this
target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects."

That should rebut your claim that "past ice ages" occured "when the atmospheric CO² content was many times greater than at present"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 3/ if natural forces drove warmings in Roman and Medieval times, how do we know that the same natural forces did not drive the late 20th-century warming?

Of course they did!

But in contrary to Roman and Medieval times, mankind has "developed" since then and introduced industrialisation in the meantime.
A major consequence of industrialisation is environment pollution, which partially contributes to GW by releasing GHGs to the atmosphere with CO2 being one of them.

Add the industrial contributions on top of the "natural warming driving forces" and you get the picture I'm looking at.

What annoyes me most is that you still sound like no-one else aside from you (and your sources) knows that CO2 is not the only GHG (and by far not the strongest) and that other forces like sun activity, clouds and earth's orbit equally play a important role in climate development.


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 4/ given that a 1% change in the amount of cloudiness could account for all the changes measured in the past 150 years, why has the role of clouds been ignored?

That's what I meant - you still come up with things and claim they are being ignored, although it is quite well-known that they have been accounted for long ago...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: When such unanswered questions left aside by alarmists will be given convincing responses, things will be clearer and this thread will lose its raison d'être.

Why do you constantly refuse to accept that I and most of the others here are not part of the group you call alarmists?

Why do you keep accusing us of ignoring things, while we stated long ago that we accounted for those things (like clouds or like CO2 not being the only GHG and by far not the strongest)?

Why?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Question @ all Is Co2 a "smog" gas? or does Co2 create "smog"? or would the reduction of Co2 reduce "smog"? I consider Co2 a “natural” gas not a smog gas, and part of life on earth. Today the EPA and the Imperial Obama have the news media pushing the thought that reduction of Co2 will reduce “smog”. IMHO, they are pushing a view to the American people not in “fact”?

I didn't find a single mention of CO2 when gooogling for
the composition of smog...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Yo

Quote:

Yo wrote: @TMTisFree and BrianK (and thread) ... everyone MUST play fair and leave the slagging off for the x86 threads. (Joke!! ) On the other hand, ffs, grow thicker skin, will you? ...

Hmmmmmm - according to wikipedia:

A callus (or callosity) is an especially toughened area of skin which has become relatively thick and hard in response to repeated friction, pressure or other irritation.

I understand from that to grow a thicker skin it is required to stress it.
Russian Parliament appearently developed a method how to grow a thicker skin by strssing it:
method how to grow a thicker skin by strssing it

(joke )

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Yo Quote: STOP bickering!!! Why? I am improving my sociolinguistic skill... Bye, TMTisFree

Please at least try to follow the direct request of a moderator.

And if you want to use sociolinguistics as an explanation, then let me put this in related terms for you. This board, this "speech community", has a TOS that represents our "use (of) language in a unique and mutually accepted way among (ourselves)".

You have two recent warnings on your account from two different mods. My advice is its probably best not to react to Yo as you did here and try to meet her request as she in this case is the one who gets to determine the acceptable use of language here. And *please*, I encourage you, if you feel any moderator is off base in anything they ask you to do its best to PM to avoid any misunderstanding.

So in the meantime please try to avoid what you honestly feel Yo might see as bickering, ok?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 27-May-2009 at 02:34 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @MassiveAttack ... Nox nocti indicat scientiam.

The usage (usus) of latinisms should be reduced (reducere) to a minimum (minimum)...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@MassiveAttack

Quote:

MassiveAttack wrote: @TMTisFree Oh dear, was it all a little too much for you? Nil desperandum. I look forward to reading your next conspiracy theory with the greatest anticipation.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: Interesting wrote: Is Co2 a "smog" gas? or does Co2 create "smog"? or would the reduction of Co2 reduce "smog"? I consider Co2 a “natural” gas not a smog gas, and part of life on earth. Today the EPA and the Imperial Obama have the news media pushing the thought that reduction of Co2 will reduce “smog”. IMHO, they are pushing a view to the American people not in “fact”? I didn't find a single mention of CO2 when gooogling for the composition of smog

I don't recall the Obama Whitehouse claiming CO2 caused smog? Interesting made a claim on #551 and posted an article on #552. Not sure how the article related as the word 'smog' is no where to be found within the article?

There appears 2 articles that are the same in body but different in title.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_autos
and
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_autos_65
This appears to be a media problem the title on the 2nd one does not properly convey the article as no where in the article does it mention smog.

@TMTisFree

A very impressive reply, your oratory skills astound me and I am immediately converted to your point of view. A tip that might help you come off as neutral and not at all cherry picking your science. That is, cut out all the politics, and adjectives describing those that debate with you in a political frame of reference.

Again, very impressed. Not remotely a "brave sir robin".

I applaud you.

In the meantime, please do put some effort into answering the questions and explaining your point of view. If not for me, do think of it as a noble obligation on your part to enlighten the general reader.

Your Friend.

@Yo

No problem. Please do tell me when I am bickering, I'm not very good at spotting it

Last edited by MassiveAttack on 27-May-2009 at 03:23 PM.

_________________
Suffering pains from the belly laugh.

@MassiveAttack

Quote:

@TMTisFree A very impressive reply, your oratory skills astound me and I am immediately converted to your point of view. A tip that might help you come off as neutral and not at all cherry picking your science. That is, cut out all the politics, and adjectives describing those that debate with you in a political frame of reference. Again, very impressed. Not remotely a "brave sir robin". I applaud you. In the meantime, please do put some effort into answering the questions and explaining your point of view. If not for me, do think of it as a noble obligation on your part to enlighten the general reader. Your Friend.

From the TOS:

Flame/Attacks: Do not flame! Flaming refers to derogatory, abusive, threatening, sarcastic, rude, or otherwise mean-spirited messages directed at members/users. Be cautious when using sarcasm and humour. Without facial expressions and tone of voice, they do not translate easily over the Internet in posts and may be perceived as flaming.

You've just earned an official warning.

Lets all reset our brains to civil mode please and bear in mind this is nothing to get rude or sarcastic about to anyone, ok??

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 27-May-2009 at 03:33 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@BrianK

Quote:

This appears to be a media problem the title on the 2nd one does not properly convey the article as no where in the article does it mention smog.

Well the media posted the material under "smog" & I have heard the same on the TV news.

If the media no longer does its homework, well

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@fairlanefastback

It was intended to be a little ironical (hence the '...') not a disrespect or lack of compliance to a moderator's request. Anyway you're right, it is better to ignore the trolls. I have a GM script to get ride of the attention trolls on some other boards. As the number is increasing over there, it should probably be not too much work to adapt it to AW.net.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".