You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2013: 4th warmest year on record
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
how can you implicitly deny the earth has cycled from ice ages to warming?
Says who?
are you going to continue to deny the earth has cycled back and forth?
you were the idiot who started this line of thought... why should I have to explain your ridiculous statement.
you were the idiot who started this line of thought... why should I have to explain your ridiculous statement.
Who says, "the earth would have warmed and burned off its atmosphere cycles ago if there were not negative feedback cycles"?
here was your ridiculous quote.
Well if the Earth continues to warm, then CO2 is not that great of a coolant, considering its rapid increase.
are you making the same ignorant argument as fc that greenhouse gases only warm ?
surely you don't need me to say that the earth would have warmed and burned off its atmosphere cycles ago if there were not negative feedback cycles. The earth warms but clouds CO2 can also stop it from getting much warmer by reflecting the suns energy.
jem, you twisted ignorant douchebag. There is ZERO historical evidence showing CO2 cools the earth. You are just making shit up now. Show me any time in the past where rising CO2 levels led to a cooler planet. You are talking out of your ass. Which is actually an improvement from the regular spot you speak from. LOL
are you going to continue to deny the earth has cycled back and forth?
you were the idiot who started this line of thought... why should I have to explain your ridiculous statement.
ROFL. Uhh huh, suuure...
Caught ya. No one thinks the Earth's atmosphere would "have burned off", under any circumstances. You pulled that outta your ass.
baloney... you were the one who talked about the greenhouse effect on other planets.
I read while studying those papers the idea that if our greenhouse did not have negative feedbacks it would eventually heat up so much it would burn off.
Some have speculated that is what happened to the atmosphere on Mars although recent theories are blaming weak magnetic pools.
-----
as far as fc's quakery....
I posted a paper here a few months ago... detailing the fact that during and ice the CO2 levels were much higher and the conclusion was that high co2 levels would lead to cooling and cycling back.
its not the only paper on the subject. I saw a special on pbs or history talking about how when things got warm the oceans off gassed and eventually we cycled back because the greenhouse blocked the suns energy.
I read while studying those papers the idea that if our greenhouse did not have negative feedbacks it would eventually heat up so much it would burn off.
Some have speculated that is what happened to the atmosphere on Mars although recent theories are blaming weak magnetic pools.
-----
as far as fc's quakery....
I posted a paper here a few months ago... detailing the fact that during and ice the CO2 levels were much higher and the conclusion was that high co2 levels would lead to cooling and cycling back.
its not the only paper on the subject. I saw a special on pbs or history talking about how when things got warm the oceans off gassed and eventually we cycled back because the greenhouse blocked the suns energy.
ROFL. Uhh huh, suuure...
Caught ya. No one thinks the Earth's atmosphere would "have burned off", under any circumstances. You pulled that outta your ass.
http://devinplombier44.free.fr/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf
just as agw is all theory.
This paper and others like explains why that theory is wrong.
Accumulation of larguer amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to cooling, and not to warming of climate,as the proponets of agw theory believe. (Aeschbach Hertig 2006). This conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when the infrared radiation is absorbed by the molecules of the greenhouse gases, its energy is transformed into thermal expansion of air, which casues convective fluxes of air masses restor the adiabatic distribution of trmperature in the troopshere. Our estimates show that the release of small amounts of CO2 (several hundreds of ppm) which are typical of the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence global temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.
just as agw is all theory.
This paper and others like explains why that theory is wrong.
Accumulation of larguer amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to cooling, and not to warming of climate,as the proponets of agw theory believe. (Aeschbach Hertig 2006). This conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when the infrared radiation is absorbed by the molecules of the greenhouse gases, its energy is transformed into thermal expansion of air, which casues convective fluxes of air masses restor the adiabatic distribution of trmperature in the troopshere. Our estimates show that the release of small amounts of CO2 (several hundreds of ppm) which are typical of the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence global temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.
jem, you twisted ignorant douchebag. There is ZERO historical evidence showing CO2 cools the earth. You are just making shit up now. Show me any time in the past where rising CO2 levels led to a cooler planet. You are talking out of your ass. Which is actually an improvement from the regular spot you speak from. LOL