CO2 rises into atmoshere, eh? how?

Search

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens
<TABLE class=copy cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR id=article_headline><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>Congress Buying Into Global Warming Fiction

</TD></TR><TR><TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=article_datestamp id=article_date vAlign=top align=left>Thursday, June 25, 2009 </TD><TD class=article_datestamp id=article_fontsize vAlign=top align=right>javascript:setActiveStyleSheet('largeFont');</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD id=article_content vAlign=top>

Congress is about to embrace a scientific hoax.

The House will vote Friday on a bill based on a scientific impossibility that will impose a huge tax burden on an already staggering economy, and in the words of President Barack Obama, send the cost of everybody's electricity skyrocketing.

According to the legislation, a 17-percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 would be required. Electric utilities would be forced to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020, and come up with $90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and another $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration, a process not yet possible. Another key provision, the so-called “cap-and-trade” part, would require industries and manufacturers to cut carbon emissions by setting up a system where they could buy and sell pollution credits.

Says House Republican Whip Eric Cantor: “There is no question that the cap-and-trade bill will cost millions of jobs and it is pretty evident, I think now, given the word that we are hearing, that the other side has 190 votes at this point, far short of that which are needed to pass this bill,”

And the whole 1,000-plus page cap-and-trade bill that even its sponsors haven't read is based on fiction, a scientific absurdity.

The bill is aimed at reducing the levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which the global warming alarmists insist are being raised to dangerous levels by human activity and lofting itself into the atmosphere, creating a layer that keeps heat trapped, thus dangerously warming the planet.

Thanks to Robert W. Felix, of the authoritative iceagenow.com, the absurdity of that claim is evident by a simple fact: CO2 is heavier than air. As such is incapable of rising up into the upper atmosphere.

I asked Canada's Dr. Tim Ball, a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, a scientist with an extensive background in climatology, about this. His reply:

"CO2 is about 1.5 the density of air. One of the great fallacies promoted by [the proponents of the global warming theory] is that CO2 is well and quickly mixed through the atmosphere. It isn't. They also argue that the CO2 is most effective in trapping heat from the Earth (infrared) at the top of the atmosphere. This is why the computer models predicted greatest warming at the top of the atmosphere over the tropics. The problem is the actual measurements show that is not happening."

If CO2 is 1½ times heavier than air, how in the world can it ascend into the upper atmosphere? As Felix points out, it is more likely dropping to the level of our feet. Yet in hyping the cap-and-trade bill, one of its two sponsors tells us the exact opposite:

“We are going to pass the most important energy and environment bill in history,” said Rep Ed Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We are going to reduce the carbon we send up into the atmosphere but at the same time we are going to begin to back out the oil that we import from countries that we should not be importing it from.”

“Send up into the atmosphere?” How? In a giant space shuttle? A huge balloon? It's heavier than air. It can't rise upward on its own. Got that? Can't!

And the House may be about to buy into this fiction and put us all in the poor house.

I urge members of Congress to throttle this monster in its crib before it grows up and swallows our economy.

Here is what Felix wrote Wednesday: “Last weekend I took a whirlwind trip to Chicago. While there I visited the Museum of Science and Industry. It’s an amazing place, with full-sized airplanes, a full-sized combine, a full-sized train engine, and an entire German U-boat, the first U-boat ever captured.

“But for me, the highlight was taking a tour through a replica of an old coal mine.

“After descending deep into the bowels of the earth, we were given a safety talk. The tour guide pointed to a tiny birdcage which, in one of those old-time mines, would have housed a canary.

“As long as the canary continued to sing, the miners knew that carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4) levels were safe. Canaries have very small lungs that are more quickly affected by these gases than human lungs.

“If the canary stopped singing, the miners knew to skedaddle.

“Fast.

“Too much CO would poison the miners, too much methane would explode, and too much CO2 would suffocate them. Carbon monoxide is far more lethal than CO2.

“The deeper into the ground the miners dug, the more dangerous it became, because these gases — which are heavier than air — have a tendency to accumulate at the bottoms of coal mines.

“Lest you missed that, let me say it in a different way.

"CO2 is heavier than air.

“Isn’t CO2 supposed to be rising high into the sky and creating the greenhouse effect and therefore causing global warming? Isn’t CO2 supposed to be a thin layer of invisible gas lurking somewhere a hundred or so miles up in the sky, reflecting heat back onto our planet?

“How in the world can CO2 be rising into the sky and creating the greenhouse effect if it’s heavier than air? Isn’t it more likely to be accumulating down around my feet?

“ ‘CO2 most certainly does not form some sort of magical layer in the atmosphere that then acts like a greenhouse,’ says analytical chemist Hans Schreuder. ‘That is pure pseudo-science!’

“Do you suppose, just maybe, that we’re not getting the full story?

“Listen to the canary. If the canary is still singing, we’re OK.”

And if the House of Representatives gets its head out of the imaginary layer of CO2 and comes down to earth, we'll be OK too.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens
here's another recent article...

Obama used a scare tactic last week in an effort to push his cap and trade policies. He claimed that Southern Florida and North Carolina Beaches would be swallowed by water, even though no evidence of such events through actual calculations exists. The scare tactics are based on worst case scenarios, and computer models, which have in the past proved to be wrong. Remember when Al Gore referred to the condition as “global warming?” Then once that threat proved to be wrong, he now refers to it as “climate change.” Hard to be wrong when you include ALL weather changes now,isn’t it?
"Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," was orchestrated by a media consulting company and comes just as Congress is approaching a vote on plans for huge new taxes on energy. This report has all the fingerprints of David Axlerod and his astroturfing company that is known for altering public opinion through various sources, some of which can be labeled as extremely questionable. The report was compiled by 30 NOAA scientists, environmental activists, and political strategists, but scientists that disagree with the report claim it’s nothing more than scare tactics.
The report warned of possible sudden death for humanity, because the "projected rapid rate and large amount of climate change over this century will challenge the ability of society and natural systems to adapt." The report still warns about global warming even though that trend has stopped, by what many scientists think will be several decades. Even if this scenario were true, it is a proven fact that humans, and plant matter flourish in warmer climates. The flip side of these known facts is that a cooling era would cause far more problems in crops, and human death than an era of warming. Historically more people die from cold weather then they do from heat related deaths.
Let’s think about what Al Gore claimed in his movie, he claimed that higher CO2 emissions caused global warming. This was later declared a fallacy, by many scientists, and now seem to be the talking point for a house of cards about to fall. Al Gore claims that the CO2 rate continues to climb, but the temperature has remained stable for the last 5 years, so how can this claim possibly be true now? Enter his new claim of “climate change,” it will only be a matter of time before he tries to link CO 2 to “global cooling,” all the while increasing his personal fortune through his “Non-profit” company. Gore claimed that he gives all his income from the movie, books, and speaking fees to a non-profit company. Of course he does, it is HIS company, and as CEO he may designate his own pay, and perks. Gore has increased his personal wealth from 1.5 million when he left office to over 100 million now. There can be no rationalization about how he acquired those funds. He is an egomaniac who still has a chip on his shoulder for the election that he feels, was stolen from him, and this is the way to obtain the respect that he lost.
The biggest problem with what the administration wants to push down our throats is that cap and trade does nothing on its own to reduce emissions! It only taxes the ones being produced, and if Obama doesn’t think that those costs won’t just be passed onto the end user, he is sadly mistaken. This is merely an avenue for the government to make more money on taxes plain and simple, and they are attempting it through lies and partial truths with no scientific backup other then “computer modeling” and as we all know, the weather forecast is rarely correct 7 days in advance, why should we believe a prediction years in advance?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
These jokers do not even consider cloud forcing in mother natures feed back loop.

How can a climate model possibly predict the future if it doesn't take into account feed back mechanisms that react to environmental change?

It's no wonder they have to reset the climate models predictions every 10 years....it predicts exactly nothing.

So lets tax ourselves right out of jobs and competitiveness over this unproven bullshit.

The Dems are laying the foundation for an epic embarrassment...but we will all have to pay for it.

It won't be long and voters will be sweeping in a bold Republican to fix all this shit again.

Happens every time...just like the sun comes up in the east.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
385
Tokens
These jokers do not even consider cloud forcing in mother natures feed back loop.

How can a climate model possibly predict the future if it doesn't take into account feed back mechanisms that react to environmental change?

It's no wonder they have to reset the climate models predictions every 10 years....it predicts exactly nothing.

So lets tax ourselves right out of jobs and competitiveness over this unproven bullshit.

The Dems are laying the foundation for an epic embarrassment...but we will all have to pay for it.

It won't be long and voters will be sweeping in a bold Republican to fix all this shit again.

Happens every time...just like the sun comes up in the east.
Amen MisterMJ. Good to see you making good points in this forum, although I look forward to seeing you make good $$$ in the other forum.:ok:
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens
yeah, mistermj, stop worrying about the poli forum and keep that computer humming!! seriously though, thanks for the winners! can't touch that beaverball sport, just no interest, but been on your bases.

oh, back to issue of this thread

just to point out The Inconvenient Fact that

a) carbon dioxide is a miniscule greenhouse gas, approx 3% of the atmosphere. Water vapor makes up 95%
b) of that, just humans are responsible for just 3% of co2 emissions if water vapor is taken into account
c) The Dept of Energy chooses to not even show water vapor as a greenhouse gas, yet it makes up more than 95% of it!

why?

because it would be an inconvenient truth that would destroy this zany agenda

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural)
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 0.072%


So what is the true human contribution to greenhouse gas? less than 1/3 of 1%, .28%. So let's destroy the economy some more and cost the average homeowner an extra $3500/yr in energy so that we can decrease something that we do not even contribute to
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Water vapor freezes at the higher elevations and becomes cirrus clouds at the levels where the greenhouse gases collect there is no water vapor.

Maybe thats why they left it out. Huh
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens
if you take water vapor out of the equation the human responsibility is still only 5%, certainly not significant in any notion of how that term is used. I'm sure a brilliant mine like yours can tell me how cap and trade will assist in dropping mother nature's 95% role?

why bother defending bad science and just admit that this is much ado about nothing, but simply an agenda that will get seen to the end, no matter how it screws the nation...
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
You take that 5% alcohol outta the beer I drank I wouldn't of got a DUI.

Seriously, are you going to waste your time debating the main stream scientific community on a sports gambling fourm and think that you are accomplishing anything?
 

powdered milkman
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
22,984
Tokens
%5 is massive whether it makes my numbers or the rights numbers look good
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens
You take that 5% alcohol outta the beer I drank I wouldn't of got a DUI.

Seriously, are you going to waste your time debating the main stream scientific community on a sports gambling fourm and think that you are accomplishing anything?

lol, true enough about not accomplishing anything

but i've already recognized there is nothing stopping this bullshit locomotive called global warming...errrrrrrrr, climate change. the agenda was set long ago and it's moving forward no matter what the consequences to our jobforce and economy. Much like socialized healthcare.

as far as your alcohol comment, uh, reach much?
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens

you are completely nuts and thanks for the thorough explanation

ok, let's forget about water vapor and concentrate on this 5% human responsibility in co2.

so, we propose that ONE NATION drop their emissions by 15%? ok, then humans overall footprint is 4.95%

sounds like solid policy to put this nation out of work and in deeper depression
^<<^

seriously there is nothing that supports this insane plan. loons say this is a scientific certainty yet nearly 40k scientists have signed on that global warming is a hoax. of course, knowing that, I also know it doesn't matter. this agenda was set long ago by people far more important than any of us
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
Its just a tax, and a huge one


http://www.petitiononline.com/msann/petition.html



Call each of them and say you want them to vote AGAINST cap and trade....


Here are the names of the Blue Dog Dem that are on the fence about Cap & Trade:

Rep. Michael Ross (AR) 202-225-3772
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA) 202-225-4031
Rep. G. Butterfield (NC) 202-225-3101
Rep. Zack Space (OH) 202-225-6265
Rep. Michael Doyle (PA) 202-225-2135
Rep. Bart Gordon (TN) 202-225-4231
Rep. Charles Gonzalez (TX) 202-225-3236
Rep. Gene Green (TX) 202-225-1688
Rep. James Matheson (UT) 202-225-3011
Rep. Rick Boucher (VA) 202-225-3861
Rep. Peter Welch (VT) 202-225-4115
Rep. Jay Inslee (WA) 202-225-6311


Select a state below to learn how the Waxman-Markey legislation will affect energy consumers in that state.

http://www.partnershipforenergy.com/content.aspx?f=waxmanmarkeyPDFS
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
Its just a tax, and a huge one


http://www.petitiononline.com/msann/petition.html



Call each of them and say you want them to vote AGAINST cap and trade....


Here are the names of the Blue Dog Dem that are on the fence about Cap & Trade:

Rep. Michael Ross (AR) 202-225-3772
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA) 202-225-4031
Rep. G. Butterfield (NC) 202-225-3101
Rep. Zack Space (OH) 202-225-6265
Rep. Michael Doyle (PA) 202-225-2135
Rep. Bart Gordon (TN) 202-225-4231
Rep. Charles Gonzalez (TX) 202-225-3236
Rep. Gene Green (TX) 202-225-1688
Rep. James Matheson (UT) 202-225-3011
Rep. Rick Boucher (VA) 202-225-3861
Rep. Peter Welch (VT) 202-225-4115
Rep. Jay Inslee (WA) 202-225-6311


Select a state below to learn how the Waxman-Markey legislation will affect energy consumers in that state.

http://www.partnershipforenergy.com/content.aspx?f=waxmanmarkeyPDFS



1200 PAGES! Can you imagine the evil contained in this !

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0625edit2jun25,0,7298930.story
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
These jokers do not even consider cloud forcing in mother natures feed back loop.

How can a climate model possibly predict the future if it doesn't take into account feed back mechanisms that react to environmental change?

It's no wonder they have to reset the climate models predictions every 10 years....it predicts exactly nothing.

So lets tax ourselves right out of jobs and competitiveness over this unproven bullshit.

The Dems are laying the foundation for an epic embarrassment...but we will all have to pay for it.

It won't be long and voters will be sweeping in a bold Republican to fuck up even more shit.

Happens every time...just like the sun comes up in the east.

fixed it....
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
carbon dioxide is a miniscule greenhouse gas, approx 3% of the atmosphere. Water vapor makes up 95%
b) of that, just humans are responsible for just 3% of co2 emissions if water vapor is taken into account
c) The Dept of Energy chooses to not even show water vapor as a greenhouse gas, yet it makes up more than 95% of it!

Your numbers are all wrong chaps.

CO2 is a trace gas, about 0.00038 of the atmosphere.
(There is 30 times more Argon than CO2, that's how insignificant co2 is.)

Which is 0.038 percent,
(not 3 per cent as stated above which is 100 times the actual amount in the atmosphere.)

In dollar terms, CO2 is one third of one tenth of one cent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Water vapour varies from a trace in the deserts to about 4% in our humid tropical jungle zones.

Water vapour content (which makes clouds) is entirely dependent on the temperature of the air and the proximity of water.

So antarctica and the north pole, for water vapour, are dry desert conditions.(Too cold)
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
To try and explain it simply.

The whole climate change industry is climate touts being paid lotsa money by your government to predict the winner of a 200 horse kentucky derby.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
483
Tokens
This Goverment wants the uneducated masses that voted them into power to believe that gobal warming is man made.

Never mind that the earth has been cooling since 1997.

Never mind that the co2 percentage of our atmosphere has been much higher before man came into existance.

Nevermind that the earth NATURALLY cools and warms itself.

Never mind that AL GORE flys all over the world in High co2 emitting planes, why he tells the "little people" to ''save the planet.''

This goverment wants to RAISE TAXES on the unengaged public. This is what CAP and TRADE is.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,858
Messages
13,574,196
Members
100,878
Latest member
lisasdanceandexercise
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com