Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28477 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#23649 Feb 27, 2012
SpamBot has agreed with DumBozo that LessFact/Nobody's "thermal pollutant" term is accurate.
Chimney

Dubai, UAE

#23650 Feb 27, 2012
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww, poor Chimney CAN'T POST ANY MEASUREMENT WHERE ANY HEAT FLOWS FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEATS-UP" THE WARMER BODY.
Isn't that RIGHT....you AGW A-HOLE?
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.

What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.

Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.

A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.

My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#23651 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
DEPENDS upon how you interpret the definition of a thermal pollutant. CO2 does increase the temperature. That is a thermal event. Since many understand that a hotter atmosphere will become problematic it is not incorrect to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it causes the atmosphere to heat. Thus can we call it a thermal pollutant?
pollutant:
Definition
In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria:(1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic).(2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem.(3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity.(4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal.
Here for your daily workout?

These folks help keep you mentally fit anyway - trying to return volley on all their mental gyrations

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23652 Feb 27, 2012
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" didn't like my answer to his interpretation of AGW advocates' ideas. So I'll repeat......
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
We must only remove AGW deniers. Since they AREN'T humans, like eart hling (alien has no affinity to Earth), all we have to worry about is the ASPCA.
yep you start with those who oppose your view and then who ? soon someone will be after you and then no one left on the planet . so you see you proved my point about global population control . so let us know when you fire up the gas chambers .
litesong

Marysville, WA

#23653 Feb 27, 2012
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
.... if the warmers and the rest of the enviro. movement has their way . no people on this planet.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"at home in lynching counties" wrote:
......we must act fast to remove all HUMANS from this planet......
//////////
litesong wrote:
We must only remove AGW deniers. Since they AREN'T humans, like eart hling (alien has no affinity to Earth), all we have to worry about is the ASPCA.
//////////
'at home in lynching county' wrote:
.....so let us know when you fire up the gas chambers.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Tho my Native Tribes ancestors avoided euro advanced technology gas chambers, the euros & transplanted euros were able to exterminate half the 30,000 Native Tribes around the world & leave the rest as tattered shreds, nevertheless.

'at home in lynching county' need not worry. topix AGW deniers such as bob burns, JRS,'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' &" 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' & alleged 4-time threatener & 3-time proud threatener brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" have shown their strongest desires to be at the controls of higher technology gas chambers when AGW advocates are rounded up.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Leon, KS

#23654 Feb 27, 2012
Marie wrote:
<quoted text>
Here for your daily workout?
These folks help keep you mentally fit anyway - trying to return volley on all their mental gyrations
Not really, they hardly introduce any new ideas, just repeat the same old thing over and over even when they have been brought to task. Not really mental, more menial at that! I am not understanding how politically or monetarily inspired sources are more believable than trusted and proven scientific institution.

Have you heard from xtp lately? I miss her input. Too bad that some unfeeling crumb hurt her.

I am back in Kansas. Miss the warm weather we had in Texas. We accomplished a lot but our numbers were down due to a death, and several medical situations. Age is creeping up on our group. We need some more younger folks to get involved.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#23655 Feb 27, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, they hardly introduce any new ideas, just repeat the same old thing over and over even when they have been brought to task. Not really mental, more menial at that! I am not understanding how politically or monetarily inspired sources are more believable than trusted and proven scientific institution.
Have you heard from xtp lately? I miss her input. Too bad that some unfeeling crumb hurt her.
I am back in Kansas. Miss the warm weather we had in Texas. We accomplished a lot but our numbers were down due to a death, and several medical situations. Age is creeping up on our group. We need some more younger folks to get involved.
Yes ~ the same ol' same ol gets boring.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#23656 Feb 27, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.
What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.
Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.
A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.
My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Gord wrote:
"Awww, poor Chimney CAN'T POST ANY MEASUREMENT WHERE ANY HEAT FLOWS FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEATS-UP" THE WARMER BODY.
Isn't that RIGHT....you AGW A-HOLE?"

And your reponse was:
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, dumbass, because as you know its never going to happen that way - but it does not need to happen that way for the greenhouse effect to work.
Gee, FINALLY you ADMIT that Cold Bodies DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Bodies!

But then you start talking about the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" like it does not require Heat Flow from the Colder Atmosphere to a Warmer Earth where it HEATS-UP the WARMER EARTH.

Once AGAIN, THE IPCC AR4 REPORT DEFINES THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" as BACK-RADIATION from a COLDER ATMOSPHERE "HEATING-UP" A WARMER EARTH!!

The DIRECT QUOTES from the IPCC AR4 REPORT are HERE:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

The IPCC AR4 REPORT and the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" is the CONSENSUS of ALL YOUR QUACK "AGW scientists" that all you AGW CULT MEMBERS keep on BABBLING ABOUT.

Since YOU NOW AGREE that HEAT DOES NOT FLOW FROM A COLD BODY TO A WARMER BODY AND "HEAT-UP" THE WARMER BODY, you are saying that the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" defined by the IPCC AR4 Report is a FRAUD.

Isn't THAT RIGHT, DUMBASS?
----------
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>

What I can demonstrate is that if I put a can of liquid at boiling point into a tub of water that is 50 degrees C, it will cool more slowly than the same can put into a tub of water that is 10 degrees C.
Because the temperature differential is greater, the rate of NET HEAT FLOW from the can is greater when its put in the colder water. So it cools faster.
A warm earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is 15 degrees C will cool more slowly than an earth immersed in an atmosphere whose temperature at the surface is -20 degrees C.
My God, if you haven't understood that by now, I don't know how you tie your shoelaces.
Don't you know that a body that COOLS MORE SLOWLY is STILL COOLING???

COOLING means that the Body's TEMPERATURE is DROPPING....NOT INCREASING!

DUH!

So explain how a +15 deg C Earth that is immersed in a -20 deg C Atmosphere and is COOLING can EVER HEAT-UP ?????

HOW CAN THERE BE "GLOBAL WARMING" OF THE EARTH if the EARTH IS COOLING...DUMBASS ???

What a HOOT!
litesong

Marysville, WA

#23657 Feb 27, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
Not a chemist, but there is a connection between water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere, the more water vapor the more co2 the atmosphere can hold.
//////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
So you are not a chemist. We knew that all along.

.. it's physics: CO2 warms the atmosphere, and the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
So you are WRONG!
//////////
litesong wrote:
SpaceBlues is right, again. It is the man-machine generated, non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs CO2, methane, oxide of nitrogen, SF6, etc, that controls the amount of continually phase-changing infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor that the atmosphere can hold.
So the water vapor atmospheric increases that topix AGW deniers have been bragging about, actually means that topix AGW deniers have been bragging about man-machine generated increasing CO2.

“Failure Is Not An Option”

Since: Feb 12

Enterprise Al

#23658 Feb 27, 2012
Ha wow talk about dumbasses. If you really were astrophysicist or knew anything about it you would know that yes earths inertia and orbit keeps us from dragging closer to the sun but you would also know that since the sun has much more mass therefore gravity it is pulling the earth closer year by year but even though not even an inch it still is! And ha ha litesong what a fucking wannabe ha "professional astronomer" you sound so retarded. And a facility is something designed or installed for a specific purpose dumbass. Go back to school. And here's an example of one such explanation: it's called the Milankovitch theory. Named after the Yugoslav mathematician who first proposed it, it is the astronomical or orbital theory of climate variations. The theory identifies three types of variation in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which could act as mechanisms to change the global climate: changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity), changes in the shape of Earth's orbit (eccentricity) and the shifting of the equinoxes (precession). Plus a long time ago on the news it said how a group of scientists proved each year the earth is getting closer.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Leon, KS

#23659 Feb 28, 2012
Knowyostuff wrote:
Ha wow talk about dumbasses. If you really were astrophysicist or knew anything about it you would know that yes earths inertia and orbit keeps us from dragging closer to the sun but you would also know that since the sun has much more mass therefore gravity it is pulling the earth closer year by year but even though not even an inch it still is! And ha ha litesong what a fucking wannabe ha "professional astronomer" you sound so retarded. And a facility is something designed or installed for a specific purpose dumbass. Go back to school. And here's an example of one such explanation: it's called the Milankovitch theory. Named after the Yugoslav mathematician who first proposed it, it is the astronomical or orbital theory of climate variations. The theory identifies three types of variation in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which could act as mechanisms to change the global climate: changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity), changes in the shape of Earth's orbit (eccentricity) and the shifting of the equinoxes (precession). Plus a long time ago on the news it said how a group of scientists proved each year the earth is getting closer.
Actually the Earth is receding from the sun due to a couple of factors. The Sun is very slowly losing mass due to fusion reaction and tidal forces are transferring momentum to the earth. Both cause the earth to very slowly move further from the Sun. But not to worry, before the earth gets far enough away to significantly change the energy profile, the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth!

The Milancovitch Cycles have been known for many years and are not a significant factor in the current warming.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#23660 Feb 28, 2012
Can somebody help me? An evil oil exec is holding a gun to my head and telling me what to research and type and think.
Chimney

UAE

#23661 Feb 28, 2012
Gord wrote:
Gee, FINALLY you ADMIT that Cold Bodies DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Bodies!
Idiot, I always agreed that cold bodies do not "warm up" hotter bodies.

However, its also true that hotter bodies cool more slowly when the temperature differential between them and their surroundings is smaller.

Sorry that you are too stupid to understand this distinction, and that its this scenario that applies to the GHG.

A hot body cools more slowly when the surroundings (i.e atmosphere in this case) are say 20 degrees less than it, compared to when they are 40 degrees less, all else being equal. Therefore at any given time it is WARMER than it otherwise would be. That does not mean the cooler surroundings "heated it up", you moron.

Wrap a hot teapot in an insulating cover and it COOLS MORE SLOWLY. Did the insulator "heat it up"????? NO. Is it warmer than it otherwise would be? YES.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Leon, KS

#23662 Feb 28, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I always agreed that cold bodies do not "warm up" hotter bodies.
However, its also true that hotter bodies cool more slowly when the temperature differential between them and their surroundings is smaller.
Sorry that you are too stupid to understand this distinction, and that its this scenario that applies to the GHG.
A hot body cools more slowly when the surroundings (i.e atmosphere in this case) are say 20 degrees less than it, compared to when they are 40 degrees less, all else being equal. Therefore at any given time it is WARMER than it otherwise would be. That does not mean the cooler surroundings "heated it up", you moron.
Wrap a hot teapot in an insulating cover and it COOLS MORE SLOWLY. Did the insulator "heat it up"????? NO. Is it warmer than it otherwise would be? YES.
Can't wait for Gordhead's abusive and juvenile retort, not.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#23663 Feb 28, 2012
Remaining climate change crisis believers; the vast majority of voters now are “former” climate change crisis believers and if you don’t know that, YOU are the new denier. YES pollution is real but this neocon like fear mongering of climate crisis from SUV gas was a tragic exaggeration. You remaining believers WANTED this misery to have been true.
I challenge you remaining climate blamers to:
-ACT like it’s a real crisis because NOTHING could possibly be worse than a climate crisis besides a comet hit. So get you’re THE END IS NEAR signs and join the dozens of other climate blame believers protesting in the streets.
-I dare you to look your child square in the eyes and tell them they will suffer a climate crisis.
-There are hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of people and their doomed children, involved in the global scientific community and as long as they sit on their thrones instead of ACTING like a crisis real…….exaggeration of “crisis” is proven.
Climate change science has done to science and liberalism what nasty priests did for religion. Prepare for history to mock you.
SoE

United States

#23664 Feb 28, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the Earth is receding from the sun due to a couple of factors. The Sun is very slowly losing mass due to fusion reaction and tidal forces are transferring momentum to the earth. Both cause the earth to very slowly move further from the Sun. But not to worry, before the earth gets far enough away to significantly change the energy profile, the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth!
The Milancovitch Cycles have been known for many years and are not a significant factor in the current warming.
yes!
A red giant..the ultimate in global warming...
when that time rolls around where will universal expansion be...
SoE

United States

#23665 Feb 28, 2012
mememine69 wrote:
Can somebody help me? An evil oil exec is holding a gun to my head and telling me what to research and type and think.
I doubt it...
Fun Facts

United States

#23666 Feb 28, 2012
Cell texting please ignore typos

If your assumption is that co2 warmed the atmosphere, then co2 alows for more water vapor. What I have seen of the science is that a warmer atmosphere holds more watr vapor. The next statements tend to say since co2 caused the warming then co2 allowss for more water vapor.

Regardless. Water vapor is the strongest ghg. If it went up in the 80s and 90s and. That added 30% to the warming and it has reduced by 10% in the 2000s and that resulted in a 25% reduction and we can see both the prior increases and the current flat lining, it would appear that temps are more impacted by water vapor than co2.
ANd if we haven't included this in the computer models then the models can't be correct.

Also most web sites admit the water vapor has been poorly measured because it was considered to be nuetural in climte impact. Or better self correcting. Recent studies question this premise.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#23667 Feb 28, 2012
Marie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes ~ the same ol' same ol gets boring.
Tell me about it. After all the skeptics are only refuting the same old excuses the alarmist like bozo put forth. I think I could program a bot to handle them all day long. Of course if you want to change things then feel free to present something new.
Fun Facts

United States

#23668 Feb 28, 2012
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I always agreed that cold bodies do not "warm up" hotter bodies.
However, its also true that hotter bodies cool more slowly when the temperature differential between them and their surroundings is smaller.
Sorry that you are too stupid to understand this distinction, and that its this scenario that applies to the GHG.
A hot body cools more slowly when the surroundings (i.e atmosphere in this case) are say 20 degrees less than it, compared to when they are 40 degrees less, all else being equal. Therefore at any given time it is WARMER than it otherwise would be. That does not mean the cooler surroundings "heated it up", you moron.
Wrap a hot teapot in an insulating cover and it COOLS MORE SLOWLY. Did the insulator "heat it up"????? NO. Is it warmer than it otherwise would be? YES.
This is interesting. But gords question is still valid. How does cooling more slowly cause warming?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kansas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, Constitutio... (Oct '10) Jul 27 Chilli J 6,126
News Kansas facing bigger fights over schools after ... Jul 26 kuda is a koo koo 6
News 25 years on, disabilities act has changed lives... (Jul '15) Jul 26 Divorce Lawyer 5
News History trail promotes African-American heritag... Jul 25 Well Hung Whitey 5
News Judge to monitor Kansas' actions on gay marriag... Jul 25 Gremlin 28
News How racism came to be called a mental illness a... Jun '16 Jaimie 7
News Homes damaged but small town spared after Kansa... May '16 Cheddar Cheese 1
More from around the web