On 4/23/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry (wishing he had a detachable penis)
Hell no, you'd put it down somewhere and lose it.
Actually, for the purposes of scientific argument, bollocks is much preferred.
P.
- Original Message
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:27:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW
Balls!
On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past
erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***.
Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity
continues to
Finally, the Europeans move into the cutting edge of
renewable fuel
http://www.algaefuels.org/
This is likely the inspiration for the European
knock-off bioreactor
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/algae.html
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past
erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***.
Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past
erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given duration***.
Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor, Duration. IOW, humanity
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past
erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given
duration***. Oddly enough you're missing a huge factor,
Thomas, so what?
Are you saying you have no doubt that man can pollute unchecked and be
assured no impact on the climate?
Even if you did why should pollution and oil be supported, even in your
right wing view of the world shouldn't Oil be given up for an alternative
energy?
Are you trying to
I knew that Volcaino sh*t was bunk, thanks for finding the evidence.
On 4/25/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
John Berry wrote:
I think what you meant to say is that volcanoes have in the past
erupted to produce more CO2 than humanity ***for a given
duration***. Oddly enough you're
Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon dioxide 0.038%
Water vapor 1%
Other 0.002%
CO2 content has increased 0.008% in my lifetime.
I must be missing something.
Terry
Terry Blanton wrote:
Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon dioxide 0.038%
Water vapor 1%
Other 0.002%
CO2 content has increased 0.008% in my lifetime.
I must be missing something.
Terry
Then I calculate you to be ~2.2 years old, LOL.
Kind of slow spring day IOW ... Surf's Up !!
Wiki mentions Deep Ocean storage of CO2.
The following is all theoretical bogosity - but it is
true that at sufficiently high pressure, which in the
ocean corresponds to around 500 meters depth: CO2 in
the presence of water - i.e. CO2+ 2 H2O is
On 4/24/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I calculate you to be ~2.2 years old, LOL.
Maybe mentally. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Half way down. In 1960 CO2 was 310 ppm. Now it's 380 ppm. This
causes drastic changes in climate?!?
Terry
Terry Blanton wrote:
Half way down. In 1960 CO2 was 310 ppm. Now it's 380 ppm. This
causes drastic changes in climate?!?
Yes, it does.
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry
Blanton quoted here in 2005:
Imagine the composition of the Earth's atmosphere as
On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry
Blanton quoted here in 2005:
I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth
reflects multispectrum light back into the atmosphere. How many
photons
I wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that
Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005:
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that we should hold Terry responsible
for Crichton's comments. Not unless Terry is a ghostwriter and
Crighton pays him royalties . . .
- Jed
no, its increased as a fraction by that much.
its increased by 22.5 percent. (measurement of increase is against
itself, as a fraction, not the whole)
On 4/24/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon dioxide 0.038%
Water vapor 1%
Other
On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that
Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005:
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that we should hold Terry responsible
for Crichton's comments. Not unless Terry is a ghostwriter and
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry
Blanton quoted here in 2005:
I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth
reflects multispectrum light back
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, Terry wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry
Blanton quoted here in 2005:
I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth
reflects multispectrum light
The best explanation of global warming is in the movie _The Arrival_.
;-)
Harry
Thanks, Dr. Swartz. Interesting periodicity to the data.
Terry
On 4/24/07, Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, Terry wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry
Blanton
Dear Vo.,
If you get up in the morning and have made a great discovery.eg,
B. Josephson . and it works!!!
THEN later you find you have different beliefs. does this mean the
earlier work is no good???
The challenge to vo is to illustrate good work.
Huh? Heat are photons, too, right. I mean we aren't bumping
molecules together to get heat off the earth, are we?
I recently had a discussion on whether chloroflorocarbons are
greenhouse gases. They actually are. If you deplete the ozone layer,
you allow more UV in. Since the earth absorbs
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 4/24/07, Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I calculate you to be ~2.2 years old, LOL.
Maybe mentally. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Half way down. In 1960 CO2 was 310 ppm. Now it's 380 ppm. This
causes drastic changes in climate?!?
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that
Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005:
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that we should hold Terry responsible
for Crichton's comments. Not unless Terry is
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Dr. Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:00:23 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~a_geezer/Climate/Image5.gifP
Note that each of the highs presaged an ice age (if I'm not mistaken), and we
appear to be on the most recent
now, the mechanism is likely a global warming, causing ice cap melting
and a change in albedo, causeing cooling, leading to ice age, thats
the generally accepted mechanism. Its a form of control and cycle.
Will the co2 going beyond what it gets too normally in that cycle
change things? and how
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:06 PM
Wiki mentions Deep Ocean storage of CO2.
...
CO2 can be frozen easily in cold climates to dry
ice - which in half again denser than water, and will
then be able to sink, to any level, in
To all, and some in particular, and some not in particular
Please READ people's posts before posting replies. That means the whole
damned thing, whether or not you agree with it. If you do not take the time
to read the entire thing, either because you are too lazy to do so, or
because the
I couldnt be bothered to read youre whole post Kyle, becuase, frankly,
the whole thing disgusts me.
:D
just kidding.
and as a working class type person, I A. could care less about al gore
and his carbon credits, and B. could care less about the working class
as a whole having job and
Consider the free trade agreements of the last few decades.
In their absence would CO2 emissions be greater or lower
than they are now?
If lower, then the issue of global warming may favour the working
class in the US. For example if a manufacturing company is able to use
electricity not
34 matches
Mail list logo
