Fraud called "Global Warming"

[Lord Arumen]

^ What????

[Fancykiller65]

^ What????

ban who? huh? Hi ppl.

[Lord Arumen]

I just want to point out something.

Throughout history, everywhere, with all people, the one lowest common denominator is fear.
Fore some reason, humans need to fear. That is true still in this day and age.
When we have no reasons to fear, we find some. When we can't find enough, we invent some.
Same with hatred. We just need to hate our fellow humans. And we find reasons. And invent more.

Today, it's the whole "We are destroying the planet!! We are unworthy of even existing!!!" thing. (I'm hyperbolic here, people.)

Before, we weren't paying due respect to God, or the Gods, and were making Him /Them angry...

In the future, we'll find something else.

We always do.

Agreed Wildor, we are no worse off than we have always been.

[Dawnseeker]

Ok, are you people familiar with what Temperature actually is? CO2 does absorb energy. If it did not absorb any energy, we would not have weather because that would mean no gasses absorb energy. Now, as for why its called a greenhouse gas is because of the way energy is transferred.

Like any gas, CO2 can be any temperature. For instance, today in my area, the CO2 is about 68 degrees, because thats the temperature of the air. Obviously, all gases (and all matter) absorb and emit energy. The important thing to note is that it is "absorb and emit," not just absorb.

Energy transfers through 3 ways. You have convection, conduction and radiation. Now the only way that energy can leave the earth's atmosphere iss through radiation (the other 2 energy transfers require a medium for the energy to pass to.) All particles release radiation energy, yet when you increase the number of particles, the amount of radiation energy leaving the Earth doesn't increase because it's reliant on surface area and not volume. So the energy is building up slowly while only a constant energy loss can be expected.

That's not how the greenhouse effect works at all. As the amount of greenhouse gases increase, they trap more heat during the day, because there are more molecules trapping the heat. Its very simple; surface area and volume equations have nothing to do with it.

As for land, we lose more land then we gain through Global warming. Rodri's post have appeared to be the best informed on this.

Once again, there is absolutely no data to support this. We know for a fact that only a slight rise in surface temperature would create vast tracts of arable land in current regions which can't support it due to permafrost. The "lost" land would be due to "desert creep" which is caused primarily by human activity (not temperature) and sea level rise, if you believe that will happen.

The truth is that there is not nearly enough ice above the waterline on the planet to raise the sea level more than a few inches. Much of the ice is actually below the waterline, so if you assume all the ice melts, the ice below the waterline would melt as well. If you wonder why this is important, fill a glass with ice and then fill it to the brim with water. Wait for the ice to melt and come back. The water level has gone down, not up. Water expands when frozen.

[Rota]

Actually a major melt will not be just a "few inches" It will be many feet.

The Earth won't flood over, of course. Thinking the land will all be under water is insane.
But every coast city will have to create levy systems like New Orleans or get swallowed up.

[Dawnseeker]

Actually a major melt will not be just a "few inches" It will be many feet.

The Earth won't flood over, of course, but every coast city will have to create levy systems like New Orleans or get swallowed up.

Once again, there is no data to support that.

[Lord Arumen]

Actually a major melt will not be just a "few inches" It will be many feet.

The Earth won't flood over, of course. Thinking the land will all be under water is insane.
But every coast city will have to create levy systems like New Orleans or get swallowed up.

Rota, Dawn is right. It wouldn't be that much since most of what would melt is already underwater.

[Rota]

Once again, there is no data to support that.

Well with the new scanning devices they have that penetrate ice, they are currently mapping the actual surface of Antarctica. This means the exact thickness of the ice sitting on top of the surface is now measurable.

Since the volume of the ice is measurable, and we know how much volume of water that would produce if it melted, and we have an excellent topography of the Earths surface ... there is actual data to support that.

[Lord Arumen]

Prove to me that 2+2=4

I can prove the 2+2=4. 2 is a value and so is 4. Math is not theory. Math is fact.

[Rota]

"Math" is not a theory. Math is fact, just as Arumen said.

Math is not a science, but it is the language of science. Since math is fact, it is used to prove or disprove scientific theories.

Math does not need tangible evidence (although there is countless tangible proofs of various math equations).
Math IS tangible evidence