More Global Warming

Looks like Global Warming is making a big comeback:

Accuweather
A blizzard will wind down across northern New England and the St. Lawrence Valley today. However, strong winds will whip across the entire Northeast. Blowing and drifting of snow will cause more trouble for motorists.

al-Reuters
Heavy snow hit Beijing on Sunday, stranding thousands of passengers at the main airport and casting an unusual quiet over normally busy streets as people stayed out of the freezing weather.

Telegraph UK
Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.

CBS2 Chicago
A man whose body was found in a park on Chicago’s South Side is Cook County’s fourth confirmed cold-related death.

Eyewitness News 9
Forecasters say the coldest stretch of weather in years if not decades could be heading for North Carolina.

Thank God all those people went to Copenhagen last month to fix this problem. If they had not met we might be melting right now.

At least the Pope is on board with the need to stop Global Warming:

Pope Benedict used his traditional New Year address on Friday to call on people to change their lifestyles to save the planet, saying environmental responsibility was essential for global peace.

Blizzards, ice, freezing temperatures, people freezing to death (in Obama’s hometown no less); thank God Al Gore and the minions stopped the Earth from warming.

Hey Al, looks like the planet no longer has a fever.

You can thank me, I dumped Tylenol down the storm drain.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

62 Responses to “More Global Warming”

  1. Darrel says:

    Apparently there are couple topics you should avoid lest you make a fool of yourself. Healthcare, global warming and morality. Oh, and Constitutional matters.

    Ironically, you think you are a genius in these areas.

    Regarding climate change (not weather):

    “The globe recorded its fourth warmest November since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated November 2009 as the warmest November on record, beating the 2001 record by 0.02°C. NOAA classified the year-to-date period, January – November 2009, as the fifth warmest such period on record. The November satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the warmest on record according to the University of Alabama Huntsville data set, or fifth warmest, according to the RSS data set.

    Warmest November on record for Southern Hemisphere land areas

    Southern Hemisphere land areas had their warmest November on record including Australia, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. November was 1.87°C (3.4°F) above average in Australia, and several statewide records were broken, with New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania, surpassing the previous largest maximum temperature anomaly recorded for an Australian state. The highest minimum temperature record for the continent was also broken, with an anomaly of 1.61°C (2.90°F) above average.

    Third warmest November on record for the U.S.

    For the contiguous U.S., the average November temperature was 4.0°F above average, making it the 3rd warmest November in the 115-year record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. That’s a pretty remarkable swing from October, which was the third coldest October on record. Delaware experienced its warmest November on record, Wisconsin and New Jersey their second warmest, and five states had their third warmest November (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, and North Dakota). Eighteen other states had an average temperature that ranked in the top ten. No states had below normal temperatures for the month.”

    http://www.wunderground.com/climate/

    All standard stuff, very basic, easy to understand. You lost the GW debate years ago. Smart GW deniers now know it is best to go with the line of “we can’t do anything about it” or “we can’t afford to do anything about it.” The line of “it isn’t happening” is just plain, objectively, completely, false.

    Again, every single global warming denier argument you have ever put forward, including the above crapola, is carefully dismantled in this short and well referenced article in Scientific American.

    November 30, 2009

    Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense.

    If you want to speak seriously about this subject, you need to deal that material. Yet you don’t even try.

    D.
    ————
    “All scientific bod[ies] of national or international standing [agree with] the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
    Link

    • Big Dog says:

      Evidently there are many items that you know nothing about. Funny, you keep telling me about the difference between climate and weather and then use the weather recorded in one month to talk about climate. If it is a one month trend then it is weather. Otherwise there is no difference between the warmest month on record and a 3 week cold spell that sets records or a once in a century or decade or whatever event.

      Your messiah Al Gore says that Hurricane Katrina is the result of global warming and then when there is a season with very few and all mild hurricanes this is discounted. A month is a climate reading for you if it is warm but not one if it is cold.

      The reality is your side cooked the books. The data was manufactured. CO2 is not a harmful gas, it is necessary for life. Plants need it and we need plants to produce O2 for us. The CO2 level has remained the same for the last 150 years.

      Climate has changed in cycles since the beginning of time. We have seen this over and over. Over 100 years ago there were cries of global warming and then in the 70s there were cries of global cooling and mini ice ages (in some scientific groups) and calls for warming by others with still others showing an indifference. In other words, they did not know. Over 100 years ago we were melting but we are still here and the CO2 has not changed.

      Face it, your guys cooked the books. The numbers were manipulated and the “scientists” tried to hide the decline. It is what they said. It is a hoax.

      But, even if there is the slightest bit of change we cannot make a difference that is worth the money spent.

      Darrel, perhaps you should stay away from health care and global warming because, as you say, numbers can be jiggered.

      As for the Constitution, I know what it says and how it works. I don’t need a non natural born citizen telling me about it. I was probably learning about it before you were born.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “then [you] use the weather recorded in one month to talk about climate.”>>

        DAR
        Did you miss the word “globe” in the following?

        “The globe recorded its fourth warmest November since record keeping began…”

        Apparently. This was in response to your nonsense about cold winter WEATHER in some areas. Oh, and the more data you look at, for the globe, the worst it gets for you.

        Bigd: “Al Gore says that Hurricane Katrina is the result of global warming…”>>

        DAR
        No he didn’t. In fact he specifically ruled that out when he said: “any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming.”

        Jonah Goldberg misrepresented Gore’s comments about Hurricane Katrina.

        You keep reaching these ridiculous conclusions because over and over we find your premises are based on falsehoods and lies.

        Bigd: “The CO2 level has remained the same for the last 150 years.”>>

        DAR
        Absurd and not remotely controversial. Note:

        “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

        Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.”

        Link

        The fact that that Co2 warms the earth, and the knowledge of how it does this has not been controversial for 130 years.

        Now I check your link. This is a misstatement of Mr Wolfgang Knorr’s work. Remember what I told you about relying upon reporters? Looking at the abstract of his study I see it is entitled:

        “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?”

        It has to do with how fast the CO2 we humans have caused is being released from the oceans. It was published a three weeks ago. We’ll see how it holds up. Let’s check back in a bit eh?

        Bigd: “As for the Constitution,… I don’t need a non natural born citizen telling me about it.”>>

        DAR
        Oh, it’s even better than that. I’ve never even read it. Yet I still end up teaching you about it. Pretty amazing really.

        D.

      • Darrel says:

        Let’s give this one another kick:

        Bigd: “The CO2 level has remained the same for the last 150 years.

        DAR
        No one claims that, including your link. Realclimate has your debunk:

        ***
        “Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly), led in no small part by a misleading headline (subsequently fixed) on the ScienceDaily news item.” [Bigd’s Link above]

        Update: MT/AH point out the headline came from an AGU press release (Sigh…). SkepticalScience has a good discussion of the details including some other recent work by Le Quéré and colleagues.”

        Link.

        D.

    • Blake says:

      Darrel, you should just avoid conversation- you’re catching flies.
      Global Warming my butt- “everything is carefully dismantled …” yeah, right- the bald truth is that your side, (the crapola people with the incriminating E- mails) knows nothing.
      When you skew data as your side has constantly done (not just in AGW data, but in EVERYTHING THEY UTTER), you begin to look foolish to anyone with a brain and a window to look out of-
      The data is NOT settled, your side has more, MUCH more to do, and you all need to quit lying- it really makes you look bad, and rather stupid also.
      We have had these discussions before, and you stick with the same lies and falsified data you began with, because frankly, you have nothing else.
      We can argue about Man’s influence on the Earth, and I can agree that there are things we should do, but to base an economic policy on flawed data, just because it appears to lean in your favor, is not doing the country ANY good at all.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “truth is that your side,… knows nothing.>>

        DAR
        So I have a choice, go with the straightforward science (that is easy to check) accepted by 97% of the research scientists in the world working on this, or I can dismiss all of them, and go with… Blake and a couple free market worshippers with near zero understanding of science.

        I think you can understand, it’s not a close call.

        BLK: “to base an economic policy”>>

        DAR
        I have never said anything, not a word, about economic policy in my discussions about the science of climate change. I don’t talk about what we could do, or should do, ever. I talk about the science.

        If you have a good argument showing why all of the experts are wrong, I would very much like to see it. Try to make it something that, as Adam says, can’t be debunked in a minute.

        I dare ya.

        D.

        • Blake says:

          Been there, done that, got the t- shirt-
          You “Gliberal Progressives” are funny, always good for a laugh, kind of like the drunk uncle at a reunion.
          Don’t worry, in2010, we will prop you in a corner til you sober up.

  2. Jack Mildam says:

    Looks like another has confused weather with climate.

  3. Jack Mildam says:

    [Redacted]
    Jack, you come to my place you have some respect. You don’t come here and call me those names, you are not speaking with your wife.

    P.S. Great response from Darrel.

  4. Adam says:

    It’s like the blather of children when it comes to your global warming denial. At least give us something good to debate on the subject.

  5. Doug says:

    Good response, Darrel. Yes, it seems that the extremist conservative, anti-education, tea-party crowd works hard to be misinformed on all subjects they hold near and dear to their hearts. As Jack said, weather is not climate, and global warming is not a winter-free future. But try telling that to the Global Warming Deniers. They hate the facts, because the facts are liberal, right?

  6. Adam says:

    In other news it looks like the Ravens are going to the playoffs. I’ll be rooting for the Cowboys I guess or maybe the Ravens if the Cowboys don’t make it. I don’t care a whole lot for football but I like to watch the standings lately…

    • Big Dog says:

      If the Ravens play like they have been they will be one and done. I think we have a chance against NE. We nearly beat them earlier and Brady is injured. Welker is done but we will be playing there and the weather is brutal.

      As long as the Steelers are not there I am good. Don’t tell Surfside I said that, they are her favorite team.

  7. Big Dog says:

    No, the joke is on the people who refuse to see that there are people who agree and those who do not and that many scientists are questioning the issue.

    But like someone said, if scientists were getting government money to prove that unicorns existed we would be getting data showing that they were once here just to keep the money coming in.

    Hockey stick hoax, data hoax, Russians saying that their data is not used, all leads to fraud.

    HOAX say it again HOAX. It will get easier over time.

    • Adam says:

      Yes, a hoax perpetrated by the following scientific bodies:

      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
      Royal Society of Canada
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Academie des Sciences (France)
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
      Indian National Science Academy
      Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
      Science Council of Japan
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society (United Kingdom)
      National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
      Australian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Irish Academy
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia
      Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

      But what do these scientific bodies know anyway right? It’s all a big fat conspiracy…

      • Blake says:

        Its a blatant bid to get money for themselves- and by this they reveal themselves to be whores-they CAN be bought, it’s just the haggling over the price that is the sticking point.
        Reminds me of a court case, where each side presents their “paid expert”- and each says diametrically opposing testimony- who does the jusy believe?
        Well, if one says that the crime was committed because of the unusaually warm temps, and the other says this is not so- then the jury goes out into a blizzard, who might they believe? The theories of the “warmer”, or the snow in their face?

  8. Big Dog says:

    So the climate is changing all over, colder in some places and warming in others. That would make sense since climate has done this for eons. We know this is a cyclical pattern and sometime in the future it will be cooler and then warmer. We had all kinds of this and it was really hot a long time ago before man was here using SUVs and fossil fuels.

    Can’t look back that far though because it would be more difficult to hide the trend.

    Yes, I deny it because it is a hoax.

  9. Big Dog says:

    It has nothing to do with relying on anyone, it has to do with no proof. It is speculation based upon manipulated data by people perpetrating a HOAX.

    It is a hoax, plain and simple. And you should know because you acknowledge that data can be jiggered and the “scientists” told us that is what they were doing.

    No Darrel, CO2 is necessary, it is not warming us and it was many many times higher a long time ago (back farther than your scientists go when they want to hide the decline). It was really high and we had an ice age.

    It is natural and it will not do anything to us. And even if it did the amount we could change the temperature is minuscule and does not warrant the cost.

    But libs like to throw money at problems even ones that do not exist.

    There is no man mad global warming. It is a hoax.

    • Adam says:

      I linked a website that destroys every one of your silly little childish lies about this “hoax” called global warming but you probably forgot to click it. It might bring your denial arguments up to levels more appropriate for adult conversation.

      • Big Dog says:

        You linked to a site that is written by the same uninformed people like you who are so arrogant that you think man can affect the climate and that man has the ability to change the climate. Like I said, even if we could it would be fractions of a degree and it would not be worth the trillions they want to spend.

        In ten years things will be good just like they have for the past 125 years that people have been screaming about global warming.

        • Adam says:

          Obviously you didn’t read the website since it deals with your next set of arguments which is that we can’t affect the climate, fractions of a degree don’t matter, blah blah. Come on now. Just click the link and inform yourself. You know you want to…

          • Big Dog says:

            I have read this pap before. This is like if I had Bush write a website about the war on terror and why you needed to support it and then told you to read it so you could learn.

            You stuff is a bunch of GW alarmists who want to pushh the agenda.

            • Adam says:

              If I was in a minority with my lack of support for the wars you might have a point. You’re in the minority who still carry water for Bush over the WMD lies, and the inability to catch bin Laden. I’m in a majority who knows we were duped and hope that Obama can refocus the wars in order to actually accomplish substantial goals in fighting terrorism instead of talking tough and wearing the cowboy hat to start the wars to make your friends and business partners rich.

              As far as global warming goes you are in the minority again blaming it all on some massive world conspiracy to mislead us and control us and make a few key players rich. I’m fine with not believing in global warming if you at least present an argument that isn’t shot through with holes after 1 minute of research on the subject.

            • Blake says:

              How do you know the WMDs are lies? I mean seriously- the only thing we know for certain, is that they have not yet been found- not that they were never there.
              As a matter of fact, we know that at one time, they WERE there, because both the Kurds and Iranis can tell you so.

            • Adam says:

              Sure, we don’t know 100% for sure, but let’s just take George W. Bush at his word when he says the weapons were not there:

              Now, look, I — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

              We know they were there because we sold them to Iraq to fight Iran. That’s just one more thing that made Reagan the best president of the US ever.

            • Darrel says:

              BLK: “the only thing we know for certain, is that they [WMD] have not yet been found”>>

              DAR
              Blake, still holding out hope. Wow.

            • Adam says:

              Maybe the weapons were moved to Yemen? Let’s bomb and kill and torture some Muslims there like Blake loves. Who would Jesus torture?

            • Blake says:

              U do not care for the “angels on a pin” argument- Personally, I do not care if we kill all the terrorists in Gitmo- it doesn’t bother me, just a few less- and the old chestnut that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for jihadis is lame- there have been PLENTY of terrorist actions well before Gitmo.
              Besides, which is more cruel, to keep a desert dwelling person in a concrete cell where the avg. winter temp. is 13? Or where it is 78?

            • Blake says:

              Excuse me- thick fingers- “I” should be the first word here.

            • Blake says:

              No D- just being realistic, with out the liberal spin you put on things- my statement is factually correct in all ways-
              Iraq is the size of California- imagine if you can how hard it might be to find a couple of dozen Gallon paint cans buried in California, filled with toxins- and we know California- it is our country.
              Now imagine this in an enemy country we know little of, with a population that might not care to co operate. It might be even harder to find this cache, wouldn’t you think?

  10. Big Dog says:

    According to the Associated Press?

    Darrel, I would be careful relying on reporters for your information…

  11. Big Dog says:

    Scientific American. Yep, has all the answers. Hide that decline and manipulate the data. Have to prove the unicorns exist to keep getting research money. If you say there are no unicorns you have to get a real job.

  12. Big Dog says:

    The confusion is from people who think CO2 is harmful. It has been around since the beginning of time and was hundreds of times higher during the last ice age. It is not a problem.

    Also, if the CO2 is being absorbed then it is not at increased levels.

    In any event, it is a harmless gas.

  13. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “The CO2 level has remained the same for the last 150 years.”>>

    DAR
    Just for the record:

    “…atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.”

    Skeptical Science.

    There is the category of being wrong, then there is being really really wrong, and then there is the Bigd level of being wrong.

    D.

  14. Big Dog says:

    So we can agree that there are racists of all stripes. Glad we got that out of the way. Liberals today are not the liberals of the past. That use to be somewhat honorable but now, it is a step away from Mao, Marx and living the Alinsky dream.

    As for bravado:

    As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.” Times UK

    Obama was full of it when debating and trying to win the job. I carry no water, I just know that the elected leaders of this country committed our troops to war. It is their duty to support those troops. If you are going to go in then go big and go to win. If we are not in it to win it then bring them home but quit with the half assed support.

    Your points are right out of the DNC talking points memo. None of it is true but keep screaming it and maybe someone will pay attention.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Mr Obama said: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.” Times UK>>

      DAR
      Let’s compare this with your guy:

      “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
      – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

      ” I’ll repeat what I said. I am truly not that concerned about him.”
      – G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

      “Uhh—Gosh, I —don’t think I ever said I’m not
      worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations.”
      — Bush-Kerry Debate, Tempe, AZ, 10/13/2004.

      Now Obama says he is going to get him. Well, it’s early. When his eight years are through we will see how he did. We know how Bush did.

      Bigd: Obama was full of it when debating and trying to win the job. I carry no water>>

      DAR
      You carry no water? Come on now! All you do is carry water but you end up spilling almost all of it.

      D.

      • Blake says:

        Nobumma couldn’t find his but with both hands and a GPS- and he has no fortitude- he just says what he thinks people want to hear, and he changes his position so frequently that you might think he has “Restless Ego syndrome”- he is useless, clueless, and gutless.

        • Darrel says:

          And yet, he beat the pants off of the best guy your team could scrape together.

        • Blake says:

          No, that is a fallacy- he beat, (barely, considering he had the wind at his back) the person that the Republicans put forth, but not the person the conservatives might have chosen.
          Still, he did win, but he doesn’t know how to govern- therefore, we have obviously elected an incompetent.

  15. Big Dog says:

    Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current ‘guesstimations’ of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol’s irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now? Junk Science

    The most productive periods in history have been when it is warm. Ice ages are more harmful. Let it get warm but you might need a lot more of something besides CO2 to do it.

    Maybe they measured the wrong tree when they picked one to measure.

    • Darrel says:

      [BD quote]”…why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now? Junk Science”>>

      DAR
      Because, as I just referenced:

      “…atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.”

      Now let’s look at your “source,” Junk Science. An article with no footnotes other than reference to something slapped together by “Christopher Scotese.” With the spiral binding format it looks very much like the first GW denier material I ever debunked in ’06 (it was put together by a sea captain). Is your guy a climatologist? Of course not. A paleontologist. That’s nice. Is it a peer reviewed article? Of course not. It doesn’t have any footnotes. Truly junk science.

      Now you seem to take comfort in this claim:

      “the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today…”

      When was that? 450 million years ago. How is that applicable to life today? It isn’t. Unless you’re into mass extinctions. There are arguments about earth’s temperature a 1,000 years ago but the best science says we are probably hotter now. Go back half a billion years and our knowledge of the precise temperature drops considerably, understandably. So you have a lot of unsourced blather passed along in a unpeer reviewed article written by someone with no training in climate science. Useless.

      Let’s review, since you like to keep changing the subject and slapping up more poo rather than acknowledging your howling errors.

      a) You quote a bunch of cherry picked weather reports.

      Refuted even by current global climate reports never mind long term measurements (which is what matters).

      b) You pass along a lie about Al Gore.

      Time to debunk, less than a minute.

      c) You claim “The CO2 level has remained the same for the last 150 years.”

      But no one remotely knowledgeable about such things even in the denialsphere would go along with that nonsense. That’s just embarrassingly false.

      d) You cite a legitimate scientific article by Wolfgang Knorr, in support of your Co2 claim.

      But it turns out to be based upon a poorly worded headline. Mr. Knorr wouldn’t remotely agree with your claim (no scientist would) and your link did not support your claim.

      Maybe someday you will post something interesting about climate change instead of this terrible misinformation.

      D.
      —————-
      Graph of CO2 increase showing an increase of 70 ppm since 1960.

    • Darrel says:

      Oh this is rich. I was snooping around Mr. Scotese’s main intro page on Global Warming. Note:

      “This site last updated October 4, 1998”

      So he’s up to date too!

  16. Big Dog says:

    Yeah Darrel, yeah. We shall see. Hoax, remember you heard here, hoax.

    And what did I say about Al Gore that was a lie?

    Took a bit to respond, I had to start a fire to keep warm. I wanted to burn stuff to get the CO2 content up so I could get warm.

    I was breathing faster to help but got lightheaded.

    CO2, a harmless gas. End of story.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “what did I say about Al Gore that was a lie?”>>

      DAR
      http://www.onebigdog.net/more-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-145720

      Bigd: “wanted to burn stuff to get the CO2 content up”>>

      DAR
      I am burning lots of wood, it’s all we heat with. But that’s fine, trees are part of the carbon cycle. It’s 13 degrees out.

      Bigd: “I was breathing faster to help but got lightheaded.”>>

      DAR
      I noticed.

      Bigd: CO2, a harmless gas. End of story.”>>

      DAR
      You should know better:

      “Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

      * 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2]

      * At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[42]

      * At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[42]. In addition at this concentration panic attacks may occur.[44][45]

      * At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[42]

      A natural disaster linked to CO2 intoxication occurred during the limnic eruptions in the CO2-rich lakes of Monoun and Nyos in the Okun range of North-West Cameroon: the gas was brutally expelled from the mountain lakes and leaked into the surrounding valleys, killing most animal forms. During the Lake Nyos tragedy of 1988, 1700 villagers and 3500 livestock died.”
      wiki

      DAR
      Harmless!

      Keep those softballs coming. Right down the center of the plate.

      D.

      • Blake says:

        Wow- you burn wood, and yet you say that Co2 is a poison? Well, good for you, D- you actually CAN raise your hypocrisy to a new level- and I did not have that much confidence in you – I should have known better.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “you burn wood, and yet you say that Co2 is a poison?”>>

          DAR
          I have never said CO2 “is a poison.” It is a trace gas that has significant importance in regulating how much energy get’s trapped in the earth’s atmosphere.

          BLK: Well, good for you, D- you actually CAN raise your hypocrisy to a new level>>

          DAR
          Little grasshopper, please understand that tree’s represent a very short carbon cycle. The trees I am burning cycle on about 20-30 years. That is, they capture carbon from the atmosphere, then they fall down and die and release their carbon, either slowly as they rot, or quickly as they warm my home. The wood that I am burning now and for the next three years is wood I gathered during our ice storm last year. Twenty 24 tons. Wood that was doomed either way. Trees growing and storing carbon right now, will in 20 years or so, be used as firewood by me.

          Regardless of where I get the wood, the short carbon cycle is not comparable to us taking trillions of barrels of oil, and trillions tons of coal that is millions of years old (long carbon cycle) and releasing all of that carbon into the atmosphere over mere decades.

          No, comparison.

          D.

  17. Big Dog says:

    I don’t spill water I pour it. I like waterboarding.

    Obama also said it was not important to get bin Laden. Since Adam was making a comparative case about Bush’s bravado compared to Mr. Cool, I pointed out the same bravado.

    Bush answered honestly, he did not know where he was.

    Point is, Obama is not different and he did not bring change. He is the typical politician and I have no use for any of them.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Obama also said it was not important to get bin Laden.”>>

      DAR
      Let me check. What he actually said:

      “My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him,” he said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

      So refreshing to have a president that can speak clearly. Nice try.

      Bigd: “Obama is not different and he did not bring change.”>>

      DAR
      It’s early. Hope for the best. Bush really brought change, maybe Obama can turn this around:

      “Lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

      The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity…

      There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.”
      Link

      D.

  18. Big Dog says:

    Maybe he has a new website somewhere.

  19. Big Dog says:

    Of course Darrel, anything can be a poison, even water or oxygen (the dose makes the poison). CO2, in the concentrations discussed is harmless. It is harmless as an atmospheric gas.

  20. Big Dog says:

    If the O2 level in the auditorium changes as well then there is no problem, harmless. I was unaware we were talking about concentrating things in confined spaces.

    CO2 is not the problem, global alarmists are.

  21. Big Dog says:

    They were moved to Syria and Jesus tortures liberals. The mention of his name drives them nuts especially if one says it in a government building, you know a building owned by the people.

    Let a kid carry a Bible to school and they go nuts and God forbid a kid should pray in school. Yep, Jesus tortures liberals.