Global Warming Cont...

[Bill Pup60]

Soared above 13,000?? The Dow was just below 12,000 in Jan 2000. Thats a whopping 9.23% over 7+ years. Hardly soaring.

Oh, and the economy grew at its slowest pace in over 4 years last qtr.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/27/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

As for your Global Warming dribble, well, your nonsense speaks for yourself.

Well Alta......

The Dow NEVER reached 12,000 in 2000. By then we were well on our way into the Clinton recession, helped along by the dot com bubble burst.

As far as the economy vis a vis growth, you spoke a litle too quickly. Results reported today show that first quarter growth for the Dow and S&P 500 companies was about 7%, a far cry from the 4th quarter performance.

So go drool on yourself with your own inane dribble!

[dawg80]

Well. alta, you have been asked twice to reveal the location of the "magic spot" and your lack of response is deafening!!!

You posted that as a defense for your argument and even claimed that another poster was "ignorant" because apparently he was unaware of this on-going magic spot temp. measurement. If that is all you, or any GW advocate, have as scientific evidence to support your claim, then wow!

So, again, I ask, where is this magic spot?

Where is the ONE spot on Earth that is statisically representative of the rest of the planet? It is truly a MAGIC spot!

Gotta luv these pseudo-scientists....

[Bigdog13]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269033,00.html

[CARTEK]

Soared above 13,000?? The Dow was just below 12,000 in Jan 2000. Thats a whopping 9.23% over 7+ years. Hardly soaring.

Oh, and the economy grew at its slowest pace in over 4 years last qtr.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/27/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

As for your Global Warming dribble, well, your nonsense speaks for yourself.

Then I guess my portfolio hasn't grown by 60% since 2003...damn and I thought I was doing well.

Oh, and unemployment is so high my company (and many others) must be using poor hiring practices because we can't get all these unemployed souls to apply for work with us.

...some people are just in denial, while others are just dumb as rocks...which are you alta?

[Dawgbitten]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269033,00.html

Bigdog, most everyone has ignored William Gray. He is an idiot in the same vein as Senator Inofe from Oklahoma or however you spell that idiots name.

Those two clowns use their status to downplay man's role in GW every chance they get.

[Bill Pup60]

Bigdog, most everyone has ignored William Gray. He is an idiot in the same vein as Senator Inofe from Oklahoma or however you spell that idiots name.

Those two clowns use their status to downplay man's role in GW every chance they get.

Oh is that right?? I guess everyone who dares to disagree with the CGW's dogma is an idiot. Is that what you're saying?

What is your basis for saying Gray is an idiot???????

[Dawgbitten]

[quote=Bill Pup60;475206]Oh is that right?? I guess everyone who dares to disagree with the CGW's dogma is an idiot. Is that what you're saying?

What is your basis for saying Gray is an idiot???????[/quote]

Because he is an idiot.

[Bill Pup60]

[quote=Dawgbitten;475207]

Oh is that right?? I guess everyone who dares to disagree with the CGW's dogma is an idiot. Is that what you're saying?

What is your basis for saying Gray is an idiot???????[/quote]

Because he is an idiot.

Just because YOU say so????????????????????? What are your qualifications in this area compared to his????????

[Guisslapp]

[quote=Bill Pup60;475208]

Just because YOU say so????????????????????? What are your qualifications in this area compared to his????????

Dawgbitten has made it quite clear that he is an expert on idiocy. As they say "it takes one to know one." :icon_wink:

[Bigdog13]

[quote=Dawgbitten;475207]

Oh is that right?? I guess everyone who dares to disagree with the CGW's dogma is an idiot. Is that what you're saying?

What is your basis for saying Gray is an idiot???????[/quote]

Because he is an idiot.

Wow, you make a compelling argument.

[Bigdog13]

Bigdog, most everyone has ignored William Gray. He is an idiot in the same vein as Senator Inofe from Oklahoma or however you spell that idiots name.

Those two clowns use their status to downplay man's role in GW every chance they get.

I see, so they are kind of like Al Gore who likes to inject mans role into global warming every chance that he gets.

[Dawgbitten]

[quote=Bill Pup60;475208]

Just because YOU say so????????????????????? What are your qualifications in this area compared to his????????

There are references all through these 112 pages proving the man's insanity. Research yourself.

[Bill Pup60]

There are references all through these 112 pages proving the man's insanity. Research yourself.

What 112 pages are you referring to???? this thread???????

You need to be more specific. Otherwise you come off sounding like a typical liberal who can't back up their wild claims.............

[saltydawg]

^ BillPup, with your high education in Engineering, do you think you are capable of figuring out what the
Earth's average global temperature would be if all CO2 were eleiminated from the atmosphere? After all, it's a 2nd year college question.

I asked our scientist buddy to do it but so far no respond.

Since I have returned to the Bible-Belt, I feel an urgent need to answer this question.

Net solar radiation entering the atmsphere is 240 watts per square meter. At a CO2 level of 280 ppm in the atmosphere, thermal radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere is balanced at 240 watts per square meter. The average surface temperature (T3) equals 15C.

Removing all CO2 from the atmosphere would increase thermal radiation from the top of the atmosphere to 265 watts per square meter, given current planetary conditions.

T3 would be reduced by 7.2C. Reduction in the other other greenhouse gases would further reduce T3 by 8C so T3 equals -.08C.

However, because of the huge drop in T3, large areas of the planet's surface that are now ice-free would become covered by ice 12 months of the year. Thermal radiation from the top of the atmosphere would increase further and decrease T3 to about -8C.

[Bill Pup60]

Since I have returned to the Bible-Belt, I feel an urgent need to answer this question.

Net solar radiation entering the atmsphere is 240 watts per square meter. At a CO2 level of 280 ppm in the atmosphere, thermal radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere is balanced at 240 watts per square meter. The average surface temperature (T3) equals 15C.

Removing all CO2 from the atmosphere would increase thermal radiation from the top of the atmosphere to 265 watts per square meter, given current planetary conditions.

T3 would be reduced by 7.2C. Reduction in the other other greenhouse gases would further reduce T3 by 8C so T3 equals -.08C.

However, because of the huge drop in T3, large areas of the planet's surface that are now ice-free would become covered by ice 12 months of the year. Thermal radiation from the top of the atmosphere would increase further and decrease T3 to about -8C.

And exactly what is the source for your very far reaching "calculations". Give us your references. Or do you not record those when you cut and paste this stuff?