What is the Greenhouse Effect?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed: ...read the question....

GasGuzzler wrote:

gasguzzler, this is where I wonder if climate scientists with the IPCC really want CO2 emissions lowered. Without our ozone layer photosynthesis in plants will slow, plants will become diseased hurting food production, phytoplankton will decrease (start of the marine food chain), cancers will increase, etc.
And that would be as the ozone layer declines. As it recovers many ecosystems will improve. With CO2 it may be that the amount of increase in warming is not sufficient to be a viable threat, just might make things slightly warmer. This would explain why no scientists have verified how much extra heat CO2 causes atmospheric gases to absorb or "trap". elevated CO2 levels might primarily be a "symptom" and not the illness so to speak.
Often times it's what is not being said that matters most.

You mean like how the health dept wants everyone to quit smoking?....but the dirty little secret is that there are billions and billions of tax dollars generated by tobacco, and if they really wanted everyone to quit, they'd just make it illegal. Same with local gov traffic cameras. Our leaders tell us they are for public safety. BS, they're a cash cow. Are you saying the IPCC could be operating in the same way? How would the IPCC benefit from that? I honestly don't know the money trail if that organization. Money trails answer most questions. Cynical? Maybe.
Honestly the science of this ozone subject is a bit (way) over my head. I have learned a lot though reading your posts and the back and forth with others here. Slowly but surely I'm getting the education I squandered as a kid/young man.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: But what can you expect from an Indian.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

gasguzzler, this is where I wonder if climate scientists with the IPCC really want CO2 emissions lowered. Without our ozone layer photosynthesis in plants will slow, plants will become diseased hurting food production, phytoplankton will decrease (start of the marine food chain), cancers will increase, etc.
And that would be as the ozone layer declines. As it recovers many ecosystems will improve. With CO2 it may be that the amount of increase in warming is not sufficient to be a viable threat, just might make things slightly warmer. This would explain why no scientists have verified how much extra heat CO2 causes atmospheric gases to absorb or "trap". elevated CO2 levels might primarily be a "symptom" and not the illness so to speak.
Often times it's what is not being said that matters most.

You mean like how the health dept wants everyone to quit smoking?....but the dirty little secret is that there are billions and billions of tax dollars generated by tobacco, and if they really wanted everyone to quit, they'd just make it illegal. Same with local gov traffic cameras. Our leaders tell us they are for public safety. BS, they're a cash cow. Are you saying the IPCC could be operating in the same way? How would the IPCC benefit from that? I honestly don't know the money trail if that organization. Money trails answer most questions. Cynical? Maybe.
Honestly the science of this ozone subject is a bit (way) over my head. I have learned a lot though reading your posts and the back and forth with others here. Slowly but surely I'm getting the education I squandered as a kid/young man.

Gasguzzler,
With CO2 it might be more about saving face. It'd make scientists look bad for politicizing climate change. This means pursue science according to political wants rather than following where science leads them.
If you considered what Wake said about CO2 being an essential atmospheric gas he goes from saying no climate change is happening to saying I promote ignorance. It wasn't my report that stated that rising CO2 levels and stratospheric ozone are thought to be related by scientists with the IPCC.
And if I say improve carbon capture and seed the tropopause there will only be more sarcasm. CO2 has to be only bad or doesn't matter. Yet depending on where ozone is will determine if it's good or bad ozone. An experiment that I've been pursuing would in one aspect show CO2 is the same way.

...deleted non-sequitur link...

GasGuzzler wrote:

never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in its unearned hi skule DEE-plooma.

Why do continue with this line? When someone asks for your knowledge, you just tell them to go ask a scientist. Can you input anything besides what you copy and paste? Things you "learn" on CNN don't count.

GasGuzzler wrote:
What are you saying James? That the CO2 was just a theory that snowballed out of control until it was too late to reel it back in after all the hype? That the media loves doom and gloom and anything for more CNN viewers? And now that the solid evidence as not materialized as predicted there's nothing to do but run even harder with it to save face? I could buy that. Very plausible. No one enjoys being wrong....Although 18 years of marriage and I'm getting better at being wrong gracefully.

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

GasGuzzler wrote:
What are you saying James? That the CO2 was just a theory that snowballed out of control until it was too late to reel it back in after all the hype? That the media loves doom and gloom and anything for more CNN viewers? And now that the solid evidence as not materialized as predicted there's nothing to do but run even harder with it to save face? I could buy that. Very plausible. No one enjoys being wrong....Although 18 years of marriage and I'm getting better at being wrong gracefully.

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What are you saying James? That the CO2 was just a theory that snowballed out of control until it was too late to reel it back in after all the hype? That the media loves doom and gloom and anything for more CNN viewers? And now that the solid evidence as not materialized as predicted there's nothing to do but run even harder with it to save face? I could buy that. Very plausible. No one enjoys being wrong....Although 18 years of marriage and I'm getting better at being wrong gracefully.

Gasguzzler,
Something like that. In the 1960`s they believed that the last ice age ended because CO2 levels rose.
Now with more research they are saying the rise in CO2 levels followed that warming by about 800 years.
This suggests that the oceans warmed before releasing the CO2 they absorbed when the oceans were cooling.
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.
Where I upset some people in here is that I think that waste heat might be the actual threat while CO2 is primarily an indicator. One way to consider this is the number of days a year the glaciers on Greenland are melting. I think that helps to regulate the opening between 2 tectonic plates.
Difficult to say what kind of threat that is.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzler" gushed: I had fun instead of studying in high school....

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What are you saying James? That the CO2 was just a theory that snowballed out of control until it was too late to reel it back in after all the hype? That the media loves doom and gloom and anything for more CNN viewers? And now that the solid evidence as not materialized as predicted there's nothing to do but run even harder with it to save face? I could buy that. Very plausible. No one enjoys being wrong....Although 18 years of marriage and I'm getting better at being wrong gracefully.

Gasguzzler,
Something like that. In the 1960`s they believed that the last ice age ended because CO2 levels rose.
Now with more research they are saying the rise in CO2 levels followed that warming by about 800 years.
This suggests that the oceans warmed before releasing the CO2 they absorbed when the oceans were cooling.
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.
Where I upset some people in here is that I think that waste heat might be the actual threat while CO2 is primarily an indicator. One way to consider this is the number of days a year the glaciers on Greenland are melting. I think that helps to regulate the opening between 2 tectonic plates.
Difficult to say what kind of threat that is.

I think that you got everything right down to where why people are getting upset with you.

We are in the latest of at least three earlier warm periods that occurred on approximately a 1000 year cycle. What's more, the one we're presently in is significantly cooler than the earlier one's if historical and geological evidence is to be believed.

This warm period started in 1886. How do you suppose that man could have in any manner effected the climate when his population was 1/6th of what it presently is?

We aren't getting pissed at you for talking about "waste heat" but because you think that warming is caused by such.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner" bluffed: We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: You have to just skip over him.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazz guzzler" gushed: Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green.

James_ wrote:
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:
We are in the latest of at least three earlier warm periods that occurred on approximately a 1000 year cycle. What's more, the one we're presently in is significantly cooler than the earlier one's if historical and geological evidence is to be believed.

This warm period started in 1886. How do you suppose that man could have in any manner effected the climate when his population was 1/6th of what it presently is?

We aren't getting pissed at you for talking about "waste heat" but because you think that warming is caused by such.

I think this is because you do not understand. As you said, the world`s population has significantly increased. Since energy can not be destroyed every KwH of energy spent on work is heat.
And with you Wake you say that ice core research is iffy and that no climate change is happening. If you considered it a bit more you`d realize that more warming would be within the limits of previous warm periods after an ice age.
And since you are a climate scientist I wonder why you're not aware of that.
My concern is can we cause our planet to warm more than it has in the past. Still much we don't know which is why climate change is debated as much as it is.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

Gasguzzler,
Wildlife might be thriving because of the lack of predators. What ITN described is urban sprawl. Loss of natural habitat causes wildlife to be found in urban areas more often.
Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to restore balance.
Washington State encourages the hunting of big horn sheep so they don't damage the ecosystem by eating all the ground level vegetation that small animals need for food or for shelter (hide) from carnivorous animals.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

Gasguzzler,
Wildlife might be thriving because of the lack of predators. What ITN described is urban sprawl. Loss of natural habitat causes wildlife to be found in urban areas more often.
Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to restore balance.
Washington State encourages the hunting of big horn sheep so they don't damage the ecosystem by eating all the ground level vegetation that small animals need for food or for shelter (hide) from carnivorous animals.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed: As soon as that deer is over your hood and through your windshield.....

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What are you saying James? That the CO2 was just a theory that snowballed out of control until it was too late to reel it back in after all the hype? That the media loves doom and gloom and anything for more CNN viewers? And now that the solid evidence as not materialized as predicted there's nothing to do but run even harder with it to save face? I could buy that. Very plausible. No one enjoys being wrong....Although 18 years of marriage and I'm getting better at being wrong gracefully.

Gasguzzler,
Something like that. In the 1960`s they believed that the last ice age ended because CO2 levels rose.
Now with more research they are saying the rise in CO2 levels followed that warming by about 800 years.
This suggests that the oceans warmed before releasing the CO2 they absorbed when the oceans were cooling.
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.
Where I upset some people in here is that I think that waste heat might be the actual threat while CO2 is primarily an indicator. One way to consider this is the number of days a year the glaciers on Greenland are melting. I think that helps to regulate the opening between 2 tectonic plates.
Difficult to say what kind of threat that is.

I think that you got everything right down to where why people are getting upset with you.

We are in the latest of at least three earlier warm periods that occurred on approximately a 1000 year cycle. What's more, the one we're presently in is significantly cooler than the earlier one's if historical and geological evidence is to be believed.

This warm period started in 1886. How do you suppose that man could have in any manner effected the climate when his population was 1/6th of what it presently is?

We aren't getting pissed at you for talking about "waste heat" but because you think that warming is caused by such.

I think this is because you do not understand. As you said, the world`s population has significantly increased. Since energy can not be destroyed every KwH of energy spent on work is heat.

James_ wrote:
And with you Wake you say that ice core research is iffy

James_ wrote:
and that no climate change is happening.

James_ wrote:
If you considered it a bit more you`d realize that more warming would be within the limits of previous warm periods after an ice age.

James_ wrote:
And since you are a climate scientist I wonder why you're not aware of that.

James_ wrote:
My concern is can we cause our planet to warm more than it has in the past.

James_ wrote:
Still much we don't know which is why climate change is debated as much as it is.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.

James_, it's not "solar radiation" that atmospheric gases absorb. It is earth radiation that is absorbed. Solar radiation is short wavelength. Earth radiation is long wavelength, which is what greenhouse gases like to get warm with.

And yes, I agree that more testing would be beneficial.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

Gasguzzler,
Wildlife might be thriving because of the lack of predators. What ITN described is urban sprawl. Loss of natural habitat causes wildlife to be found in urban areas more often.

James_ wrote:
Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to restore balance.

James_ wrote:
Washington State encourages the hunting of big horn sheep so they don't damage the ecosystem by eating all the ground level vegetation that small animals need for food or for shelter (hide) from carnivorous animals.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

Gasguzzler,
Wildlife might be thriving because of the lack of predators. What ITN described is urban sprawl. Loss of natural habitat causes wildlife to be found in urban areas more often.
Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to restore balance.
Washington State encourages the hunting of big horn sheep so they don't damage the ecosystem by eating all the ground level vegetation that small animals need for food or for shelter (hide) from carnivorous animals.

Lack of predators? We have coyotes, wolves, mountain lions and even black bear inside of the city limits where they have been driven by competition for hunting grounds. Just in the last month we've had pictures on the news of mountain lions in the trees in backyards. Animal Control is not supposed to harm these animals even though they present a clear and present danger to children.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

Gasguzzler,
Wildlife might be thriving because of the lack of predators. What ITN described is urban sprawl. Loss of natural habitat causes wildlife to be found in urban areas more often.
Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to restore balance.
Washington State encourages the hunting of big horn sheep so they don't damage the ecosystem by eating all the ground level vegetation that small animals need for food or for shelter (hide) from carnivorous animals.

Lack of predators? We have coyotes, wolves, mountain lions and even black bear inside of the city limits where they have been driven by competition for hunting grounds. Just in the last month we've had pictures on the news of mountain lions in the trees in backyards. Animal Control is not supposed to harm these animals even though they present a clear and present danger to children.

Yeah. We have 'em too. We also have hawks and eagles.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.

James_, it's not "solar radiation" that atmospheric gases absorb. It is earth radiation that is absorbed. Solar radiation is short wavelength. Earth radiation is long wavelength, which is what greenhouse gases like to get warm with.

And yes, I agree that more testing would be beneficial.

Solar radiation is a wide set of wavelengths. Most surface heating is by infrared light (the bulk of the radiance from the Sun, even though the peak of radiance is visible light).

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

James_ wrote: If you live near the Puget Sound you don't have many predators.

James_ wrote:no conservation necessary.

Into the Night wrote:

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
Ooh yeah. That's when you get the real test of living in the upper midwest!

We may have long gray winters, but we don't get that kind of cold here...ever.

I was thinking about this conversation yesterday....
At my house, I have seen 110 F
I have seen 105 with a dew point of 81. (135ish heat index)
I have also seen -42F. Me and the kids had fun throwing pans of hot water up and watching it freeze in the air.
That is a temp spread of 152F!

I am an avid outdoors man. I live in the timber (yes, in a house) and have 100+acres to hunt and fish. Every year I see more deer, more wild turkey, quail, squirrels, rabbits...you name it. This state is teaming with wildlife. When I was a kid, it was really something special to see a deer in an open field grazing in the evening. Now, I worry something is wrong if I don't see a couple dozen, just on the last mile home. Between me and my son, we can legally take somewhere around 12 deer if we maximized tags, and these critters still keep reproducing. They have even now introduced a pistol season in my state to try an attract a new demographic to help critter control. (bad idea)
I guess my point is simple. Next time some Greenman or the like tries to tell you all the animals will die from a 1-2 degree rise in temp, let him know he's a moron.

I too have been seeing an increase in wildlife around here, particularly black bear, cottontail rabbits, and deer. The deer have become a problem. The animal control people now have to come out and reduce the herd from time to time using airguns to reduce the traffic hazard here.

We are not in the country. It is suburbia here. Out in the country, the wildlife is really increasing. More black bear, deer, rabbits, skunks, spotted owls, eagles, etc. than ever before.

Our temperature spread is nowhere near as great as yours!

We only see about 10 deg F to 90 deg F during our seasonal changes.

Yeah, the cities have a real problem here too. Over in Cedar Rapids they've got a city archery season on whitetail deer. They've been doing that for 10+ years and it's been helping a lot. When they first opened it, the DNR was actually handing out tags in city park areas. You had plug a doe first and then they'd issue you a buck tag if ya wanted. Buddy of mine hunted right on the city golf course in the timber just off the 10th green. I'd like to see the local gov do that in Seattle.

Now the geese are a problem too...crapping all over everything. I think they were going to bring in sharp shooters and fill some food banks with those.

This CO2 is becoming a real problem for the wildlife...they are thriving.

Gasguzzler,
Wildlife might be thriving because of the lack of predators. What ITN described is urban sprawl. Loss of natural habitat causes wildlife to be found in urban areas more often.
Yellowstone National Park re-introduced wolves to restore balance.
Washington State encourages the hunting of big horn sheep so they don't damage the ecosystem by eating all the ground level vegetation that small animals need for food or for shelter (hide) from carnivorous animals.

Lack of predators? We have coyotes, wolves, mountain lions and even black bear inside of the city limits where they have been driven by competition for hunting grounds. Just in the last month we've had pictures on the news of mountain lions in the trees in backyards. Animal Control is not supposed to harm these animals even though they present a clear and present danger to children.

Yeah. We have 'em too. We also have hawks and eagles.

ITN,
If you live near the Puget Sound you don't have many predators.

James_ wrote:
But this is the internet and you can post anything that you like. So much of what you post has nothing to do with reality.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is where I think research should be done to show how much solar radiation atmospheric gases actually absorb. That's something that hasn't been done. If so then the climate models would be more accurate.

James_, it's not "solar radiation" that atmospheric gases absorb. It is earth radiation that is absorbed. Solar radiation is short wavelength. Earth radiation is long wavelength, which is what greenhouse gases like to get warm with.

And yes, I agree that more testing would be beneficial.

Solar radiation is a wide set of wavelengths. Most surface heating is by infrared light (the bulk of the radiance from the Sun, even though the peak of radiance is visible light).

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

The overwhelming majority of the Sun's emissions are in the high IR (considered "light") through the visible wavelengths and above.

Wake wrote:
These are what heats the Earth.

Wake wrote:
The Earth emits energy in the very low IR.

Wake wrote:
Since direct heating of any area is for only about 4-5 hours a day around noon (on a clear day)

Wake wrote:
and the Earth is in full emission mode at night

Wake wrote:
it is no surprise that this low IR cannot be detected save by the most sensitive of IR multipliers.

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote:no conservation necessary.

All the animals mentioned (& many more) needed severe conservation measures to survive. While you're being deluded by your pretend "we need future sigh-ants", you are also deluded by your own "closed eyes" studies.