Wait for it
Greenpeace halted exploratory drilling by a Scottish oil firm off the coast of Greenland on Tuesday after four protesters scaled an oil rig and suspended tents from its underside.
“The drilling rig we’re hanging off could spark an Arctic oil rush, one that would pose a huge threat to the climate and put this fragile environment at risk,†said Sim McKenna, one of the protesters, in a statement from the rig.
Punchline
Greenpeace says four activists have been arrested after an Arctic ice storm forced them to leave an oil rig off western Greenland where they had been squatting for two days.
out of 5
Have you seen the 350.org site. They have way to skinny models trying to strip. It really is sick. But there effort is to get CO2 to 350 ppm. It currently is somewhere around 380 ppm. CO2 must be one very powerful gas to cause so much trouble at such small concentration. Plus, the clothes that the models were taking off sure resulted in a big carbon foot print.
I’ve seen that, David, but, not for awhile. went over and checked, and, gotta say, yuck! They need a steak or something.
David,
Do you believe that the ozone layer blocks UV rays?
Reasic,
I am sorry, you must be far more intelligent than me. Would you explain why you have a reference to the ozone layer? What does it have to do with CO2? Are you trying to say that all our efforts to preserve the ozone layer have not done a thing as it is independent of our effects?
yes david you are correct C02traps and absorbs reflected heat. You should have learned that back in high school. If we had no greenhouse gases then the Earth would be about 60F colder And that is a lot, we would be a frozen planet without greenhouse gasesAnd David here is a nice simple article on the role of greenhouse gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses OH and yes another oil well has blown up in the Gulf. Teach are you going to make a guess that this one like the last one might have ben sabotaged by “wackos” ?
Either one of David’s comments has twice the IQ behind it that Both the two liberal commenters bring to the table.
David,
You said:
So, I just wondered if you believed that the ozone layer blocks UV rays, because the atmospheric concentration of ozone in our atmosphere is about four orders of magnitude less than that of carbon dioxide. There is a misperception about atmospheric chemistry, that a molecule that exists at a relatively small ocncentration cannot have a profound effect on the planet, when its concentration changes.
I believe, if you compare the density of ozone in the layer it is in, to the density of CO2 in the layer it is in, then ozone is a fairly large quantity.
Quote:
“…after an Arctic ice storm forced them to leave an oil rig..”
bwuahahhahahaahahaa
Could you say Mother Nature has spoken?
Also, I am not too sure what drilling for oil does to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Granted, there are generators and pumps and drills…. but do they put out more CO2 (that plants love to death) than the companies making solar panels and wind mills?
hmmm?
Just goes to prove that Mother Nature has a wicked sense of humor. Silly Greenpeace wankers.
captainfish,
and what density is that?
Reasic,
We did not discuss the environment when I went to high school. What knowledge I have has come from subsequent study. However, in medical school I learned how to read a journal and discover the faults in an arguement. Then when I taught medical students and conducted clinical trials I learned the nature of how data can be transformed to fit ones objectives.
And John, when I was working my way through school (I know, that is something people don’t do now), I spent many a day on oil wells and can assure you they are nothing more than a bomb that has not gone off. The same for any fossil fuel. The problem is that your precious “green” energy is not capable of taking care of our needs and there technicology requires the use of fossil fuels. Ever wonder what a solar panel is made of?
The fact is that much of enviromental science is bunk and smoke and mirrors. It you fall for the con then you are in a bad way.
David,
Any specific reaction to the information about the ozone in the atmosphere, and how that relates to whether a molecule that exists in the atmosphere at relatively low concentrations can have a profound impact on our planet?
Reasic,
Any specific reaction to reality?
Come join it.
It will be an eye-opening experience.
ha. Captainfish, why did you waste your time typing that non-response? You contributed nothing to the conversation. I’m still waiting on your density information, by the way.
Sheesh,
Do I have to do everything for you?
Here,
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen06/gen06385.htm
here,
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_density_of_ozone
here,
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_conversions.htm
and here.
http://www.chem-freeozone.com/ozonefacts.html
Reasic,
I seriously doubt that minuscule amounts of any gas in the atmosphere can have a major effect on the climate. I do think that there are several layers to our atmosphere and that they are responsible for variables in our climate. However, the opposite is also true. Our climate can effect the layers and concentration of gases at any given time. I feel that any attempt at intervention on our part will have very little if any impact on the climate. Maybe you could explain how increasing taxes has an effect on the summer temperature. I am aware that the intent of progressives is to destroy our economy in any manner that they can and are trying to use hysteria over “climate change” to achieve just such a goal. Much as the Republican us “security” to rob us over our rights.
Lets put the concept of ppm in context. If I translate 390 ppm of CO2 into illegal aliens in the US, then that would be equivilant to 112,000 illegals in the US at this time (in other words hardly anything). Maybe a progressive could understand this. Now, please provide the article or reference to CO2 that you are dying to get out so I can dissect the concept for you. As to the ozone issue, I don’t know. I feel it is likely bunk.
Oh, another concept. Please explain how CO2 gets to the upper atmosphere without an increase in concentration at the lower levels. It is a heavy gas. Then explain what the margin of error is in analysis as this is generally high. Then provide evidence of the profound light absorption of CO2. In other words, for a given amount of the gas, how much light is deflected or absorded and then how much heat is generated.
Finally to put it is perspective, do you think that cholesterol causes heart disease? The purpose of this question will be to show parallels to the current argument. Provide an answer and I will show you some things.
Yes, captainfish, you have to provide proof for your own assertions. Imagine that.
What did you do, Google “ozone density”, and paste the top four links? I asked you what the density is. You claimed:
Now, prove it. What is the density of each, in their respective layers?
David,
As John Ryan has correctly pointed out, if it were not for the greenhouse effect, of which carbon dioxide plays a part, this planet would be a ball of ice. The fact that certain gases help the planet retain heat from the Sun is a fact. Do you deny this truth about our planet?
Reasic,
I see you have one talking point and little fundamental knowledge of the science. I need answers to the questions that I poised in order to educate myself and formulate and opinion. Don’t you have these answers are do you just subscribe to the party agenda?
David,
So you claim that I don’t know about this, but that you will learn from my answers? Well that makes sense.
I’m not getting pulled into multiple tangents by you. If you seriously want to know more about how CO2 gets into the upper levels of the atmosphere, how much IR is absorbed, and at what frequencies, etc., I suggest you start by consulting the latest IPCC report (AR4).
Your original claim, which you reiterated in your last comment was as follows:
This is, in effect, a denial of the greenhouse effect. Please clarify if this is indeed your belief, that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
I looked through the report. There is no science in the report. Therefore, since you believe (noted the term believe, as in religion) in this effect of CO2 and wish to use it to fundamentally change our way of life and our fortune, then you must have the science. Please provide this as I can not find it and really want to know. Otherwise, you are just using hysteria to effect policy change to suit your needs.
David,
Only a hardened ideologue would claim to have found no science in a scientific report that is filled with footnotes referencing decades of scientific research.
Again, do you or do you not agree with the scientific fact that there are greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, without which the planet would be extremely colder (the greenhouse effect)?