what are you talking about? "It's silly to debate" Global warming, ... err Climate Change ... err Carbon Taxes ... err CO2 regulation (you know the stuff you exhale with every breath, and the shit plants eat to survive) useful idiot-leftists
You really are scared of the question of whether or not CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation. I've answered question after question of yours and you refuse to even discuss this most basic of facts. It's not a difficult question. CO2 molecules do absorb infra-red radiation, of course -- it's a scientific fact that is simply not arguable (although you laughably tried to question this.) So you now have major, major problem in your "argument" given that the US, alone, produces over six billion tons of CO2 per year. There is no choice but for this to increase temperature -- it is a scientific fact. And it's also the end of the argument. I think you know this which is why you're so terrified about actual, reasonable debate which also explains your desire to discuss medieval explorers, the temperature from 1000 years ago in Greenland, or anything else.
I am not scared of any questions. And I never doubt scientific facts. If it is a scientific fact that CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation, then I agree with this fact. Simple as this. Now, kindly answer my question: did the human biomass that was 20 thousand time smaller than the biomass of ants contributed more or less to climate change 1000 years ago than the ants? This is a very simple question. You can make it.
If it is a fact? I've shown you the graph. You can even get yourself a laser absorption spectrometer and try it for yourself. It is a fact. And that, my friend, is also the end of the argument. You concede that one molecule absorbs infra-red (two different ways!) then six billion metric tons (per year) in the US alone would absorb massive levels of IR. And with that, I introduce you to "global warming." Who cares? You've already conceded the entire argument.
I'll answer, but I'm not sure what it accomplishes because the argument is over. My answer to this new question is: it depends on how many ants and how much geographic area they occupied, how much foliage they eliminated, how many fires and burning these men started, how much foliage they eliminated, and their particular geographic area (whether it was bounded by mountains, for example, and thus was a small microclimate that could more easily be altered.)
Okay, You refuse to answer. Can someone else answer this very simple question: Greenland 1000 years ago was much hotter than today. There were even monastries there at that time. The human population in year 1000 was 310 million. Human biomass of 310 million people goes into a cube of the following dimensions: 28.5 metres x 28.5 metres x 28.5 metres, i.e.: 31 yards x 31 yards x 31 yards The biomass of ants at that time could go into 20,000 (twenty thousand) such cubes, each of 31 yards x 31 yards x 31 yards. Note, ants as well as humans breathe in H2O and breathe out CO2. Most probably ants also fart. Could ANYONE who is not a complete retard tell us wheter ants (20,000 bigger biomass than humans) or humans contributed more to Medieval climate change / warming? Regards
Actually I answered very clearly. You just didn't like the answer. Monasteries? That IS warm! It's worth noting that there are also more insects than ants. Quadrillions of insects. I think everybody would love for you to just skip to whatever point you're trying to make. Here, let me help you: because there were more ants than people, people could not have had a bigger impact on climate, despite the fact that humans can reroute rivers, burn down entire forests by accident, dam acres at a time, and so forth. Because, uh, biomass.
Ants are insects. Please stop humiliating yourself and do not post untill someone answers the question from my previous post. Regards