LOL! Dude, I'm actually stupider for having had this exchange with you. You've actually, somehow, managed to remove knowledge from those around you like some kind of intelligence Hoover vacuum. Even though you've been proven wrong on every point listed, I bet you haven't even changed your viewpoint. Just to recap: Your statement that bombing the planet would have no climatic effects is contradicted by the Department of Defense and a variety of scientific papers which have studied nuclear winter. Your statements about the climate in Greenland is contradicted by ice cores. Your statements about fitting 300 million people in your "cube" are wrong by a factor of about eight (you miscalculated by a factor of two on each side). Your statements about how Greenland was named is contradicted by historical accounts. Your statements about polar ice floating were proven wrong by satellite photos. Your statements that the temperature can't increase is contradicted by, well, the average global temperature which is increasing. Your statements that rainfall would just occur at the antarctic is contradicted by the fact that the antarctic is a desert. Your statements that "there's no way the sea level will rise" is contradicted by the sea levels currently rising. At this point, the real question is: how many points can you get wrong in a row? Are you trying to set some kind of record?
Nukes for TNT. TNT has been widely used for quite a long time and did NOT cause ''nuclear winter''. You can create a nuclear winter with low power explosives only in your dreams. Moron If your beliefs on the so called global warming are based on the quality of your math, then rest assured that by the time this thread ends you will be able to do basic math calculations of a 10 year old child. It's a promise. In the meantime you can post your calculations to make us laugh. You are putting words in my mouth. Quote my statement Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Anyone who uses a thermometer knows that temperature can change. This is the very basic concept of the water cycle . This concept will be covered later. A small quote from wikipedia for you to increase the tiny knowledge of yours on the water cycle: ''Warmer temperatures in the region have brought increased precipitation to Greenland, and part of the lost mass has been offset by increased snowfall.'' You will learn later in this thread that the water cycle works not only in Greenland. The real question is: how qualified are you to debate a scientific / semi-scientific subject if you lack basic math?
Actually, the yields from nuclear weapons are measured in tons of TNT. (Ergo: megatons, kilotons, etc.) Your statement was "You can bomb the whole planet with TNT of 100 x (31x31x31) that volume everyday for the next million years and this will cause no change to the climate. You do not need to be a genius to grasp this." Clearly that's wildly incorrect. The particulate matter alone would cloud the horizon, shield the Earth from the sun and reduce global temperatures as the DoD states. Well for starters you said that "The human population in year 1000 was 310 million" and then you presumably assumed that they all lived in Greenland as that is where you fixated on a one degree temperature difference. Greenland, you wrote, was much hotter than today" Okay. You wrote that there "is no fucking way the sea level can rise in view of how H20 behaves with temperature changes." Ummm most ice is on land. You wrote "I have also proven that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming or melting the ice or increase in sea level." If CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, that means that there is no warming, as your explanation requires that CO2 molecules have miraculously stopped absorbing heat. This just in: Greenland is not a desert. The antarctic is a desert. That means, unlike your bizarre example of Greenland, the antarctic receives little precipitation. I don't think you understand the definition of the word "desert." You seem to be blissfully unaware of how badly your arguments are getting their ass pounded.
Addendum; the cube for 310 million people is: 285.41 metres x 285.41 metres x 285.41 metres, or 312 yards x 312 yards x 312 yards I had mistakenly typped for 310 thousand people instead 310 million
You are very very wrong. The cube factor was wrong by a factor of exactly 1000 (not eight), which means that on three sides (not both) the miscalculation was by a factor of 10 (10x10x10 = 1,000), not by a factor of two. Moron Go back to elementary school.