FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Isaac Asimov on the Greenhouse Effect in 1989

Isaac Asimov on the Greenhouse Effect in 1989

(2:39) From a presentation at the Humanist Institute in New York in 1989, showing that climate change has been an issue for scientists for many decades.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1016 days ago)

Perfect. A science fiction writer talking about the greenhouse effect. That instills more confidence about the accuracy.

He said, in January 1989, the CO2 was .035%. That equates 350 ppm and it is at most 395 ppm today. That’s not too much of an increase is it considering it was 470 ppm around 1943 according to chemical testing done at that time.

ReplyVote up (258)down (251)
Original comment

Perfect. A science fiction writer talking about the greenhouse effect. That instills more confidence about the accuracy.

He said, in January 1989, the CO2 was .035%. That equates 350 ppm and it is at most 395 ppm today. That’s not too much of an increase is it considering it was 470 ppm around 1943 according to chemical testing done at that time.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bazzy (1016 days ago)

Or you could say:

Perfect. A professor of biochemistry from Boston University, Vice Presient of Mensa and President of the American Humanist Association, awarded 14 honoury doctorate degrees, wrote of over 60 science books covering several catogories of science and winning several awards for them. Talking about the greenhouse effect. This instills more confidence about the accuracy. (He did also write a few science fiction books which were also award winning and critically aclaimed, but that's another matter)

He said, in Janurary 1989, the CO2 was .035%. That equates 350 ppm and it is at most 397 ppm today (http://co2now.org). That's too much of an increase consicering it was 310 ppm around 1943 according to the generally scientifically accepted figures, and not the chemical testing figures which shouldn't be considered accurate by any means, as explained here (http://www.ferdinand-eng elbeen.be/klimaat/beck_da ta.html#Accuracy_of_histo rical_CO2_measurement_met hods)

ReplyVote up (244)down (228)
Original comment

Or you could say:

Perfect. A professor of biochemistry from Boston University, Vice Presient of Mensa and President of the American Humanist Association, awarded 14 honoury doctorate degrees, wrote of over 60 science books covering several catogories of science and winning several awards for them. Talking about the greenhouse effect. This instills more confidence about the accuracy. (He did also write a few science fiction books which were also award winning and critically aclaimed, but that's another matter)

He said, in Janurary 1989, the CO2 was .035%. That equates 350 ppm and it is at most 397 ppm today (http://co2now.org). That's too much of an increase consicering it was 310 ppm around 1943 according to the generally scientifically accepted figures, and not the chemical testing figures which shouldn't be considered accurate by any means, as explained here (http://www.ferdinand-eng elbeen.be/klimaat/beck_da ta.html#Accuracy_of_histo rical_CO2_measurement_met hods)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1016 days ago)

I read the article that you intended to link.

It seems strange to me that they are concerned about the collection methods of the air that was sampled because of variabilities in the time of day, the air being close to the surface, and the wind speed when it was collected; however, they have no problems using ice core samples which have been known to be inacurate without knowing what the wind speed was and the time of day the ice captured the CO2. All the ice samples have air collected near the surface.

ReplyVote up (239)down (218)
Original comment

I read the article that you intended to link.

It seems strange to me that they are concerned about the collection methods of the air that was sampled because of variabilities in the time of day, the air being close to the surface, and the wind speed when it was collected; however, they have no problems using ice core samples which have been known to be inacurate without knowing what the wind speed was and the time of day the ice captured the CO2. All the ice samples have air collected near the surface.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1015 days ago)

Ice core data averages out, whereas chemical testing is a specific moment in time - like the difference between cllimate and weather. LINK

ReplyVote up (216)down (221)
Original comment

Ice core data averages out, whereas chemical testing is a specific moment in time - like the difference between cllimate and weather. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1011 days ago)

why are you so stupid guest1234fuk?

did your mum drop you on your head when you were a little cu*t?

why are you laughable?

can you not see how big of a clown you are?

why are you so stupid guest1234fuk?

ReplyVote up (219)down (226)
Original comment

why are you so stupid guest1234fuk?

did your mum drop you on your head when you were a little cu*t?

why are you laughable?

can you not see how big of a clown you are?

why are you so stupid guest1234fuk?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1011 days ago)

No one can be that stupid. Original123fuk must have an agenda.

ReplyVote up (223)down (230)
Original comment

No one can be that stupid. Original123fuk must have an agenda.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1011 days ago)

What an epic backfire.

ReplyVote up (214)down (235)
Original comment

What an epic backfire.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: DeIgrunt (334 days ago)
Latest comment:

Hang on a minute, OK so there is not 1% of the air made up CO2, not even 1/10th of 1% made up of CO2 and even less than half of one of those 1/10ths and of course it is the essence of life on the planet and without that little bit in the atmosphere life as we know it would not exist.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Hang on a minute, OK so there is not 1% of the air made up CO2, not even 1/10th of 1% made up of CO2 and even less than half of one of those 1/10ths and of course it is the essence of life on the planet and without that little bit in the atmosphere life as we know it would not exist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Perfect Savage Hip Swing Edition
Perfect Savage Hip Swing Edition
Balloonfest
Balloonfest
1984 documentary predicted Grenfell fire
1984 documentary predicted Grenfell fire
Jeremy Corbyn on the future of the left (1988)
Jeremy Corbyn on the future of the left (1988)
Eighties roller skiing
Eighties roller skiing