Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Bill Todd wrote:

Maverick wrote:

Bill Todd wrote:

Maverick wrote:

...

Funny that they don't take into account the medieval warming period around 1200 ad. And then the following mini-iceage.



The goals of the paper in question, while inadequately realized, were at least admirably specific, and they did not include examination of prior periods. Since the author clearly had a bit more on his plate than he could adequately handle, probably a prudent choice - but give him credit for recognizing up front the value in limiting complexity and potentially extraneous circumstances as much as possible.

Global warming has

been taking place since 1680.



Give or take a few decades, anyway. Since the use of fossil fuels started rising significantly at around that time (and had in fact been going on at lower levels for millennia before that), a connection between the two is hardly inconceivable.


The population numbers at that time period are insignificant for any fossil fuel usage.


No, they're not - not with the beginning of an industrialized society which upped the per-capita releases significantly.


This has to be an even more ridiculous statement. Where were the automobiles back then? What was the population back then?
And what happened between then and now hasn't a damned thing to do with CO2. CO2 increases come after the fact, not before the fact.

And before 1200 ad, the numbers even lesser. The plagues on this planet have kept population densities down. Only now have plagues been kept in check for now.


The last significant plague in England occurred in 1665 ('the plague year'). And world population has been rising since about 1000 A.D. (before which there was a significant drop, bringing the numbers down almost back to the level they had been at the beginning of that millennium): population rose fairly slowly on average from 1000 until about 1400, and with consistent accelerating growth since then until the present.

At 500 million people world population was hardly negligible in 1600.

But no one was driving any cars or using heating oil in furnaces.
This is another one of those situations where a small number gets blown way out of proportions.

It had reached 1 billion by 1800. Their rate of CO2 release may have been far less than ours is today, but they had 400 years (the last 250 or so in an industrial economy) to build up total levels in the atmosphere.


A natural process that one shouldn't get excited over.
It is called the ecosystem in case you didn't know. The real dangers is from pollution with dirty devices that pump real pollutants into the air that do affect life. CO2 does not. The kooks in the California legislature think CO2 is a pollutant. *LMAO*


But people are still overlooking the CO2 as plant food.

I still like to eat and stay alive and with the population increasing, we'll need more food.


Pure drivel, as I already observed, unless you have citations to back up the thesis that CO2 levels may become dangerously *low*.


There are kooks that want to reduce or eliminate CO2. Go take a harder look at what some of these nuts want to accomplish. It's absurd.



We need a certain amount of CO2 for plant

growth and also population growth, else we will see major problems.



If we're in any danger of having too *little* CO2 in our atmosphere any time soon I've certainly heard nothing about it - so please provide citations if that comment was meant to be relevant.


At 0.043% CO2 levels we aren't about to have problems.


Based on your response, you appear to have as much difficulty understanding what I said as you have understanding most of the substantive arguments in this area.

But obviously you have no refutation, just a lot of arm waving is that it?


The numbers that

are being bandied about sound big in their tonnage, but also compare them to the natural numbers that range in the trillions of tons. This is the comparison that many GWers leave out and all it shows is a fear factor and nothing more for now.


At 0.043% concentration of many poisons in your body you'd be *dead*.

Strawmans argument. We're talking about the percentage of CO2 that constitutes our air globally.

It's not the absolute magnitude, but the relative effect - and a significant change in a small number creates a significant effect if that small number had much of any effect to begin with (which most competent scientists believe it does, whether laymen like you can appreciate it or not).

Which I still find no upper limit being recommended to be the alarm point.


What the politicians around the world

would like to do is to create carbon credits... you know... MONEY!
That is the problem. This can also be used as a blackmail scheme between countries.


That's the spirit: when rational argument fails, invent a conspiracy - never mind that the money the energy industry pours into political coffers makes it far more likely that politicians would oppose the idea of monkeying around with their sources of revenue (and indeed a great many politicians did for many years, and a significant number still do).


Then you can't see that this is already being bandied about in the UN?

By creating a strawman, and with everyone in


It isn't our strawman, it is the UNs strawman.
That is the problem and glad you see it as such.

agreement, it can live.

What I do see is that with the current violent weather patterns is the collision of cold air with very warm air. In the future and following the trend we will see less violent weather patterns.



That would be interesting if you have some credible citations to support it (you can take it as a given that the propaganda film discussed above does not qualify as such), since a lot of reporting has suggested somewhat the opposite.


That is well known fact in tornado areas where hot air from the lower levels merge with the upper cold air. The film that you think is propaganda refutes the bogus claims of the political agendists that are pushing their absurd program.


I'm afraid that you're (oh-so-typically) continuing to bluster while studiously attempting to ignore the challenge to provide *credible* (i.e., authoritative rather than "Gee - I saw it on TV, so it must be true!") citations that predict storm amelioration as a result of global warming. Put up, or shut up.

Guffaw!! So far you haven't refuted anything except wave your arms around in desperation. I see it now... you voted for Al Gore,... right?
And if uncle Al the kiddies pal says that CO2 is an inconvenient truth, then by golly he's right, eh? Yet you can't see through his lies.


Most of the IPCC is based on junk science.


You're really starting to sound like boob: despite the admission by the film's creators that they doctored some of their data to 'make it fit better' and the active renunciation by one of their main presenters, your own biases make their admittedly falsified claims more credible to you than far less disputable claims that you dislike.

No, you are really starting to sound like a shrieking liberal, yelling the sky is falling... the sky is falling. Soon I'll be selling hardhats for the faint of heart.





What isn't addressed by GW groups is that the other planets in this solar system are also heating up.



I'd be interested in credible citations for that as well: it would certainly not directly refute the thesis that our own activities are exacerbating the problem, but it would raise legitimate questions as to exactly how much they may be.


Check out some of NASAs statements on the subject.
This is the part where I always encounter others "I can't believe it" or "provide proof".


And rightly so: the burden of proof (when you're disputing the consensus of scientists far more qualified to form opinions in this area than you are) is on you. I'm wasting enough time countering your drivel here as it is, without taking yet more time to track down every wild claim those of your ilk come up with.

I've seen no proof from you yet.


So (once again) put up or shut up: if there's credible warming data for Mars and Venus (the two planets most likely to experience something like the same solar conditions that we do - though one with far less greenhouse-like behavior and the other with far more), by all means trot it out so we can assess how much it might be affecting the temperature increases here.

Do you know why the planet is heating up? This planet isn't a green house. Ever seen a green house? It uses glass.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html



...

I do see that our scientists don't

know enough yet to make the current claims they have been making so far.



Actually, it seems likely to me that those scientists are in a far better position to make that determination than you are.


Yeah, sure, and you do eh?


No, you idiot: *they* do, and therefore I give their opinions far more weight than those of random wackos off the street.

Guffaw!!! The only whackos are the environmentalists that have gone off the deep end. I'm just pointing out to you that a lot of considerations haven't been taken into account yet. Don't let Al Gore drive you nuts.
He's not a scientist but a politician.



Perhaps you don't know what their precise claims are, or perhaps you don't understand their exact bases for them.


Oh, I know what their bogus claims are and they should be ashamed of themselves. All they are really looking for is large sums of grant money.


Back to conspiracies again, I see. Are you one of those people who gets all their 'information' from Rush Limbaugh?


Guffaw!! Have you ever written up a paper for acquiring a grant?
You either publish or perish out there in scientific academia. And that is the real problem these days. These scientists are continually looking for that big chunk of grant money to stay alive. And it is a really pathetic thing to see.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... the initial CO2 release occurred as a result of large volcanic activity in Siberia. ... Let's all stop listening to politicians and start listening to scientists. ... Currently greater than 95% of more than 10,000 peer reviewed scientists believe that the global warming is here, and that it's man made. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Just because he taught other scientists doesn't mean that his theories are now all correct. ... Clouds are made of water droplets which are much denser than air, ... You attempted to claim that CO2 couldn't stay in the air because it is too heavy and now you are admitting to the existence of one mechanism that keeps something even heavier in the air. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Just because he taught other scientists doesn't mean that his theories are now all correct. ... Clouds are made of water droplets which are much denser than air, ... The droplets are in a vapour and dispersed so that they can 'float'. ... Another thing is that CO2 gets absorbed into water as well, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Vqpros kqm Dorotea
    ... "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, ... increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself ... the result of rising temperature. ... These particles have a braking effect on global warming, ...
    (soc.culture.bulgaria)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... Their rate of CO2 release may have been far less than ours is today, but they had 400 years to build up total levels in the atmosphere. ... If we're in any danger of having too *little* CO2 in our atmosphere any time soon I've certainly heard nothing about it - so please provide citations if that comment was meant to be relevant. ... never mind that the money the energy industry pours into political coffers makes it far more likely that politicians would oppose the idea of monkeying around with their sources of revenue. ... That is well known fact in tornado areas where hot air from the lower levels merge with the upper cold air. ...
    (comp.os.vms)