On Dec 15, 3:02=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> >> Bohr
>
> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
than the sources from human activity."
So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
that volume of co2 is.
Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/
ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
<drumroll>
7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And
increasing.
Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap
your head around it, kay?
I will be back with more.
D'ohBoy
In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's a bit of intelligent opinion on the subject (as opposed to most
> of what appears here).
Well, the first sentence reveals you to be mistaken.
Why MUST we accept that global warming is real?
And really, citing the LA Times as authoritative on anything is a
stretch at best...
in 126050 20091216 083204 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>> >> Bohr
>>
>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
>ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>=========================================================
>
>Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than CO2
>and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart suppressor?
. or eat less meat?
On Dec 15, 3:34=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:02=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> > >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> > >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> > >> Bohr
>
> > > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> > Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
> > activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
> > cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> the atmosphere on an annual basis? =A0It's in the billions of tons.
>
> Tons of a GAS. =A0Billions.
>
> According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
> sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
> than the sources from human activity."
>
> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. =A0Huh. =A0That'=
s
> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. =A0Annually
> and rising. =A0Frightened yet? =A0Let's do the math and figure out what
> that volume of co2 is.
>
> Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
> atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
> contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, =A0221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/
> ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
>
> <drumroll>
>
> 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. =A0Every freakin' year. =A0And
> increasing.
>
> Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
> our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. =A0Try to wrap
> your head around it, kay?
>
> I will be back with more.
>
> D'ohBoy
Whoops! pv=3D nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that
number to:
15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really
noticeable?
Ummm.... yes.
D'ohBoy
In article <[email protected]>,
LDosser <[email protected]> wrote:
> There was a time in the UK when being a homosexual was illegal.
Yes and no. Noel Coward was homosexual, like many in the theatre, but got
away with it,
> IIRC, Alan Turing was prosecuted.
He was and commited suicide, which was a shame. His mistake was getting
caught at it.
On Dec 15, 4:22=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 3:18 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
> > Kevin wrote:
> >> On Dec 15, 2:57 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Kevin wrote:
> >>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> >>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> >>>> Bohr
> >>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> >>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> >>> --www.e-woodshop.net
> >>> Last update: 10/22/08
> >>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> >> A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
> >> crunching!
>
> >>http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatolo..=
.
>
> >>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat..=
.
>
> > Equally interesting is buried deep in one of your above:
>
> >http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
>
> Considering that this data is collect from various points on earth and
> the daily variance in those reading from the north pole to the south
> pole is at least 100 degrees on any given day, it is amazing that they
> think their data is so precise that they can talk about a 5 degree change=
.
>
> I would like to have all of the data points and subject it to an
> aggressive statistical analysis such as that used for a drug being
> submitted to the FDA. =A0 I doubt any of their "theories" would hold up.
> In other words based on the wide variance in the data and the variance
> in the weather stations on any single day I believe that statistical
> analysis would show there is no significant changes in the data.
>
> One of the easiest ways to prove something from random data is to cherry
> pick the starting and ending point of the data range. =A0Based on the
> starting and ending point you can use random data to prove anything.
>
> The link is to a simple discussion of statistical significance
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
Huh. You guys have fun ridiculing what frightens you.
You (the collective you) have no baseline, no real basis to reason
from but you choose to ridicule by using your own 'cherry picking'.
I'm out. You obviously have no interest in a rational discussion.
D'ohBoy
On Dec 15, 3:30=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 4:22=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/15/2009 3:18 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
> > > Kevin wrote:
> > >> On Dec 15, 2:57 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Kevin wrote:
> > >>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> > >>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> > >>>> Bohr
> > >>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > >>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> > >>> --www.e-woodshop.net
> > >>> Last update: 10/22/08
> > >>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> > >> A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
> > >> crunching!
>
> > >>http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatolo=
...
>
> > >>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat=
...
>
> > > Equally interesting is buried deep in one of your above:
>
> > >http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
>
> > Considering that this data is collect from various points on earth and
> > the daily variance in those reading from the north pole to the south
> > pole is at least 100 degrees on any given day, it is amazing that they
> > think their data is so precise that they can talk about a 5 degree chan=
ge.
>
> > I would like to have all of the data points and subject it to an
> > aggressive statistical analysis such as that used for a drug being
> > submitted to the FDA. =A0 I doubt any of their "theories" would hold up=
.
> > In other words based on the wide variance in the data and the variance
> > in the weather stations on any single day I believe that statistical
> > analysis would show there is no significant changes in the data.
>
> > One of the easiest ways to prove something from random data is to cherr=
y
> > pick the starting and ending point of the data range. =A0Based on the
> > starting and ending point you can use random data to prove anything.
>
> > The link is to a simple discussion of statistical significance
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
>
> Huh. =A0You guys have fun ridiculing what frightens you.
No, just your kind.
> You (the collective you) have no baseline, no real basis to reason
> from but you choose to ridicule by using your own 'cherry picking'.
Bullshit.
> I'm out. =A0You obviously have no interest in a rational discussion.
Please start one.
On Dec 15, 2:34=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:02=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> > >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> > >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> > >> Bohr
>
> > > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> > Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
> > activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
> > cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> the atmosphere on an annual basis? =A0It's in the billions of tons.
>
> Tons of a GAS. =A0Billions.
>
> According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
> sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
> than the sources from human activity."
>
> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. =A0Huh. =A0That'=
s
> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. =A0Annually
> and rising. =A0Frightened yet? =A0Let's do the math and figure out what
> that volume of co2 is.
>
> Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
> atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
> contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, =A0221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/
> ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
>
> <drumroll>
>
> 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. =A0Every freakin' year. =A0And
> increasing.
>
> Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
> our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. =A0Try to wrap
> your head around it, kay?
>
> I will be back with more.
How about this big number; .000383, m'kay?
I recall a newspaper story on Atlanta. It was during the Olympics there -
and they (city fathers & Mothers) had a beauty program - green program.
They planted trees and bushes all over town in a massive 'rebirth' and Greening.
It was found out that the air quality had fallen after the trees were planted.
There were plenty of trees between buildings in roads and sidewalks.
Shade had done them in. The trees in crowded streets gave off oxygen only
when the sun was overhead or in line with the road.
Many turned out and the city became beautiful - new rail way and airport
and many trees that are nice sized by now.
Martin
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:06 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a lot - but it isn't really. First, of this seemingly
>> enormous amount, most (if not all) is being converted to Oxygen by the
>> earth's plant life.
>
> Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen in the presence of sunlight - or a good
> facsimile thereof. In the absence of light they absorb oxygen and emit
> CO2.
>
> See: <http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm>
>
> or google photosynthesis and respiration for other articles.
>
jo4hn wrote:
> Here's a bit of intelligent opinion on the subject (as opposed to most
> of what appears here). Presented without further comment.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column
>
"Intelligent"? Too bad that the clearly stated basic premise of this
"opinion" piece (when they finally get to it) just happens to be
misleading spin: "Doubters insist that the Earth is not warming."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What "doubters" are insisting is that politics and science do not mix,
and any result that mix is to be viewed with suspicion.
There is simply too much that is "non-scientific" between the data and
the conclusions that fosters "doubt" in the minds of those of us who
have had at least a modicum of training in scientific method.
"Doubters" DO believe that it is this unresolved "doubt" that exists,
possibly in either direction, which makes it imprudent as a basis for
proposed massive government intervention.
Not to mention, IMNSHO, that a warm bucket of spit has more currency
than any "opinion" piece from the LA Times, fercrissakes!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Kevin wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:57 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Kevin wrote:
>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>> Bohr
>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
> crunching!
>
> http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
Equally interesting is buried deep in one of your above:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
[email protected] wrote:
> I suppose if you injected 15,912,000,000,000,000 liters, of anything,
> into by bloodstream, yeah, I wouldn't be in such good shape. Your
> point is pointless.
ROTFLMAO and spewed all over my monitor. Sorry, "I don't care what they
say, that there is funny." :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:23:32 -0800 (PST), the infamous Kevin
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>
> Respected by whom? Perhaps fewer after that editorial.
>
>
>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>
> Ah, neutrality at last! Hmm, or is it? The first paragraph
>
> "The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit
> at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the
> climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page
> 551)."
>
> as well as their denying that anything substantive came from the
> leaks, makes it appear that my hope was dashed. Begone, alarmists!
> That editorial sure as shit wasn't peer-reviewed, bubba.
>
> Feh!
Oh, and Russia now joins New Zealand and Australia for cherry-picked data
to prove AGW::
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-
goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-
data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:06 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> Sounds like a lot - but it isn't really. First, of this seemingly
> enormous amount, most (if not all) is being converted to Oxygen by the
> earth's plant life.
Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen in the presence of sunlight - or a good
facsimile thereof. In the absence of light they absorb oxygen and emit
CO2.
See: <http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm>
or google photosynthesis and respiration for other articles.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Who says "spin" doesn't exist in the media. Heaven forbid that the AP
would actually more than barely allude that <gasp> "freezing" cold
temperatures in Europe as the reason for the trains not running:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_train_breakdowns
... and from the trenches:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6963158.ece
Looks like Bastardi called another one right a few weeks back when
predicting that parts of the US, England and Europe would have a
"December to remember":
<quote>.
"I have been telling people in the States now for a couple of weeks that
a "December to remember" is on the way, and over here we have the best
setup for a widespread white Christmas in many a year. Well, today I
will try, on our free site at accuweather.com, to cut a video showing
what is the most widespread snowcover I have ever seen a model forecast
as fully all of Europe is forecasted to be covered in snow by the 23rd!"
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
</quote>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
>>
>
>
> Too Kool! The Russians!
The Russians have always said that man made global warming was bull.
in 126049 20091216 082518 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>
>> Kevin
>
>
>'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
>'formerly-respected' more like.
>
>Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>> A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>
> It's an editorial, not a peer-reviewed research paper, and thus is no
> more meaningful than someone's opinion expressed on USENET.
Hmmm. An earlier post on this subject denigrated the peer-reviewed
articles in SciAm. Now you knock one that isn't peer-reviewed. Doesn't
leave much, does it?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>, Scott
Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Realclimate isn't the most objective of analysis, unfortunately.
There's an understatement!
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Dan Coby wrote:
>
>> CO2 is only a trace amount of that air, then the conclusion is that CO2
>> is a very effective blocker of infrared in certain bands.
>
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Solar_Spectrum.JPG
I admit that I am not an expert in global warming, etc., and it has been a
long time since I played with infrared spectrophotometers, but I will add a
few comments to your posting. (This is usenet where anyone can post even
even they do not know what they are talking about.)
I did a quick check using Google and I found your figure as part of a
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight.
I have no reason to doubt the figure. The figure shows the solar irradiance
between 250 and 2600 nm. This range seems to cover most of the incoming
solar energy. The figure shows that there is only a small effect of CO2 in
received sunlight near 2000 nm.
However an important part of the 'greenhouse effect' is that sunlight comes
in easily (as through the glass of greenhouse), warms the Earth which then
radiates as heat energy in the infrared. If something blocks the infrared
from being radiated back to space then the Earth will warm. Thus we need to
look at the spectra of infrared light in the range emitted by the Earth.
The wavelength at which peak intensity is determined by lambda = B / T.
Where B = 2.8977685 x 10-3 m K. This comes from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
If we assume that the average temperature of the Earth is 20C or 293K then
this gives us 9,890 nm. (I do not actually know the average temperature of
the Earth so I just guessed but the value is probably accurate to within 10%.)
The figure that you gave does not cover anywhere near 9,890 nm. A little
more Googling gave me this figure:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Like all data on the internet, I have no way to verify its accuracy.
(However since it comes from an Iowa State University web site, I thought
that you might give it a little more credence since ISU is reasonably local
to you.)
The ISU figure shows major absorption by CO2 at around 2600 and 4000 nm and
blocking beyond 13,000 nm. I think that the feature at 4000 nm was the
one that I was seeing back when I was playing with infrared spectrophotometers.
The ISU figure indicates that water vapor, CO2, and methane all have effects
upon the atmosphere's absorption of infrared and these three are generally
listed as the major greenhouse gases. O2 and O3 also have their effects
with the mjor feature between 9,000 and 10,000 nm. However I think that
most people like the presence of O2 in the atmosphere.
My major reason for responding to Scott Lurndal's posting was his statement
that "CO2 is a trace gas amounting to less than one tenth of one percent
of the atmosphere." with its implication that such a small amount of the
atmosphere could not have a major effect. As my experience with infrared
spectrophotometers and the Iowa State University figure indicates, even a
small percent of CO2 has major affects in the absorption of infrared by
the atmosphere. That small percent of CO2 makes the atmosphere nearly
opaque to infrared in certain frequency bands.
Kevin <[email protected]> writes:
>On Dec 15, 2:57=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Kevin wrote:
>> > I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! =A0 Prediction
>> > is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>> > Bohr
>>
>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
>crunching!
>
>http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-=
>falsify-data/
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-susp=
>ect-an-objective-assessment/
>
Realclimate isn't the most objective of analysis, unfortunately.
"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> writes:
>On Dec 15, 3:02=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>> >> Bohr
>>
>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
>ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>
>Tons of a GAS. Billions.
So. Have you calculated how much CO2 6 billion souls exhale each year?
>
>According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
Could you be a bit more precise? What sources?
>about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
>atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
>sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
>than the sources from human activity."
>
>So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
>an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
>an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
>and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
>that volume of co2 is.
No, not frightened in the least. CO2 is a trace gas amounting to less
than one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
>
>Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
>atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
>contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/
>ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23)
>
><drumroll>
>
>7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And
>increasing.
Meaningless, unless you also count the amount of CO2 which is absorbed
by the oceans, photosynthesized into C and O, and otherwise sequestered
or lost to space.
scott
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> writes:
...snip...
>> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
>> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
>> sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
>> than the sources from human activity."
>>
>> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
>> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
>> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
>> and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
>> that volume of co2 is.
>
> No, not frightened in the least. CO2 is a trace gas amounting to less
> than one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
In the early 1980's, I worked upon the development of an infrared
spectrophotometer. I was doing work on the servo systems controlling the
alignment and movement of mirrors in the instrument. As part of this work
I did thousands of measurement runs. Since I was primarily concerned with
how the electronics of the instrument were operating, most of the
measurements involved taking spectra of air. (Air is free and easy to
obtain.) There were two things that were extremely obvious when one
looked at the spectra. There was a huge wide absorption band due to CO2
and many absorption lines from water vapor. My memory after 25 years is
a little shaky about the exact numbers but the CO2 absorption was in the
95 to 98 percent range. Since the sample only involved a few inches of
air, one can calculate the effects of a few miles of air. As you said,
CO2 is only a trace amount of that air, then the conclusion is that CO2
is a very effective blocker of infrared in certain bands.
On 12/15/2009 6:13 PM, Dan Coby wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> writes:
> ...snip...
>>> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
>>> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
>>> sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
>>> than the sources from human activity."
>>>
>>> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
>>> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
>>> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
>>> and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
>>> that volume of co2 is.
>>
>> No, not frightened in the least. CO2 is a trace gas amounting to less
>> than one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.
>
> In the early 1980's, I worked upon the development of an infrared
> spectrophotometer. I was doing work on the servo systems controlling the
> alignment and movement of mirrors in the instrument. As part of this work
> I did thousands of measurement runs. Since I was primarily concerned with
> how the electronics of the instrument were operating, most of the
> measurements involved taking spectra of air. (Air is free and easy to
> obtain.) There were two things that were extremely obvious when one
> looked at the spectra. There was a huge wide absorption band due to CO2
> and many absorption lines from water vapor. My memory after 25 years is
> a little shaky about the exact numbers but the CO2 absorption was in the
> 95 to 98 percent range. Since the sample only involved a few inches of
> air, one can calculate the effects of a few miles of air. As you said,
> CO2 is only a trace amount of that air, then the conclusion is that CO2
> is a very effective blocker of infrared in certain bands.
Please refer to the Infrared spectrum of Carbon Dioxide
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
To understand the scan remember that the x axis is in wavenumbers
(2349=4.26 um) and 667=15.00 um.)
(See scan) While Carbon Dioxide is a strong absorber, it only absorbs in
three small sections of the Infrared band. It does not absorb in the
visible and Ultraviolet range.
The following is the same data for water vapor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_absorption_spectrum.png
There is 10 times the water vapor in the air and the bands of Carbon
Dioxide have greater absorbance, BUT water absorbs in about 70% of the
wavelengths in UV and Infrared, so because there is more total
absorbance there would be more energy absorbed.
Sort of like the amount of water getting through a couple of pin holes
in a bucket, compared to the water getting through a sieve.
Dan Coby wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Dan Coby wrote:
>>
>>> CO2 is only a trace amount of that air, then the conclusion is that CO2
>>> is a very effective blocker of infrared in certain bands.
>>
>> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Solar_Spectrum.JPG
>
> I admit that I am not an expert in global warming, etc., and it has been a
> long time since I played with infrared spectrophotometers, but I will add a
> few comments to your posting. (This is usenet where anyone can post even
> even they do not know what they are talking about.)
You are at least closer to being an expert than I. I'm not a physicist
and my involvement with solar heating panel development has led me to
focus almost exclusively on inbound energy and those aspects of
absorption, reflection, and re-radiation in that limited (but still
challenging) context.
> I did a quick check using Google and I found your figure as part of a
> Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight.
It's the same figure - as I was trying to learn how to /design/ a
super-efficient panel, I collected bits and pieces like this to mark my
path. (Rather like dropping bread crumbs in the forest.)
> I have no reason to doubt the figure. The figure shows the solar
> irradiance
> between 250 and 2600 nm. This range seems to cover most of the incoming
> solar energy. The figure shows that there is only a small effect of CO2 in
> received sunlight near 2000 nm.
It appears reasonable. I found several sets of independently produced
measurements on the nasa.gov web site, and a number of similar plots
based on those measurements, which seemed to agree - but I'm ignorant of
how they determined which atmospheric components contributed to the
"notches", since that info was outside of my 'focus'.
> However an important part of the 'greenhouse effect' is that sunlight comes
> in easily (as through the glass of greenhouse), warms the Earth which then
> radiates as heat energy in the infrared. If something blocks the infrared
> from being radiated back to space then the Earth will warm. Thus we
> need to look at the spectra of infrared light in the range emitted by the Earth.
Yuppers - in a simplified view, we need to radiate as much back through
the photosphere as passes inward - maintain an equilibrium...
...but I think it's not so perfectly simple for at least two reasons:
First, the planet has a significant internal heat supply which isn't
perfectly insulated by the mantle; and second, the altitude of the
blocking "something" may be significant - and I will be quick to say
that I'm completely ignorant of the quantitative effect of either factor.
> The wavelength at which peak intensity is determined by lambda = B / T.
> Where B = 2.8977685 x 10-3 m K. This comes from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Another familiar page (which sent me off to study Planck's work, which
made my head hurt) which provided some valuable clues to designing a
thermal diode that could be produced in a woodshop.
> If we assume that the average temperature of the Earth is 20C or 293K then
> this gives us 9,890 nm. (I do not actually know the average temperature of
> the Earth so I just guessed but the value is probably accurate to within
> 10%.)
I don't know, too, but can accept it as a starting point.
> The figure that you gave does not cover anywhere near 9,890 nm. A little
> more Googling gave me this figure:
> http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
> Like all data on the internet, I have no way to verify its accuracy.
> (However since it comes from an Iowa State University web site, I thought
> that you might give it a little more credence since ISU is reasonably local
> to you.)
Proximity doesn't give 'em any edge on credibility, but immediately I'm
interested in how the data was acquired, and what assumptions were made
in producing the plots. For me the plots raise more questions than they
answer - even when I assume that all their measurements were spot on.
> The ISU figure shows major absorption by CO2 at around 2600 and 4000 nm and
> blocking beyond 13,000 nm. I think that the feature at 4000 nm was the
> one that I was seeing back when I was playing with infrared
> spectrophotometers.
>
> The ISU figure indicates that water vapor, CO2, and methane all have
> effects
> upon the atmosphere's absorption of infrared and these three are generally
> listed as the major greenhouse gases. O2 and O3 also have their effects
> with the mjor feature between 9,000 and 10,000 nm. However I think that
> most people like the presence of O2 in the atmosphere.
Yuppers - I like O2 where I am and O3 overhead (I sunburn easily). I
confess that I have difficulty finding the /significance/ of the
absorption data as presented. My intuition tells me that the altitude
distribution of these gases is not constant, and that there may also be
geographical variances. I recall sailing in the Caribbean and noticing
that, on an otherwise clear day, each island had its own cloud; and I'm
aware that one side of a mountain range might be arid while the other
side was wet. In my experience clouds seem to range from 1,000' up to
about 50,000' - does that imply an altitude distribution for water vapor
as well? Do those same kinds of distributions manifest for the other
gases as well?
> My major reason for responding to Scott Lurndal's posting was his statement
> that "CO2 is a trace gas amounting to less than one tenth of one percent
> of the atmosphere." with its implication that such a small amount of the
> atmosphere could not have a major effect. As my experience with infrared
> spectrophotometers and the Iowa State University figure indicates, even a
> small percent of CO2 has major affects in the absorption of infrared by
> the atmosphere. That small percent of CO2 makes the atmosphere nearly
> opaque to infrared in certain frequency bands.
Perhaps because I lack your experience, I find myself with insufficient
information to draw any conclusions about the significance of any change
in atmospheric composition.
I provided the link, by the way, not to refute anything that you'd said
but, rather, to provide what little information I happened to have that
seemed germane. I especially appreciate the link to the ISU plots -
they've certainly provided food for thought.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Dan Coby wrote:
> If we assume that the average temperature of the Earth is 20C or 293K then
> this gives us 9,890 nm. (I do not actually know the average temperature of
> the Earth so I just guessed but the value is probably accurate to within
> 10%.)
Good guess! I found 288K (or 15°C / 59°F) given for Earth's average
surface temperature about 3/4 down the page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation
under the heading "Variables".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On Dec 15, 2:55=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:44=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 2:34=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 3:02=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> > > > >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Predicti=
on
> > > > >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> > > > >> Bohr
>
> > > > > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > > > > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> > > > Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between m=
an's
> > > > activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and=
the
> > > > cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> > > ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> > > the atmosphere on an annual basis? =A0It's in the billions of tons.
>
> > > Tons of a GAS. =A0Billions.
>
> > > According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
> > > about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
> > > atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
> > > sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smalle=
r
> > > than the sources from human activity."
>
> > > So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
> > > an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. =A0Huh. =A0T=
hat's
> > > an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. =A0Annually
> > > and rising. =A0Frightened yet? =A0Let's do the math and figure out wh=
at
> > > that volume of co2 is.
>
> > > Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
> > > atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
> > > contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, =A0221 liters/lb X 2000=
lb/
> > > ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
>
> > > <drumroll>
>
> > > 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. =A0Every freakin' year. =A0And
> > > increasing.
>
> > > Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
> > > our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. =A0Try to wrap
> > > your head around it, kay?
>
> > > I will be back with more.
>
> > How about this big number; .000383, m'kay?
>
> But please, just because the number is small (or large, for that
> matter) it really doesn't mean anything until you understand what the
> baseline is, how the system reacts, etc...
>
> For instance, I could introduce any numbers of substances into your
> bloodstream at that concentrations and you would drop dead instantly.
>
I suppose if you injected 15,912,000,000,000,000 liters, of anything,
into by bloodstream, yeah, I wouldn't be in such good shape. Your
point is pointless.
On Dec 15, 3:44=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:34=A0pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 3:02=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> > > >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> > > >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> > > >> Bohr
>
> > > > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > > > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> > > Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man=
's
> > > activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and t=
he
> > > cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> > ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> > the atmosphere on an annual basis? =A0It's in the billions of tons.
>
> > Tons of a GAS. =A0Billions.
>
> > According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
> > about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
> > atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
> > sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
> > than the sources from human activity."
>
> > So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
> > an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. =A0Huh. =A0Tha=
t's
> > an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. =A0Annually
> > and rising. =A0Frightened yet? =A0Let's do the math and figure out what
> > that volume of co2 is.
>
> > Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
> > atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
> > contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, =A0221 liters/lb X 2000 l=
b/
> > ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
>
> > <drumroll>
>
> > 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. =A0Every freakin' year. =A0And
> > increasing.
>
> > Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
> > our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. =A0Try to wrap
> > your head around it, kay?
>
> > I will be back with more.
>
> How about this big number; .000383, m'kay?
But please, just because the number is small (or large, for that
matter) it really doesn't mean anything until you understand what the
baseline is, how the system reacts, etc...
For instance, I could introduce any numbers of substances into your
bloodstream at that concentrations and you would drop dead instantly.
D'ohBoy
On Dec 15, 2:57=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> > I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! =A0 Prediction
> > is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> > Bohr
>
> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
crunching!
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-=
falsify-data/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-susp=
ect-an-objective-assessment/
Kevin
D'ohBoy wrote:
>
> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>
> Tons of a GAS. Billions.
>
> According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
> sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
> than the sources from human activity."
>
> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
> and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
> that volume of co2 is.
>
> Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
> atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
> contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000
> lb/ ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =
>
> <drumroll>
>
> 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And
> increasing.
>
> Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
> our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap
> your head around it, kay?
>
> I will be back with more.
>
Sounds like a lot - but it isn't really. First, of this seemingly enormous
amount, most (if not all) is being converted to Oxygen by the earth's plant
life. Then, too, do you know how much CO2 there actually IS in the
atmosphere? I don't either, but the value is 0.038% of the total atmospheric
gas.
If the atmosphere could be represented by your dining room table, the space
taken up by CO2 would be less than that occupied by the salt shaker. If the
atmosphere could be represented by the life-time consumption of beer by your
typical trailer-park bubba (6 x 360 x 40 = 108,000), then his total
consumption of CO2 would be about a week's worth of the good stuff (41
bottles).
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:48:35 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Doubters" DO believe that it is this unresolved "doubt" that exists,
>possibly in either direction, which makes it imprudent as a basis for
>proposed massive government intervention.
Right, and especially when it means the difference between life and
death for some world citizens.
>Not to mention, IMNSHO, that a warm bucket of spit has more currency
>than any "opinion" piece from the LA Times, fercrissakes!
1 LAT article + 1 NYT article might get you a warm bucket of spit, eh?
But only on a good day. <g>
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On 12/16/2009 8:24 PM, LDosser wrote:
> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in 126050 20091216 083204 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>> >> Bohr
>>>>
>>>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>
>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>>>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>>>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>
>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>>> =========================================================
>>>
>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>> than CO2
>>> and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>>> atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart
>>> suppressor?
>>
>> . or eat less meat?
>
>
> Do you know how much methane 8 Billion Vegans would produce?
OK, that was REALLY funny. You get a prize:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Leon wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy"
>> 15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
>>
>> Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really
>> noticeable?
> Cool! How many oz. is that??? I bet that is a big number...
LOL ... like the media reporting crude oil spills in gallons when crude
oil is measured in barrels.
And .... "it "feels like" 20 degrees".
Dipshits ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096
> 153.column
Unfortunately the two other databases cited used the UK database for
"calibration" it was the master. The space instruments were all
calibrated on the East Anglia data and unedited data from East Anglia is
still missing.
Reminds me of the situation where everyone was sure that power lines
caused cancer. The study was very clear on that. Scientist all agreed
the data presented showed it. Three different databases all came to the
same answer. They were all calibrated from the same (altered) baseline.
The author of the cancer study should be getting out of prison about
now. He "cleaned up" the data to make it easier for others to see the
link between cancer and power lines.
While I think there are things going on with the climate, I am
scientifically literate enough to know that if the calibration data set
is altered, all the others are...
Think of it this way - cut one stud 1 inch short without noticing (we
will call this the calibration stud) and mark all the others with that
stud. No matter what you do, if you use that calibrated stud to cut the
rest they will also all be 1 inch too short.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:22 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>in 126050 20091216 083204 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>> >> Bohr
>>>
>>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>>ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>>the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>>=========================================================
>>
>>Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than CO2
>>and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>>atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart suppressor?
>
>. or eat less meat?
Do you know how much methane is created by large amounts of cabbage?
We should have outlawed Ireland years ago. <snort>
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:22:49 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:3acbb379-917f-4d93-b4d5-b20f7a587abb@g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>Whoops! pv= nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that
>number to:
>
>15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
>
>Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really
>noticeable?
>
>Ummm.... yes.
>
>D'ohBoy
>
>
>Cool! How many oz. is that??? I bet that is a big number...
I'll bet it's an even -larger- number in milliliters! C'mon, give us
all those zeroes, Doughy!
--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:53:45 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:06 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a lot - but it isn't really. First, of this seemingly
>> enormous amount, most (if not all) is being converted to Oxygen by the
>> earth's plant life.
>
>Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen in the presence of sunlight - or a good
>facsimile thereof. In the absence of light they absorb oxygen and emit
>CO2.
What? You mean that plants secretly conspire at night to emit CO2?
that's ghastly! That was never covered in my Master Gardener class,
either. Oh My Buddha! What're we going to do? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Oh, wait a minute. I thought that when plants, when deprived of light,
_DIED_. ;)
>See: <http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm>
>
>or google photosynthesis and respiration for other articles.
Further reading showed that plants do consume a small amount of
oxygen. Note the quentity.
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Kevin wrote:
>>> A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>
>> It's an editorial, not a peer-reviewed research paper, and thus is no
>> more meaningful than someone's opinion expressed on USENET.
>
> Hmmm. An earlier post on this subject denigrated the peer-reviewed
> articles in SciAm. Now you knock one that isn't peer-reviewed.
> Doesn't leave much, does it?
There are no peer reviewed articles in Scientific American.
On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>> Bohr
>
> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
cyclic phenomena of climate change.
On 12/15/2009 3:18 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2:57 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>> Bohr
>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 10/22/08
>>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>>
>> A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
>> crunching!
>>
>> http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
>>
>
> Equally interesting is buried deep in one of your above:
>
> http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
>
Considering that this data is collect from various points on earth and
the daily variance in those reading from the north pole to the south
pole is at least 100 degrees on any given day, it is amazing that they
think their data is so precise that they can talk about a 5 degree change.
I would like to have all of the data points and subject it to an
aggressive statistical analysis such as that used for a drug being
submitted to the FDA. I doubt any of their "theories" would hold up.
In other words based on the wide variance in the data and the variance
in the weather stations on any single day I believe that statistical
analysis would show there is no significant changes in the data.
One of the easiest ways to prove something from random data is to cherry
pick the starting and ending point of the data range. Based on the
starting and ending point you can use random data to prove anything.
The link is to a simple discussion of statistical significance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
D'ohBoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>> Bohr
>>
>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>
> Tons of a GAS. Billions.
Why do you shout "GAS"?
> According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
> sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
> than the sources from human activity."
According to which sources and why should we believe them? I'm sorry but
"according to some sources" is meaningless.
> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh.
What of it?
> That's
> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%.
10 percent ain't much.
> Annually
> and rising. Frightened yet?
Uh, no.
> Let's do the math and figure out what
> that volume of co2 is.
>
> Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
> atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
> contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000
> lb/ ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =
>
> <drumroll>
>
> 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And
> increasing.
So what?
> Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
> our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap
> your head around it, kay?
What, you think you're going impress anybody with a big number?
> I will be back with more.
Try to do better. Your effort in this post is pathetic.
D'ohBoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 4:22 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2009 3:18 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> On Dec 15, 2:57 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>>>>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>>>>> Last update: 10/22/08
>>>>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>>
>>>> A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number
>>>> crunching!
>>
>>>> http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatolo...
>>
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
>>
>>> Equally interesting is buried deep in one of your above:
>>
>>> http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
>>
>> Considering that this data is collect from various points on earth
>> and the daily variance in those reading from the north pole to the
>> south
>> pole is at least 100 degrees on any given day, it is amazing that
>> they think their data is so precise that they can talk about a 5
>> degree change.
>>
>> I would like to have all of the data points and subject it to an
>> aggressive statistical analysis such as that used for a drug being
>> submitted to the FDA. I doubt any of their "theories" would hold up.
>> In other words based on the wide variance in the data and the
>> variance
>> in the weather stations on any single day I believe that statistical
>> analysis would show there is no significant changes in the data.
>>
>> One of the easiest ways to prove something from random data is to
>> cherry pick the starting and ending point of the data range. Based
>> on the starting and ending point you can use random data to prove
>> anything.
>>
>> The link is to a simple discussion of statistical significance
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
>
> Huh. You guys have fun ridiculing what frightens you.
>
> You (the collective you) have no baseline, no real basis to reason
> from but you choose to ridicule by using your own 'cherry picking'.
>
> I'm out. You obviously have no interest in a rational discussion.
You might try presenting one.
D'ohBoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:44 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2:34 pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>
>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping
>>> into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of
>>> tons.
>>
>>> Tons of a GAS. Billions.
>>
>>> According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
>>> about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
>>> atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than
>>> the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100
>>> smaller than the sources from human activity."
>>
>>> So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
>>> an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
>>> an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
>>> and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
>>> that volume of co2 is.
>>
>>> Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that
>>> 0.5 atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the
>>> human contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X
>>> 2000 lb/ ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =
>>
>>> <drumroll>
>>
>>> 7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And
>>> increasing.
>>
>>> Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
>>> our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap
>>> your head around it, kay?
>>
>>> I will be back with more.
>>
>> How about this big number; .000383, m'kay?
>
> But please, just because the number is small (or large, for that
> matter) it really doesn't mean anything until you understand what the
> baseline is, how the system reacts, etc...
>
> For instance, I could introduce any numbers of substances into your
> bloodstream at that concentrations and you would drop dead instantly.
That's nice. What of it?
If you're going to argue for anthropogenic global warming, you need to do
more than throw a few numbers around and shout that the sky is falling.
>
> D'ohBoy
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:06 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a lot - but it isn't really. First, of this seemingly
>> enormous amount, most (if not all) is being converted to Oxygen by
>> the earth's plant life.
>
> Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen in the presence of sunlight - or a
> good facsimile thereof. In the absence of light they absorb oxygen
> and emit CO2.
>
> See: <http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm>
>
> or google photosynthesis and respiration for other articles.
Not sure what your point is--there's a net gain of oxygen and loss of CO2.
"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>
> Kevin
'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
'formerly-respected' more like.
Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> >> Bohr
>
> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
=========================================================
Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than CO2
and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart suppressor?
On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>> >> Bohr
>>
>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
> =========================================================
>
> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than
> CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
> atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart suppressor?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal 5,000,000
billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's atmosphere. Only
a small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
contributed by man made activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>>> Bohr
>>>
>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>> =========================================================
>>
>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>> fart suppressor?
>
> Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal
> 5,000,000 billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's
> atmosphere. Only a small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in
> the atmosphere is contributed by man made activities.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
The trouble is that in recent memory it has grown from .03 percent.
LDosser wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>> Bohr
>>
>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>
>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>
> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
> =========================================================
>
> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
> fart suppressor?
Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever the
cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal measure.
This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks about it for
a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 126050 20091216 083204 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>> >> Bohr
>>>
>>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>>ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>>the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>>=========================================================
>>
>>Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than
>>CO2
>>and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>>atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart suppressor?
>
> . or eat less meat?
Do you know how much methane 8 Billion Vegans would produce?
"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>> >> Bohr
>>>
>>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>> =========================================================
>>
>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than
>> CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>> atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart
>> suppressor?
>
> Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal 5,000,000
> billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's atmosphere. Only a
> small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
> contributed by man made activities.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
>
>
>
And?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>>>> Bohr
>>>>
>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>
>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>
>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>>> =========================================================
>>>
>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>>> fart suppressor?
>>
>> Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal
>> 5,000,000 billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's
>> atmosphere. Only a small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in
>> the atmosphere is contributed by man made activities.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
>
> The trouble is that in recent memory it has grown from .03 percent.
>
And has been ten times that in earth's memory, so what's the problem?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>>> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>>> Bohr
>>>
>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>> =========================================================
>>
>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>> fart suppressor?
>
> Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever the
> cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal measure.
>
> This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks about it
> for
> a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
>
Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been since
humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has been a Whole
Lot higher in the past?
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 126049 20091216 082518 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
>>'formerly-respected' more like.
>>
>>Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
>
> Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
Are you a Moron? I was gainfully Employed in Climate Research for three
years. I have seen the tweaking.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>in 126049 20091216 082518 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
>>>'formerly-respected' more like.
>>>
>>>Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
>>
>>Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
>
> What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
>
> "Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep
> the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep
> them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a
> new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
>
>
> OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all
> you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
Oh, Dear!
LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
>>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>>
>>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>>
>>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping
>>>> into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of
>>>> tons. =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>>>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>>>> fart suppressor?
>>>
>>> Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal
>>> 5,000,000 billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's
>>> atmosphere. Only a small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in
>>> the atmosphere is contributed by man made activities.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>
>> The trouble is that in recent memory it has grown from .03 percent.
>>
>
> And has been ten times that in earth's memory, so what's the problem?
Perhaps you should ask someone who thinks that there is one.
LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>>>
>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>
>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>
>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping
>>> into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of
>>> tons. =========================================================
>>>
>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>>> fart suppressor?
>>
>> Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever
>> the cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal
>> measure.
>>
>> This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks
>> about it for
>> a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
>>
>
> Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been
> since humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has
> been a Whole Lot higher in the past?
Show me an argument by ridicule based in that concept.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12/16/2009 8:24 PM, LDosser wrote:
>> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> in 126050 20091216 083204 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>>>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>>>> >> Bohr
>>>>>
>>>>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>>
>>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>>> man's
>>>>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and
>>>>> the
>>>>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>>
>>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>>>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>>> than CO2
>>>> and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>>>> atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart
>>>> suppressor?
>>>
>>> . or eat less meat?
>>
>>
>> Do you know how much methane 8 Billion Vegans would produce?
>
> OK, that was REALLY funny. You get a prize:
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
>
Too Kool! The Russians!
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "LDosser" wrote:
>
>> Do you know how much methane 8 Billion Vegans would produce?
>
> Do you?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
It was a rhetorical question. Do you know what the climate was like Oregon
during the last ice age. I do.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>>>
>>>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping
>>>>> into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of
>>>>> tons. =========================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>>>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>>>>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>>>>> fart suppressor?
>>>>
>>>> Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal
>>>> 5,000,000 billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's
>>>> atmosphere. Only a small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in
>>>> the atmosphere is contributed by man made activities.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>
>>> The trouble is that in recent memory it has grown from .03 percent.
>>>
>>
>> And has been ten times that in earth's memory, so what's the problem?
>
> Perhaps you should ask someone who thinks that there is one.
>
Sorry, I took the word 'trouble' to mean you thought there is a problem with
the CO2 increase.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>>
>>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>>
>>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping
>>>> into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of
>>>> tons. =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas
>>>> than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane
>>>> into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a
>>>> fart suppressor?
>>>
>>> Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever
>>> the cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal
>>> measure.
>>>
>>> This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks
>>> about it for
>>> a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
>>>
>>
>> Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been
>> since humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has
>> been a Whole Lot higher in the past?
>
> Show me an argument by ridicule based in that concept.
>
I was suggesting 'propaganda. But you knew that.
LDosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens!
>>>>>>>> Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the
>>>>>>>> future. - Niels Bohr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>>>>>> persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between
>>>>>> man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric
>>>>>> CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>>>>
>>>>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping
>>>>> into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of
>>>>> tons. =========================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse
>>>>> gas than CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more
>>>>> methane into the atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready
>>>>> to wear a fart suppressor?
>>>>
>>>> Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then
>>>> whatever the cows are producting is being removed somewhere else
>>>> in equal measure.
>>>>
>>>> This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks
>>>> about it for
>>>> a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been
>>> since humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has
>>> been a Whole Lot higher in the past?
>>
>> Show me an argument by ridicule based in that concept.
>>
>
> I was suggesting 'propaganda. But you knew that.
No, I was referring specifically to the method of argument. It bugs me when
people who I basically agree with use cliched and misleading arguments
because when people figure out that they've been mislead they tend to shoot
both the messenger and the message.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>in 126049 20091216 082518 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
>>>>>'formerly-respected' more like.
>>>>>
>>>>>Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
>>>>
>>>>Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
>>>
>>> What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
>>>
>>> "Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep
>>> the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep
>>> them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a
>>> new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
>>>
>>>
>>> OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all
>>> you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
>>
>>Oh, Dear!
>
> Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
>
Sorry, was the Benny Hill side. :o)
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:30:02 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>Oh, Dear!
>>>
>>> Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
>>
>>Sorry, was the Benny Hill side. :o)
>
> I never realized he was gay until someone pointed me at the Wiki for
> him after his death. He had some nice nekkid girls on his show and he
> faked the macho thing well, I guess.
There was a time in the UK when being a homosexual was illegal. IIRC, Alan
Turing was prosecuted. Benny Hill certainly overlaps Turing's lifetime and
probably had strong defence mechanisms. I suppose the whole drag thing with
him was a poke in the eye of the government.
"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> >> Bohr
>
> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>
> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
And yet we still pump less than 1% of what is emitted by all other sources
combined.
"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3acbb379-917f-4d93-b4d5-b20f7a587abb@g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Whoops! pv= nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that
number to:
15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really
noticeable?
Ummm.... yes.
D'ohBoy
Cool! How many oz. is that??? I bet that is a big number...
You know, if this global warming gets much worse, people are going to start
freezing to death.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Who says "spin" doesn't exist in the media. Heaven forbid that the AP
> would actually more than barely allude that <gasp> "freezing" cold
> temperatures in Europe as the reason for the trains not running:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_train_breakdowns
>
> ... and from the trenches:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6963158.ece
>
> Looks like Bastardi called another one right a few weeks back when
> predicting that parts of the US, England and Europe would have a "December
> to remember":
>
> <quote>.
>
> "I have been telling people in the States now for a couple of weeks that a
> "December to remember" is on the way, and over here we have the best setup
> for a widespread white Christmas in many a year. Well, today I will try,
> on our free site at accuweather.com, to cut a video showing what is the
> most widespread snowcover I have ever seen a model forecast as fully all
> of Europe is forecasted to be covered in snow by the 23rd!"
>
> http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
>
> </quote>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>in 126049 20091216 082518 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
>>'formerly-respected' more like.
>>
>>Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
>
>Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
"Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep
the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep
them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a
new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all
you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>in 126049 20091216 082518 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric.
>>>>'formerly-respected' more like.
>>>>
>>>>Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
>>>
>>>Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
>>>
>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
>>
>> What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
>>
>> "Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep
>> the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep
>> them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a
>> new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
>>
>>
>> OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all
>> you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
>
>Oh, Dear!
Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
in 126086 20091216 141852 Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/16/2009 3:32 AM, LDosser wrote:
>> "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:0b623ba8-b1c1-430b-b745-a2250b62e29c@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:> Kevin wrote:
>>> >> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
>>> >> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
>>> >> Bohr
>>>
>>> > And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
>>> > persuasion, than silence us by power."
>>>
>>> Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's
>>> activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the
>>> cyclic phenomena of climate change.
>>
>> ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
>> the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
>> =========================================================
>>
>> Do you understand that methane is a far more serious greenhouse gas than
>> CO2 and that cattle and other large mammals vent more methane into the
>> atmosphere than any other source? Are you ready to wear a fart suppressor?
>
>Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the nominal 5,000,000
>billion of gas and aerosols that comprise the Earth's atmosphere. Only
>a small percent of the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
>contributed by man made activities.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Did you even bother to read that link?
Kevin wrote:
> A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
And therein lies the problem, where "respected" apparently loses its
meaning:
"And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed
anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced
and discussed both papers."
The "facts" are that the modeling data, which was the basis of the above
statement, appears to have been destroyed/"misplaced", making peer
review, if not impossible, too difficult to pursue.
This is very dubious "scientific method", and invites suspicion and doubt.
Are they that sloppy in their scientific method? Or do they have
something to hide?
Come now, if they can't do a better job than this, "respect" does enter
into the discussion.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:23:32 -0800 (PST), the infamous Kevin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
Respected by whom? Perhaps fewer after that editorial.
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Ah, neutrality at last! Hmm, or is it? The first paragraph
"The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the
climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page
551)."
as well as their denying that anything substantive came from the
leaks, makes it appear that my hope was dashed. Begone, alarmists!
That editorial sure as shit wasn't peer-reviewed, bubba.
Feh!
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:42:10 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Here's a bit of intelligent opinion on the subject (as opposed to most
>> of what appears here).
>
>Well, the first sentence reveals you to be mistaken.
>
>Why MUST we accept that global warming is real?
>
>And really, citing the LA Times as authoritative on anything is a
>stretch at best...
He's just flustered because his world truth has just been shattered.
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:30:02 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>Oh, Dear!
>>
>> Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
>
>Sorry, was the Benny Hill side. :o)
I never realized he was gay until someone pointed me at the Wiki for
him after his death. He had some nice nekkid girls on his show and he
faked the macho thing well, I guess.
--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
Kevin wrote:
> I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction
> is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels
> Bohr
And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by
persuasion, than silence us by power."
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)