Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening

309 posts in this topic

And that is fear exemplified. A typical response when the CT position is torn apart. I understand it...

It is the climate change deniers who claim a grand conspiracy on the part of the Climate change scientists - and you have done nothing in all your voluminous posts to support such a conspiracy.

Yes, yes, yes. Man has changed the planet in profound ways. I do agree! However, none of those have anything to do with him changing the climate of the planet... :td:

Perhaps you would like to show us on what basis you make that claim in the face of the climate evidence. That after all is all I have been asking you to do for the last year.

Now, perhaps when you're finished feeding your ego, and making ridicuous responses, you can go back to the issue at hand.

I said this...

Attempting to feed your ego, at my expense, of course fails, but it'll get you put into your real plqace rapidly.

The question was, "So what?"

More flowery rhetoric without any substance.

Simply restating what is know, that climate changes naturally, is in no way evidence that man is not causing the current episode of anthropogenic global warming. So you statement is not addressing the issue at hand in any meaningful way. As I said - your simply avoiding answering simple questions.

CFC's anyone, which are a know climate change element.

Do you think your attempts to stonewall on these issues is impressing anyone ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the climate change deniers who claim a grand conspiracy on the part of the Climate change scientists - and you have done nothing in all your voluminous posts to support such a conspiracy.

Perhaps you would like to show us on what basis you make that claim in the face of the climate evidence. That after all is all I have been asking you to do for the last year.

More flowery rhetoric without any substance.

Simply restating what is know, that climate changes naturally, is in no way evidence that man is not causing the current episode of anthropogenic global warming!! :w00t:

:w00t: :w00t:

Not you too?

Anthropogenic???

Jesus, allow me to translate what you just said:

"Simply stating what is understood...that climate changes naturally...is in no way evidence that MAN IS NOT CAUSING THE CURRENT EPISODE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!

Lord...you did say that! Then, who is causing it?

Probably best to not grab hold of someone who introduces new terms and makes herself look foolish doing it. You make yourself look foolish doing it!

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t: :w00t:

Not you too?

Anthropogenic???

Jesus, allow me to translate what you just said:

"Simply stating what is understood...that climate changes naturally...is in no way evidence that MAN IS NOT CAUSING THE CURRENT EPISODE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!

Lord...you did say that! Then, who is causing it?

Probably best to not grab hold of someone who introduces new terms and makes herself look foolish doing it. You make yourself look foolish doing it!

I am sorry MID but I explained to you why Anthropogenic was the correct scientific term - very precise in its meaning - very scientific. Do you have trouble understanding science.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry MID but I explained to you why Anthropogenic was the correct scientific term - very precise in its meaning - very scientific. Do you have trouble understanding science.

Br Cornelius

:w00t:

Did ya??!?

Wow, I'm impressed.

It's funny. There's never been any precision needed when talking about man-made global warming.

Simplicity is as good as you need when explaining something so complex and precise !!!

And the young lady who introduced these terms to the board, and to whom I tried to explain the simplicity in not introducing complex terminology when speaking to man-made global warming, well...

I'm sure I'll never hear from her again, but you explained nothing to me, ever. Nor will you.

Just as your nonsense claim that YOU explined that that term was correct ()yea...right!). c'mon, Doc! Your imagination is one thing, and we can accept your falacious constructs, but your knowledge of the climate is limited.... :td: :td:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC

: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic

Not only do you avoid discussing the science - you wont even use scientific language. I have to conclude your anti-science, are you a creationist as well :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple;

http://www.newscient...oven-wrong.html

mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg

That certainly looks like a dramatic upclick to me.

And the article explains why complaints against the hockey stick graph are groundless.

Evidence from glacial shrinkage;

http://www.pnas.org/...97/4/1406.short

Tree range also shows an unprecedented shift in the last century, and supports anecdotal evidence presented here by Doug repeatedly;

http://www.bioone.or...44-7447-30.2.72

Evidence from Tibet that temperature are higher than in at least 700yrs;

http://219.238.6.203...e=PDF&id=307566

Evidence from Vostok;

http://www.daycreek....images/1999.pdf

More evidence for an upclick in the temperature trend;

ftp://linux-server.ims.metu.edu.tr/pub/iklim/ecoclimate/science/662.pdf

Notice how most of this stuff is a decade old. The reason is that the evidence is conclusive and no one is repeating what is already established facts.

P.S. - MID though your little rant about naming was all very entertaining - the reason why it is called anthropogenic Climate change is because that is a scientifically accurate term for what is happening which accurately and succinctly describes the cause. Maybe you take issue with calling humans Homo sapien's as well.

Br Cornelius

It is well established that the long term trend was one of cooling - which is what makes the sudden and dramatic upclick in recent times so significant.

christiansen-2000-year-temp-reconstruction-cf-fig-5.gif

http://www.clim-past...-8-765-2012.pdf

not so significant when you go back just a little further than you presented in your spagetti graphs, and consider only proxies known to respond better to temperature without dampening colder and warmer periods as the studies you presented do. as you can see, there is a similar ramp in temperatures between the years 900-1000 as there is between 1900-2000 which the ipcc models cannot explain - and there is no association with co2. and go back further and you will see similar ramp ups at similar intervals as I tried to show with the 5000 year greenland icecore here:

Drakeetal2012b.jpg

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph is still relevant because it has been duplicated - which is the scientific method after all.

No two studies of anything this complex ever manage to exactly reproduce each other. Mann's work has been by-and-large validated, but the updating studies did not EXACTLY reproduce his results. And that is exactly what one would expect.

One thought for you and Little Fish to mull over with your ping-pong graph match: the absolute global temperature is not what we're talking about here. It's the INCREASE in that temperature. For example, if the temperature were to go from zero to ten degrees, that would be twice the warming that occurs when going from 95 to 100 degrees. While absolute temperatures are important, it's not the whole story.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC

: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>

http://www.merriam-w...y/anthropogenic

Not only do you avoid discussing the science - you wont even use scientific language. I have to conclude your anti-science, are you a creationist as well :w00t:

Br Cornelius

It's a bloody word. It's fancy, it's long, and it's unneccessary, as I've said:

MAN-MADE will do. There is no need to attempt to grow your position here. It's shrunk enough without more nonsense.

Oh, and by the way:

CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING!

GET OVER IT! :w00t: :w00t: :w00t::tsu: :tsu: :tu::w00t::yes: :yes:

Edited by MID
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a lighter note...I demand the government stop the next tornado or hurricane that threatens us. It is just about as futile...IMO. :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a lighter note...I demand the government stop the next tornado or hurricane that threatens us. It is just about as futile...IMO. :yes:

We probably can't stop them all, but by reducing warming, we can reduce the number and and severity of both. If we don't, we'll just have to get used to more destruction.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a lighter note...I demand the government stop the next tornado or hurricane that threatens us. It is just about as futile...IMO. :yes:

:tu::yes::tu:

Yes. It's all futility, Michelle.

Despite the fact that we have absolutely no power to control of influence the weather, you will continually encounter specially trained climatologists here who will say things like "...by reducing warming, we can reduce the number and severity of both. If we don't, we'll just have to get used to more destruction."

Yet...

...Convection, thundercell formation, sometimes tornadoes, winds, heavy rain, hail, and destruction all occur without any influence of man. They happen because it's summer, and the conditions for formation are favorable. Those hurricanes and typhoons that (have always) plagued Japan and asia occur through similar (although much larger scale) mechanics at sea.

Oddly enough, we can't do a thing about them. They just happen, and we monitor, and try to keep people safe by helping them avoid it all. We can't get rid of them, and curiously enough, not a one has ever had any indication that man made it.

How could we make those things happen?

A little while ago, it was 102 degrees F outside in July. Hot as heck, and the humidity was 90% that morning, and was still in the upper 70s all day. Oddly enough, a thunderstorm warning went up for my area that afternoon, and clearly, radar showed convective cells forming and moving toward me.

Oddly enough, nang, boom, an inch of rain in a half hour, water running down the street, the power went out for about a half hour....and then the sun came out and it was 80 some degrees out. Still humid, and flood waters flowed in low lying or poor drainage areas.

I was going to call and lodge a complaint with the NWS because global warming needed to be addressed, but my wife looked at me and wasn't smiling....

"Don't you even think of playing tht game!" said she, wisely...

Thinking, I never saw anything more frequent, more severe, or somehow bearing signatures of some influence other than summer. It was all normal weather.

And in all that normal weather (been many decades observing the stuff), never have I observed "MORE" rain, or snow, or destruction, or problems. I've just observed normal weather (although running like hell from a tornado...but that's kind of normal too). Hurricanes are a pain in the ****, especially if you're in one!

I'm not sure I expect any more of this. It's always been pretty much the same.

But never did we create one, and never will we, nor never shall we get rid of one.

I'd like to know how we cool the warming we're allegedly, yet not evidently, cusing on this planet. If we could actually do that, we could certainly get rid of a storm too!

Maybe the "climatologist" will tell us how!

:w00t::yes::w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that we have absolutely no power to control of influence the weather,

Ever hear of silver iodide?

you will continually encounter specially trained climatologists here who will say things like "...by reducing warming, we can reduce the number and severity of both. If we don't, we'll just have to get used to more destruction."

I am not a climatologist and have never claimed to be one. But I note that since 1892, temperatures on the Ouachita National Forest have tracked very nicely with Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies, which show rising temps. I use records from 31 local weather stations recorded by well over a hundred different observers over 120 years - and they show rising temps. That's the instrumental record, not tree rings. Are you trying to say that there is some kind of conspiracy to rig the data and that they're all lying and yet the secret has been kept for over a century? That's what I would call paranoid thinking.

...Convection, thundercell formation, sometimes tornadoes, winds, heavy rain, hail, and destruction all occur without any influence of man. They happen because it's summer, and the conditions for formation are favorable. Those hurricanes and typhoons that (have always) plagued Japan and asia occur through similar (although much larger scale) mechanics at sea.

You are mistaking weather for climate. They're not the same. You will never understand climate until you understand this.

How might we change climate? We're already doing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. If we could bring down the level of CO2 and keep it below 350 ppm we might reverse that. That will not be easy to do. First, stop the increase in CO2 by converting to solar and wind power. We are already doing that, but slowly. The issue is a political one: the conservatives are opposing it just for political reasons, ignoring the fact that wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil and is comparable to gas - basically, making us pay more just to protect inefficient and wasteful monopolies.

Once the increase in CO2 is stopped, we may have to work on lowering it. That would mean terra-forming earth - harvesting biomass and putting it where it can't decompose into CO2 - like dry landfills. In forestry, silvicultural operations result in the cutting of junk and low-grade trees, which are usually allowed to decay on site. Those could be chipped and buried. So could waste paper. We could ferment cellulose, harvest the alcohol and bury the rest. The process would even pay for itself.

We are not talking about large government projects or major inconveniences to consumers. We are talking about small changes in infrastructure that have big environmental impacts.

The idea that industries should be allowed to release poisons into the air and water just to make profits, is an idea that has to go. Profits are fine, but deliberately killing people because you won't clean up your mess, is not. That's what this "debate" is really all about.

So which side are you on? Would you prefer to die of coal smoke, or would you prefer to live in a clean place?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MID i have in many cases explained you that we can control weather to some extent.

How to control i.e change the storms path and reduce wind speeds. Either you have a really bad memory or you choose to ignore what's being explained to you.

I can see Br and Doug have tried, way to many times in my opinion, to educate you scientifically.

Its always fun and educating to have a debate about the scientifically principles behind AGW with someone. Do what LF does, find something to debate over instead of just saying it's all bull**** and you don't want to explain why(I think its because you don't know how to).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always come away from a conversation with MID feeling like I do after a Chinese meal - bloated but ultimately dissatisfied and still hungry for some actual substance.

I've said it before - but he forces me to say it again - time with MID is always time wasted.

He claims to be an engineer but I have my doubts.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always come away from a conversation with MID feeling like I do after a Chinese meal - bloated but ultimately dissatisfied and still hungry for some actual substance.

I've said it before - but he forces me to say it again - time with MID is always time wasted.

He claims to be an engineer but I have my doubts.

Br Cornelius

Depends if you use American or British terminology to define the job, in American terminology this guy is an engineer too:

engineer.gif

In British he would be a train driver.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are mistaking weather for climate. They're not the same. You will never understand climate until you understand this.

Ah...thank you so much!

As you should've been plainly seeing, I was discussing specific weather events, as they had been discussed as aspects of climate influenced by men.

And weather, is in fact, reflective of the climate. I do not know why asuch a reasonably elucidated statement should be an argumentive point for you, but it is, even though you're inaccurate in using it as such.

How might we change climate? We're already doing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. If we could bring down the level of CO2 and keep it below 350 ppm we might reverse that. That will not be easy to do. First, stop the increase in CO2 by converting to solar and wind power. We are already doing that, but slowly. The issue is a political one: the conservatives are opposing it just for political reasons, ignoring the fact that wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil and is comparable to gas - basically, making us pay more just to protect inefficient and wasteful monopolies.

:w00t::clap: And wind power has worked where... In what large scale environment, pragmatically, and economically?

Oh and by the way, Conservatives (who built this country and made it what it was before socialism came to the fore in certain mindsets)...don't spend needlessly, nor do they propose making people spend their money on things that don't work, or making them buy things unconstitutionally.

It's simple when disucussing any aspect...just take gasoline:

We haven't made enough in decades. We haven't built a refinery in...how long? But lord knows, they'll tax the hell out of gasoline, taking more profit than the companies who make the stuff do (and that's minimal). Conservatives want to become energy independent, and do so by the only manner that makes sense in the economy as it presently exists:

To drill ourselves for the vast reserves we have here, and to refine our fuel as we need it. We'd create hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost this economy, and make the money we need to supoport Research and Development in alternative fuel sources (and of course, our oil companies will be the ones to do that!).

Lower prices, greater supplies, and increasing economy with unemployment going way down.

That's what conservatives do...not the sillines you propose. It would be best to cease using the term until you actually understand it, and that all the greats in this country's history, were Conservatives!

And finally:

We're doing this global warming by keeping the concentration of C02 at 350ppm or greater?

How do we do that, and...

How would you propose we lower that?

We could all stop breathing. I guess that would help a whole lot, eh?

After all, we humans exhale about 2 1/2 opounds of CO2 per day...EACH. That's over 16 billion pounds per day across the planet! 8million tons of CO2!

And even THAT is a microsscopic fraction of the atmospheric volume of the planet We put out 8000 tons of the stuff into a 500,000,000,000,000 ton atmosphere. That's 16 trillionths of a percent.

The total CO2 put into the atmosphere in a year by cars worldwide is a mere 6/1,000 % of the atmospheric volume!

All this, of course is causing global warming (which has been happening as it does happen, for thousands of years, due to the Sun's actions). But you know, we never notice a damned thing about it.

Further, the planet doesn't care, and if it was conscious and knew what people were claiming and talking about, well....we lilely all would've been swallowed by the Earths fit of laughter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends if you use American or British terminology to define the job, in American terminology this guy is an engineer too:

engineer.gif

In British he would be a train driver.

Actually, there is (or should be() no confusion if using the correct nomenclature.

This fellow, no matter where you are is a Railroad Engineer.

This is not to be confused with the Professional Engineer, who may be called simply an "Engineer" in normal conversation. This is the person who completed his or her 4 or 5 year course to receive a B.S. degree in engineering, civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical, archetectural, railway systems, or aerospace.

(The gentleman pctured is not a railway systems engineer).

How utterly boring was all that?! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CFC's MID - at concentrations of 1/1000th that of CO2 created the Ozone hole. Absolute volume is immaterial.

If you disagree may I suggest you take a dose of cyanid at 1 millionth of your body mass to prove the point :tu:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever hear of silver iodide?

I am not a climatologist and have never claimed to be one. But I note that since 1892, temperatures on the Ouachita National Forest have tracked very nicely with Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies, which show rising temps. I use records from 31 local weather stations recorded by well over a hundred different observers over 120 years - and they show rising temps. That's the instrumental record, not tree rings. Are you trying to say that there is some kind of conspiracy to rig the data and that they're all lying and yet the secret has been kept for over a century? That's what I would call paranoid thinking.

You are mistaking weather for climate. They're not the same. You will never understand climate until you understand this.

How might we change climate? We're already doing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. If we could bring down the level of CO2 and keep it below 350 ppm we might reverse that. That will not be easy to do. First, stop the increase in CO2 by converting to solar and wind power. We are already doing that, but slowly. The issue is a political one: the conservatives are opposing it just for political reasons, ignoring the fact that wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil and is comparable to gas - basically, making us pay more just to protect inefficient and wasteful monopolies.

Once the increase in CO2 is stopped, we may have to work on lowering it. That would mean terra-forming earth - harvesting biomass and putting it where it can't decompose into CO2 - like dry landfills. In forestry, silvicultural operations result in the cutting of junk and low-grade trees, which are usually allowed to decay on site. Those could be chipped and buried. So could waste paper. We could ferment cellulose, harvest the alcohol and bury the rest. The process would even pay for itself.

We are not talking about large government projects or major inconveniences to consumers. We are talking about small changes in infrastructure that have big environmental impacts.

The idea that industries should be allowed to release poisons into the air and water just to make profits, is an idea that has to go. Profits are fine, but deliberately killing people because you won't clean up your mess, is not. That's what this "debate" is really all about.

So which side are you on? Would you prefer to die of coal smoke, or would you prefer to live in a clean place?

Doug

I always come away from a conversation with MID feeling like I do after a Chinese meal - bloated but ultimately dissatisfied and still hungry for some actual substance.

I've said it before - but he forces me to say it again - time with MID is always time wasted.

He claims to be an engineer but I have my doubts.

Br Cornelius

I do?

I claim to be an engineer, eh?

You have your doubts???

Oh boy!

Well, in that case, I suspend all projects I'm working on, and return all certificates to the appropriate agencies.

If Brother Cornelius has doubts, then I'm shakin' in my booties!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CFC's MID - at concentrations of 1/1000th that of CO2 created the Ozone hole. Absolute volume is immaterial.

If you disagree may I suggest you take a dose of cyanid at 1 millionth of your body mass to prove the point :tu:

Br Cornelius

Oh, OK, Thanks, Br. C.

I'll do that! I'll try within the next half hour.

I have to leave for an engineering meeting with an aerospace staff in Cleveland.

....Shhhhh, I won't tell 'em you pulled my certs!

:-*

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets us know how it turns out :tu:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you should've been plainly seeing, I was discussing specific weather events, as they had been discussed as aspects of climate influenced by men.

And weather, is in fact, reflective of the climate. I do not know why asuch a reasonably elucidated statement should be an argumentive point for you, but it is, even though you're inaccurate in using it as such.

We can and do control specific weather events, like rain-making with silver iodide crystals. There was a lawsuit back in the 70s charging that government efforts to increase rainfall over the San Juan Mountains was depriving Sangre de Cristo residents of needed water. The court ruled that while rainfall increased in the San Juans, there was nothing to indicate it decreased rainfall in the Sangre de Cristos. So, at least in the opinion of the judge, silver iodide increased rainfall - i.e. people were controlling weather.

And wind power has worked where... In what large scale environment, pragmatically, and economically?

Right here. In the good ol' USA.

2896 megawatts of capacity were added to US totals in the first half of this year, bringing our total wind capacity to 49,802 megawatts. Wind power now produces 3.23% of all US power. We are second to China in adding new wind capacity. New wind generators are coming online at a cost of 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. Fourteen states now have at least 1000 megawatts of capacity. Texas is the leader with 10,377 megawatts. Iowa is second with 4322 megawatts. Altamont in California has the largest wind farm with a capacity greater than most states. 10,312 megawatts of capacity were under construction as of last June 30th. The department of energy estimates the US will generate 20% of its power needs from wind by 2030.

Is that pragmatic and economical enough for you?

Oh and by the way, Conservatives (who built this country and made it what it was before socialism came to the fore in certain mindsets)...don't spend needlessly, nor do they propose making people spend their money on things that don't work, or making them buy things unconstitutionally.

Ore boats on the Great Lakes used to sail with hatches open. It was a way to save money - the crew were supposed to secure the hatches while under way. It took the loss of several ships and crews before the unions put a stop to it. It was the unions who forced the mining companies to adopt safety procedures to protect both men and equipment.

Most of this country was built through cooperation. Whole towns were built by everybody pitching in. My favorite is Fort Garland, Colorado which was built in one day by a massive effort of the entire town. Conservative propaganda notwithstanding, the roads and highways of this country were a cooperative effort and continue to be. Everybody uses them and up until recently, everybody paid for them. Education: since the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 the US government has contributed money to education. That's before the term "socialism" had even been invented.

If you'd stop to think about it: socialism and capitalism have a common enemy. It's monopoly. Monopoly stifles the free market, enabling a powerful few to control everything. That's what we're approaching in the US and that's not what democracy is supposed to be about. Tell me how you envision freedom without a free market? Freedom means freedom for me, as well as for Mitt Romney.

We haven't made enough in decades. We haven't built a refinery in...how long?

There are 144 operating refineries in the US as of January 1. The newest is in Douglas, Wyoming and began operations in 2008. The second newest is in Metairie, Louisiana and began operations in 2005. Atmore, Alabama in 1998. Valdez, Alaska 1993; Eagle Springs, Nevada 1992; North Pole, Alaska 1987. Don't believe that conservative BS about "we haven't built any new refineries in 35 years." It ain't so.

But lord knows, they'll tax the hell out of gasoline, taking more profit than the companies who make the stuff do (and that's minimal).

It's the states who are raising taxes on gasoline. Federal taxes remain at 36 cents per gallon, exactly what they were in 1980 when I worked in the gasoline business. In Oklahoma, low taxes on fuels is a point of pride stemming from our large oil industry.

Conservatives want to become energy independent, and do so by the only manner that makes sense in the economy as it presently exists:

So blanket the Great Plains with windfarms and make energy independence happen.

To drill ourselves for the vast reserves we have here, and to refine our fuel as we need it. We'd create hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost this economy, and make the money we need to supoport Research and Development in alternative fuel sources (and of course, our oil companies will be the ones to do that!).

According to Mr. Big Oil - T. Boone Pickens - we can't drill our way out of this one (Google: Pickens Plan). There isn't enough capacity for a permanenet solution. The Bakken will take another ten years to fully develop. And the Obama Administration has sold more permits, including in the Gulf, than either the Bush or Clinton Administrations.

Money spent by private companies on Research and Development is a tax deductible business expense. Private businesses do not pay taxes on that, so their whining about taxes preventing them from doing it is so much BS.

Lower prices, greater supplies, and increasing economy with unemployment going way down.

Of course, simply forgiving the student loan debt, tax free, would give the economy a trillion-dollar shot in the arm. Taxes on the resulting spending would repay the Federal government's investment in about 18 months. But it's not liberals who are opposing that.

That's what conservatives do...not the sillines you propose. It would be best to cease using the term until you actually understand it, and that all the greats in this country's history, were Conservatives!

Conservatives have their own brand of silliness.

We're doing this global warming by keeping the concentration of C02 at 350ppm or greater?

How do we do that, and...

No. CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm right now. It is doudtful that we will be able to turn it around before it reaches 450 ppm, even if we could get the conservatives on board.

How would you propose we lower that?

See above.

We could all stop breathing.

I can think of a few who should.

And even THAT is a microsscopic fraction of the atmospheric volume of the planet We put out 8000 tons of the stuff into a 500,000,000,000,000 ton atmosphere. That's 16 trillionths of a percent.

The total CO2 put into the atmosphere in a year by cars worldwide is a mere 6/1,000 % of the atmospheric volume!

All this, of course is causing global warming (which has been happening as it does happen, for thousands of years, due to the Sun's actions). But you know, we never notice a damned thing about it.

Further, the planet doesn't care, and if it was conscious and knew what people were claiming and talking about, well....we lilely all would've been swallowed by the Earths fit of laughter!

The dose of cyanide that will kill 50% of humans if exposed to undamaged skin is 100 millgrams per kilogram. That's 100 parts per million, or one part in 10,000 or 1/1000%. That's one sixth of the concentration of CO2 in the air. By your line of reasoning, you should be able to safely consume enough cyanide to kill six people. Have at it.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Doug and BC have conceded since there was no response to post#281, you have both declared yourselves to be scientists in a relevant field yet you chose to ignore the substantive post and instead use your energy with two pages of tittle tattle.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=230590&st=270#entry4492133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Doug and BC have conceded since there was no response to post#281, you have both declared yourselves to be scientists in a relevant field yet you chose to ignore the substantive post and instead use your energy with two pages of tittle tattle.

So what's the problem? I don't see anything surprising in there. Those links are to abstracts. Have you read the articles?

They're just fine-tuning the system. Climate varies from place to place. Nothing new there. Climate change varies from place to place. Nothing new there, either.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets us know how it turns out :tu:

Br Cornelius

It went well. A wee discussion about a new idea for airfoils.

Not the kind of stuff to insipre all kinds of discussion about climate change, but nontheless, beneficial, espacially since I didn't admit I was a fake engineer and my certifications had been pulled by a wanna be global warming climatologist.

Stating that would've garnered laughter initially. But it would also have got me stoned eventually!

I'm home because I didn't mention this nonsense at the conference. Wasn't enough time for it anyway! It was over in maybe 50 minutes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.