Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Hägar
Feb 7, 2012, 10:13:04 AM2/7/12
to
"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
>A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> am the target
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/
>
Perhaps you can then explain the abrupt switch from the "Global
Cooling" wailing of the late 70s to the mid 80s and its ominous
predictions of an impending Ice-age, to the present, equally
hysterical gyrations about first "Global Warming", then "Climate
Change" and finally "Global Climate Disruption".
The world's temperatures have basically remained steady since
2001. There are hot spots, used by you "Scientists" as proof the
dilemma, while at the same time equal occurrences of cold spells
around the world are swept under the rug.
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 12:13:55 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 7:13 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
only by size but by duration. I take it you don’t buy into the .58 w/
m2 of energy budget imbalance.
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial,
works every time, as quantitative physics that interact with on
another, but not always for the greater good.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?hl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
: -- caton...@sympatico.ca
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, what part of the quantitative .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing
you. Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/react
exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold or stormy) is taking place,
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
their business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower
caste seems to be directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster or allowing others to create, as another way of
culling the lower 95% of us, thereby sucking away at our savings and
making it look as though only nature was responsible for killing us
off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption as a good
thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
environment has never been greater, and it’s only getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you can always make any seasonal affected area look like another ice-
age, just like our NASA/Apollo era made our physically dark moon look
so monochromatic of pastels offering only light grays that were also
oddly inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to
only soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or
even the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In
other words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were metallicity
deficient.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently having no tipping
points and unlimited resources plus ample roadkill and free deep-
fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying that
without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were a selection of 100 human species of five million each,
would this be sufficient biological diversity to insure our survival?
Isn’t sustaining the wide diversity of terrestrial life kind of good
biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar the commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
>
> >A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
>
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-stud...
> news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
>
> >A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
>
>
> Perhaps you can then explain the abrupt switch from the "Global
> Cooling" wailing of the late 70s to the mid 80s and its ominous
> predictions of an impending Ice-age, to the present, equally
> hysterical gyrations about first "Global Warming", then "Climate
> Change" and finally "Global Climate Disruption".
>
> The world's temperatures have basically remained steady since
> 2001. There are hot spots, used by you "Scientists" as proof the
> dilemma, while at the same time equal occurrences of cold spells
> around the world are swept under the rug.
That rug is not the one on your porch, is it?
> Perhaps you can then explain the abrupt switch from the "Global
> Cooling" wailing of the late 70s to the mid 80s and its ominous
> predictions of an impending Ice-age, to the present, equally
> hysterical gyrations about first "Global Warming", then "Climate
> Change" and finally "Global Climate Disruption".
>
> The world's temperatures have basically remained steady since
> 2001. There are hot spots, used by you "Scientists" as proof the
> dilemma, while at the same time equal occurrences of cold spells
> around the world are swept under the rug.
Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
only by size but by duration. I take it you don’t buy into the .58 w/
m2 of energy budget imbalance.
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial,
works every time, as quantitative physics that interact with on
another, but not always for the greater good.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?hl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
: -- caton...@sympatico.ca
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, what part of the quantitative .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing
you. Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/react
exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold or stormy) is taking place,
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
their business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower
caste seems to be directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster or allowing others to create, as another way of
culling the lower 95% of us, thereby sucking away at our savings and
making it look as though only nature was responsible for killing us
off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption as a good
thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
environment has never been greater, and it’s only getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you can always make any seasonal affected area look like another ice-
age, just like our NASA/Apollo era made our physically dark moon look
so monochromatic of pastels offering only light grays that were also
oddly inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to
only soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or
even the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In
other words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were metallicity
deficient.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently having no tipping
points and unlimited resources plus ample roadkill and free deep-
fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying that
without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were a selection of 100 human species of five million each,
would this be sufficient biological diversity to insure our survival?
Isn’t sustaining the wide diversity of terrestrial life kind of good
biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar the commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 1:21:48 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 7:13 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
>
> >A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
>
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-stud...
> news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
>
> >A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
>
>
> Perhaps you can then explain the abrupt switch from the "Global
> Cooling" wailing of the late 70s to the mid 80s and its ominous
> predictions of an impending Ice-age, to the present, equally
> hysterical gyrations about first "Global Warming", then "Climate
> Change" and finally "Global Climate Disruption".
>
> The world's temperatures have basically remained steady since
> 2001. There are hot spots, used by you "Scientists" as proof the
> dilemma, while at the same time equal occurrences of cold spells
> around the world are swept under the rug.
That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
> Perhaps you can then explain the abrupt switch from the "Global
> Cooling" wailing of the late 70s to the mid 80s and its ominous
> predictions of an impending Ice-age, to the present, equally
> hysterical gyrations about first "Global Warming", then "Climate
> Change" and finally "Global Climate Disruption".
>
> The world's temperatures have basically remained steady since
> 2001. There are hot spots, used by you "Scientists" as proof the
> dilemma, while at the same time equal occurrences of cold spells
> around the world are swept under the rug.
not the rug on your trailer porch, is it?
It seems the pro-GWs want the rest of us to believe that it’s all
perfectly natural and automatically taking care of us, regardless of
whatever 7+ billion humans has done.
Are you suggesting that cold temperatures and whatever glacial
buildups are being systematically excluded or obfuscated?
Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
into any part of the AGW .58 w/m2 of our global energy budget
imbalance.
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial works
every time, as well as quantitative physics that interact with one
another, but not always for the greater good seems to get ignored,
because the rich and powerful really don’t have to care.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293fab9f4ac555?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather/storm extremes are either draining your bank account or
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
killing you. Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/
react exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
react exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water.
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
their onshore as well as offshore business expenses. On the other
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
hand, the middle and lower caste seems to be stuck directly in harms
way of GW and AGW consequences. In fact, it seems the rich and
powerful desire as much GW and AGW as they can muster and/or allowing
others to create, as another way of culling the lower 95% of us,
thereby sucking away at our savings and making this look as though
only nature was responsible for killing us off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption, as a
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
good thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
environment has never been greater, and the toxic stench is only
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you folks of GW and AGW denial can always make any seasonal cold
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
affected area look like another ice-age, just like our NASA/Apollo era
made our physically dark moon look so monochromatic of pastels
offering only light grays that were also oddly so extra reflective and
inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to only
soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or even
the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In other
words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were as metallicity
soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or even
the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In other
deficient as a certain private guano island.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently one of having no
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
tipping points and unlimited resources, plus ample roadkill and free
deep-fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying
Hägar
Feb 7, 2012, 3:21:06 PM2/7/12
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cab1a38b-af65-4590...@pm3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 7:13 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
Congratulations, GuthBall ... you have been successfully brain
> "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:t8hti75mm9s3oiues...@4ax.com...
washed and turned into a zombie. Cooling and warming cycles
alternate and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Not to mention the help we get from Nature in the form of
volcanoes and hydro-thermal vents (lots and lots of them).
But, you schmucks can't fine Mother Nature, so in desperation
you lash out at everyone else in a futile attempt you alleviate
your insanity. There has not been a temperature increase
since 2001, you numbnutz ... and anyone arguing the contrary
is a liar. Spare me you ridiculous numbers. Tell me what YOU
think the percentage of pollution caused by mankind is in the
overall scheme of things ... you have no clue, because you're
a hapless imbecile.
You might also want to explain to us how that would work:
When Al "there's a fire raging twixt me loins" Gore indicates
that his off-shore bank accounts are stuffed to the brim, then
the Global Warming crisis (or whatever the fuck you call it
now) is over ??? Does he then flip the magic switch ???
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and you're past the point
of return to sanity, as we know it.
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 6:51:48 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 12:21 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actually, the cooler the planet the less stormy it gets. So, what the
hell is wrong with your version of this supposed ice-age we're into?
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut CO2 by 42 ppm it stands to reason
that many other reductions in soot, CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other
released elements (including helium) is going to get reduced at the
same time. The accumulative affect is going to be positive and
otherwise beneficial, even if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement (.
058 W/m2), but it's certainly a start in the right direction.
A mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea, considering how
another good thing, along with topsoils for those and everything else
to grow from.
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
hell is wrong with your version of this supposed ice-age we're into?
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut CO2 by 42 ppm it stands to reason
that many other reductions in soot, CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other
released elements (including helium) is going to get reduced at the
same time. The accumulative affect is going to be positive and
otherwise beneficial, even if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement (.
058 W/m2), but it's certainly a start in the right direction.
A mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea, considering how
much higher above ocean levels that little continent gets, and the
terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable, with no shortages
of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees per year would be
terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable, with no shortages
another good thing, along with topsoils for those and everything else
to grow from.
Hägar
Feb 8, 2012, 9:59:07 AM2/8/12
to
news:22547478-d012-4dc5...@jn12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
*************************************
Snip GuthBall drivel. So, in a nutshell, it really doesn't matter to
you brainwashed morons what the ACTUAL data shows, you're
going to spin it until it matches YOUR version of faith based
ideology, namely that of Gloom and Doom. Life on Earth has
been destroyed in the past and will be again in the future.
Personally, I'm waiting for Hell to freeze over, so I can watch
you Loons dance in a circle lamenting Global Warming, or
whatever name you will have affixed by then.
Snip GuthBall drivel. So, in a nutshell, it really doesn't matter to
you brainwashed morons what the ACTUAL data shows, you're
going to spin it until it matches YOUR version of faith based
ideology, namely that of Gloom and Doom. Life on Earth has
been destroyed in the past and will be again in the future.
Personally, I'm waiting for Hell to freeze over, so I can watch
you Loons dance in a circle lamenting Global Warming, or
whatever name you will have affixed by then.
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 1:38:47 PM2/8/12
to
AGW.
Solar variations are truly minimal. The end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has proven
when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as such hasn't
offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with, such as
when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.
Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.
On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.
The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including helium)
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
accomplishes a 10% improvement (.058 W/m2), but none the less it's
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
certainly a terrific start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
become the new Eden for us.
Hägar
Feb 8, 2012, 11:16:16 PM2/8/12
to
news:4a689b52-7663-4d15...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
**********************************
For once I agree with you ... but the present warming trend started after
the Little ice-age ended, which was somewhere around the early 1800s.
No cars, few trains, a little whale oil or vegetable oil was burned, but
no gasoline, no piston engines or jet engines, no power plants, wood
was the main heating source with coal a close second.
So, why did it get warmer, GuthBall, can you explain that to me ???
Also, since you perceive yourself the master of flaunting numbers,
how much CO2 id belched by volcanoes and the 10,000 plus
oceanic thermal vents, aka Smokers, compared to human activity.
So even if we all moved into caves, it wouldn't solve anything. The
planet is not made for almost 7 Billion people, multiplying like
Jack rabbits.
Let me know what you find out on your CO2 research, GuthBall ...
For once I agree with you ... but the present warming trend started after
the Little ice-age ended, which was somewhere around the early 1800s.
No cars, few trains, a little whale oil or vegetable oil was burned, but
no gasoline, no piston engines or jet engines, no power plants, wood
was the main heating source with coal a close second.
So, why did it get warmer, GuthBall, can you explain that to me ???
Also, since you perceive yourself the master of flaunting numbers,
how much CO2 id belched by volcanoes and the 10,000 plus
oceanic thermal vents, aka Smokers, compared to human activity.
So even if we all moved into caves, it wouldn't solve anything. The
planet is not made for almost 7 Billion people, multiplying like
Jack rabbits.
Let me know what you find out on your CO2 research, GuthBall ...
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 11:31:05 PM2/8/12
to
wastage, especially when most of that energy is hydrocarbon derived.
I bet you have no idea as to how much coal that humans ignited is
currently burning underground.
Add it all up and try to be all-inclusive about all the elements
related to hydrocarbon usage. It's perfectly clear that we modern
humans have easily contributed those 42 ppm of CO2.
-
Ice melts and land erodes or migrates together, although for every 2
km3 of melted ice there’s perhaps only one km3 of eroded soil that’s
going into the drink. The other contributing factor of rising ocean
levels is the fact as the Greenland ice melts and offloads, it allows
the bedrock of Greenland to float higher, and that too as a solid
volume displaces our oceans.
There's simply lots of renewable energy that's relatively clean,
failsafe and doesn't create CO2, SO2, CO, NOx and otherwise disperse a
slew of other nasty toxins, as well as not releasing precious helium,
but those options are not nearly as profitable nor worth going to war
over. There’s also numerous methods of utilizing our energy a whole
lot more efficiently and making it more reliable at the same time.
For some reason Steven Chu and others of our previous, current and
future administrations do not feel the need nor having any personal
motives for changing a damn thing.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the hot surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has long
since proven when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as
helium) is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative
affect is going to be positive and otherwise beneficial to all known
forms of life, even terrific if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement
(.058 W/m2 or 29.6 TW), but none the less it's certainly a terrific
start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
Greenland with another 50% loss of ice (-1.45e18 kg and say exposing
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
another 25% of its continent as ice-free land, worthy of 5e11 m2),
should actually turn out as being a very good place to live. As is,
Greenland is only 19% ice-free, or 4.1e11 m2 out of 2.166e12 m2,
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
However, together that’s 9.1e11 m2 of ice-free land, with unlimited
hydroelectric and all the fresh water you could possibly want (after
exporting more than half of the 365e9 gallons of ice and compacted
snow melt per year, at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
between 1979 and 2002” is a rate of roughly 0.7%/year, which by now
has likely increased to near 1%/year.
Btw; ice cores of Greenland’s compacted snow which becomes ice seem
to also track our industrial use of lead. Obviously even such heavy
elements of metallicity do carry themselves into the atmosphere, and
return to the surface as precipitation or snow.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397988§ion=3.1
Hägar
Feb 9, 2012, 8:18:21 PM2/9/12
to
news:772c2b15-d269-48db...@lr19g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Your idiotic numbers don't mean squat, since you pulled them
out of your ass.
On Feb 8, 8:16 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a689b52-7663-4d15...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 6:59 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You simply cannot give a simple yes or no answer, can you ...
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a689b52-7663-4d15...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 6:59 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your idiotic numbers don't mean squat, since you pulled them
out of your ass.
Philip Vince
Feb 9, 2012, 11:24:01 PM2/9/12
to
Hello Brad
Most recently I have read that the loss of ice in the Himalayas has been
negligible since 1991, when Hanson published his article on global
warming. One statement related to this report is that the Asian
mountain range would lose enough ice to raise the the ocean's level
significantly by 2025. Well, 2025 is still within my lifetime but if
the ice on these mountains is going to melt by 2025, where is the
evidence of significant rising of the ocean? By now, much of Manhatton
Island should be now under water. One of Hanson's graphs showed how CO2
emissions have increased since 1500, about the time of the little ice
age, and how the world's temperatures coincidentally increased
dramatically at the start of the industrial revolution in the early
1800s, when the little ice age ended. How did he reach this conclusion?
Obviously, nobody much before 1900 knew how to measure the percentages
of atmospheric gases present and only academics even cared. So where
did Hanson obtain his data before 1900?
The data I have obtained from scources beyond Hanson's comprehension is
contradictory. Historically, from the records of the Vikings, before
1000, Greenland was a pretty good place to live and at least the
northern Atlantic Ocean was free of ice all year round. Ice core data
from Greenland from that time indicates that atmospheric CO2 was about
as high as it is now, yet there was no industry. About 1050, the
climate became much colder and the Norse abandoned their villages in
Greenland after Eskimos raided their settlements. Hanson did not
include this data in his report because it preceded 1500.
As said, all of the data seems to be contradictory. On one hand, CO2 is
blamed for global warming yet in the volcanic explosion of the island of
Krakatoa, the climate of the earth was cooled. I guess that could be
attributed to volcanic soot instead of CO2. But if soot is to blame,
then ou climate would have been cooler during the years when soot from
coal and wood fires were common. I remember when my house was heated by
a sawdust furnace from 1951 to 1954. Probably you are too young to
remember anything lik this. Recent articles published on-line suggest
that an increase of volcanic activity could cool the earth's overall
temperature.
Here is a question with a lot of memories. Probably the most serious
time of pollution occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. I remember in
1960 a town named Dryden that stank because of uncontrolled emissions
from its pulp and paper mill, which were dumped into its river. Back
then I expressed this to Mom when we were at a restaurant but Mom told
me not to say this because local residents would be offended. I
remember when one city on the west coast, during the 1950s, closed its
beaches because of sewage coming ashore because its underwater sewage
pipes did not extend far enough into the ocean. During the late 1960s,
the newly formed EPA forced iron refineries in Pennsylvania to close,
which created economic problems in other places because parts made from
iron in the closed foundrys were absent. I remember several fittings
for hydraulic hoses being back ordered through an entire growing season.
The farmers had to figure out alternatives for their crop maintenance
before harvest. Fortunately the back ordered fittings were delivered
just before harvest. Show me evidence that global temperatures
increased significantly during the period from 1900 to 1995.
J T
P.S.
Do you rrealize how small 350 ppm is ompared to 392 ppm realy is? The
records I have access to indicate that the nitrogen to oxygen ratio is
20.95%. Do you realy believe that global l warming depends on the
narrow range of CO2 indicated is really significant?
Most recently I have read that the loss of ice in the Himalayas has been
negligible since 1991, when Hanson published his article on global
warming. One statement related to this report is that the Asian
mountain range would lose enough ice to raise the the ocean's level
significantly by 2025. Well, 2025 is still within my lifetime but if
the ice on these mountains is going to melt by 2025, where is the
evidence of significant rising of the ocean? By now, much of Manhatton
Island should be now under water. One of Hanson's graphs showed how CO2
emissions have increased since 1500, about the time of the little ice
age, and how the world's temperatures coincidentally increased
dramatically at the start of the industrial revolution in the early
1800s, when the little ice age ended. How did he reach this conclusion?
Obviously, nobody much before 1900 knew how to measure the percentages
of atmospheric gases present and only academics even cared. So where
did Hanson obtain his data before 1900?
The data I have obtained from scources beyond Hanson's comprehension is
contradictory. Historically, from the records of the Vikings, before
1000, Greenland was a pretty good place to live and at least the
northern Atlantic Ocean was free of ice all year round. Ice core data
from Greenland from that time indicates that atmospheric CO2 was about
as high as it is now, yet there was no industry. About 1050, the
climate became much colder and the Norse abandoned their villages in
Greenland after Eskimos raided their settlements. Hanson did not
include this data in his report because it preceded 1500.
As said, all of the data seems to be contradictory. On one hand, CO2 is
blamed for global warming yet in the volcanic explosion of the island of
Krakatoa, the climate of the earth was cooled. I guess that could be
attributed to volcanic soot instead of CO2. But if soot is to blame,
then ou climate would have been cooler during the years when soot from
coal and wood fires were common. I remember when my house was heated by
a sawdust furnace from 1951 to 1954. Probably you are too young to
remember anything lik this. Recent articles published on-line suggest
that an increase of volcanic activity could cool the earth's overall
temperature.
Here is a question with a lot of memories. Probably the most serious
time of pollution occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. I remember in
1960 a town named Dryden that stank because of uncontrolled emissions
from its pulp and paper mill, which were dumped into its river. Back
then I expressed this to Mom when we were at a restaurant but Mom told
me not to say this because local residents would be offended. I
remember when one city on the west coast, during the 1950s, closed its
beaches because of sewage coming ashore because its underwater sewage
pipes did not extend far enough into the ocean. During the late 1960s,
the newly formed EPA forced iron refineries in Pennsylvania to close,
which created economic problems in other places because parts made from
iron in the closed foundrys were absent. I remember several fittings
for hydraulic hoses being back ordered through an entire growing season.
The farmers had to figure out alternatives for their crop maintenance
before harvest. Fortunately the back ordered fittings were delivered
just before harvest. Show me evidence that global temperatures
increased significantly during the period from 1900 to 1995.
J T
P.S.
Do you rrealize how small 350 ppm is ompared to 392 ppm realy is? The
records I have access to indicate that the nitrogen to oxygen ratio is
20.95%. Do you realy believe that global l warming depends on the
narrow range of CO2 indicated is really significant?
Hägar
Feb 10, 2012, 5:56:08 PM2/10/12
to
"Philip Vince" <phili...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:634-4F34...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
You are a fresh breath in a sea of LUNATICS !!!
Ja lth
Feb 10, 2012, 6:50:43 PM2/10/12
to
In my P.S., the ratio I gave appears to be backwards. It is about 20%
oxygen and 80% nitrogen.
oxygen and 80% nitrogen.
0 new messages