Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Aug 5, 2012, 12:38:17 AM8/5/12
to
Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-fiddle-while-deep-ocean-temperatures-rise/
> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on climate change on Wednesday.
--
-Sam Wormley
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-fiddle-while-deep-ocean-temperatures-rise/
> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on climate change on Wednesday.
--
-Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
Aug 5, 2012, 12:39:39 AM8/5/12
to
> �There is no debate that the earth�s temperature is increasing,� McCarthy concluded. �Over the last half century the atmosphere, land surface, ocean surface and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that refutes this conclusion.� (Download McCarthy�s prepared remarks here.)
--
-Sam Wormley
bjacoby
Aug 5, 2012, 2:15:17 AM8/5/12
to
On 8/5/2012 12:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-fiddle-while-deep-ocean-temperatures-rise/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
>>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
>>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
>>> climate change on Wednesday.
Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-fiddle-while-deep-ocean-temperatures-rise/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
>>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
>>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
>>> climate change on Wednesday.
the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
forcing" is at the surface of the ocean. Are we all supposed not notice
this? It sure looks like the tectonic CO2 cycle is forcing the ENTIRE
CO2 story, but it goes completely unmentioned in the interests of tax
agendas and political propaganda. This is a truly disgusting and
shameful display of sold-out science. How many millionaire "scientists"
can the "global warming" scam support? Apparently quite a few.
> For Marvin's benefit:
>
>> �There is no debate that the earth�s temperature is increasing,�
>> McCarthy concluded. �Over the last half century the atmosphere, land
>> surface, ocean surface and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions
>> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
>> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
>> refutes this conclusion.� (Download McCarthy�s prepared remarks here.)
scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
of the prediction. All other "predictions" were WAY off the mark.
Hansen's data is KNOWN "adjusted upward" with Urban heat island effects
ignored. In any event the total rise in fudged data over the last half
century is a mere 0.2 Degree which is hardly "alarming" and more like
"measurement errors"!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GISS-TGGWS-temp-data-comparison.svg
"Sam", you have any idea how difficult an accurate temperature
measurement of WEATHER to a tenth of a degree is? I thought not.
And furthermore, land surface temperature has been stable for the past
decade:
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSJUNE.htm
Even through June 2012 "record hottest month "ever" blah blah blah"
Ocean surface temperature also FLAT! But IPCC "models" oddly show a
significant rise!
L:\Data\My Documents\Science\AGWGISS\AGWSEATEMP\AGWIndianSeaTemp.png
So obviously Dr. McCarthy is talking about the heating of "virtual sea
water" rather than actual sea water! No surprise there.
Which is important because it shows the statement that the non-existent
warming data he says "can only be explained by the increase in
greenhouse gases" is also false. It is a blatant unscientific political
lie. It CANNOT be "explained by any greenhouse gasses, because
1. CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
(Note Ass-hat, I'm using YOUR favorite references to prove my points!)
2. CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
3. "Radiative forcing" to use the warmist bullshit term, is not a
lagging mechanism. Radiation travels at the speed of light. But we find
in the last decade (see GISS data for last decade above) show virtually
zero warming while CO2 continues to rise. Hence there is NO, ZERO, NADA,
ZIP, NONE, NOT ANY correlation, let alone some imagined causality
between CO2 and "global warming". When CO2 goes UP and temperature GOES
DOWN, that can ONLY mean that CO2 is NOT a "cause" of any temperature
anomalies.
McCarthy the faker and liar says there is "no scientific evidence that
refutes this conclusion." when as we have just demonstrated BEYOND ANY
SCIENTIFIC DOUBT, all credible evidence refutes that conclusion EVEN
EVIDENCE TAKEN BY YOU WARMISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF "PROVING" MAN-MADE
GLOBAL WARMING EXITS!
This testimony is one of the most shameful example of science sold out
to greed and politics I think I've ever seen! Every honest scientist or
even science assistants and technicians like you should be mad as hell
over this dishonesty that is tarnishing ALL of science in the public view.
Transition Zone
Aug 5, 2012, 11:06:59 AM8/5/12
to
On Aug 5, 2:15 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 12:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
> >>>http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-...
> On 8/5/2012 12:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>
> >>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
> >>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
> >>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
> >>> climate change on Wednesday.
>
> Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
> And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
> forcing" is at the surface of the ocean. Are we all supposed not notice
> this? It sure looks like the tectonic CO2 cycle is forcing the ENTIRE
> CO2 story, but it goes completely unmentioned in the interests of tax
> agendas and political propaganda. This is a truly disgusting and
> shameful display of sold-out science. How many millionaire "scientists"
> can the "global warming" scam support? Apparently quite a few.
>
> > For Marvin's benefit:
>
> >> There is no debate that the earth s temperature is increasing,
> >>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
> >>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
> >>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
> >>> climate change on Wednesday.
>
> Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
> And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
> forcing" is at the surface of the ocean. Are we all supposed not notice
> this? It sure looks like the tectonic CO2 cycle is forcing the ENTIRE
> CO2 story, but it goes completely unmentioned in the interests of tax
> agendas and political propaganda. This is a truly disgusting and
> shameful display of sold-out science. How many millionaire "scientists"
> can the "global warming" scam support? Apparently quite a few.
>
> > For Marvin's benefit:
>
> >> McCarthy concluded. Over the last half century the atmosphere, land
> >> surface, ocean surface and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions
> >> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
> >> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
> >> refutes this conclusion. (Download McCarthy s prepared remarks here.)
> >> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
> >> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
>
> There is no debate that Hansen's GISS data show an increase equal to his
> scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
> of the prediction. All other "predictions" were WAY off the mark.
> Hansen's data is KNOWN "adjusted upward" with Urban heat island effects
> ignored. In any event the total rise in fudged data over the last half
> century is a mere 0.2 Degree which is hardly "alarming" and more like
> "measurement errors"!
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GISS-TGGWS-temp-da...
> There is no debate that Hansen's GISS data show an increase equal to his
> scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
> of the prediction. All other "predictions" were WAY off the mark.
> Hansen's data is KNOWN "adjusted upward" with Urban heat island effects
> ignored. In any event the total rise in fudged data over the last half
> century is a mere 0.2 Degree which is hardly "alarming" and more like
> "measurement errors"!
>
Neolibertarian
Aug 5, 2012, 11:56:22 AM8/5/12
to
In article
<2d2eea81-f773-43a1...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Stop producing...what?
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
<2d2eea81-f773-43a1...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Stop producing...what?
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
find WMD yet Repubs?
Aug 5, 2012, 12:57:46 PM8/5/12
to
On Aug 5, 11:56 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2d2eea81-f773-43a1-853a-ff4aba828...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
> <2d2eea81-f773-43a1-853a-ff4aba828...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So tell the oil companies to stop producing.
>
> Stop producing...what?
How about what causes man-made CO2 emissions for a change?
>
> > So tell the oil companies to stop producing.
>
> Stop producing...what?
AM
Aug 5, 2012, 3:01:13 PM8/5/12
to
will.
Until then enjoy the cheap plentiful energy fossil fuels provide us
with....... (gets your postings here doesn't it ?)
MITT-ROMNEY-4-PRESIDENT
Aug 5, 2012, 3:55:39 PM8/5/12
to
On Aug 5, 2:15 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 12:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
> >>>http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-...
>
> > On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>
> >>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
> >>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
> >>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
> >>> climate change on Wednesday.
>
> Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
> And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
> forcing" is at the surface of the ocean. Are we all supposed not notice
> this? It sure looks like the tectonic CO2 cycle is forcing the ENTIRE
> CO2 story, but it goes completely unmentioned in the interests of tax
> agendas and political propaganda. This is a truly disgusting and
> shameful display of sold-out science. How many millionaire "scientists"
> can the "global warming" scam support? Apparently quite a few.
>
> > For Marvin's benefit:
>
> >>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
> >>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
> >>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
> >>> climate change on Wednesday.
>
> Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
> And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
> forcing" is at the surface of the ocean. Are we all supposed not notice
> this? It sure looks like the tectonic CO2 cycle is forcing the ENTIRE
> CO2 story, but it goes completely unmentioned in the interests of tax
> agendas and political propaganda. This is a truly disgusting and
> shameful display of sold-out science. How many millionaire "scientists"
> can the "global warming" scam support? Apparently quite a few.
>
> > For Marvin's benefit:
>
> >> There is no debate that the earth s temperature is increasing,
> >> McCarthy concluded. Over the last half century the atmosphere, land
> >> surface, ocean surface and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions
> >> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
> >> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
> >> refutes this conclusion. (Download McCarthy s prepared remarks here.)
> >> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
> >> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
>
> There is no debate that Hansen's GISS data show an increase equal to his
> scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
> of the prediction. All other "predictions" were WAY off the mark.
> Hansen's data is KNOWN "adjusted upward" with Urban heat island effects
> ignored. In any event the total rise in fudged data over the last half
> century is a mere 0.2 Degree which is hardly "alarming" and more like
> "measurement errors"!
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GISS-TGGWS-temp-da...
> There is no debate that Hansen's GISS data show an increase equal to his
> scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
> of the prediction. All other "predictions" were WAY off the mark.
> Hansen's data is KNOWN "adjusted upward" with Urban heat island effects
> ignored. In any event the total rise in fudged data over the last half
> century is a mere 0.2 Degree which is hardly "alarming" and more like
> "measurement errors"!
>
transmit any part of your message, you are a
hypocrite..............................!
yup
G=EMC^2
Aug 5, 2012, 4:19:35 PM8/5/12
to
On Aug 5, 12:38 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-...
> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>
> > The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on climate change on Wednesday.
>
> --
> -Sam Wormley
Sam I predicted this,and asked for temp.readings on ocean floors. Warm
>
> --
> -Sam Wormley
oceans + CO2,and you get my "Heavy Air Theory" TreBert
Androcles
Aug 5, 2012, 4:43:53 PM8/5/12
to
"AM" wrote in message news:98udnbH1gdvqWYPN...@giganews.com...
The first thing that moron needs to stop producing is the CO2 he's
breathing out, it doesn't get more man-made than that. But don't
cremate what's left when he does, leave it to the birds, rats and
insects, it's the only green thing to do. Perhaps the wretch will die
freezing in a hospital that has no light or power, cheerfully sucking
in all the CO2-free air that is killing off all plant life and creating
deserts while he pays more taxes.
-- Androcles
Sam Wormley
Aug 5, 2012, 4:44:22 PM8/5/12
to
predicts the tipping into chaotic weather (lack of) pattern.
> Climate Armageddon: How the World's Weather Could Quickly Run Amok [Excerpt]
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-worlds-weather-could-quickly-run-amok
>
> Physics Today | Humans may be driving Earth toward catastrophe
> http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2012/06/humans-may-be-driving-earth-toward-catastrophe/
>
> Climate MADness
> http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/climate-madness
>
> Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
>
--
-Sam Wormley
Bret Cahill
Aug 5, 2012, 5:37:44 PM8/5/12
to
> >>> So tell the oil companies to stop producing.
>
> >> Stop producing...what?
>
> > How about what causes man-made CO2 emissions for a change?
>
> Just as soon as you, me and everyone else stops using fossil fuels they
> will.
>
> Until then enjoy the cheap plentiful energy fossil fuels provide us
> with....... (gets your postings here doesn't it ?)
>
> =============================================
> The first thing that moron needs to stop producing is the CO2 he's
> breathing out, it doesn't get more man-made than that. But don't
> cremate what's left when he does, leave it to the birds, rats and
> insects, it's the only green thing to do. Perhaps the wretch will die
> freezing in a hospital that has no light or power, cheerfully sucking
> in all the CO2-free air that is killing off all plant life and creating
> deserts while he pays more taxes.
> -- Androcles
Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
>
> >> Stop producing...what?
>
> > How about what causes man-made CO2 emissions for a change?
>
> Just as soon as you, me and everyone else stops using fossil fuels they
> will.
>
> Until then enjoy the cheap plentiful energy fossil fuels provide us
> with....... (gets your postings here doesn't it ?)
>
> =============================================
> The first thing that moron needs to stop producing is the CO2 he's
> breathing out, it doesn't get more man-made than that. But don't
> cremate what's left when he does, leave it to the birds, rats and
> insects, it's the only green thing to do. Perhaps the wretch will die
> freezing in a hospital that has no light or power, cheerfully sucking
> in all the CO2-free air that is killing off all plant life and creating
> deserts while he pays more taxes.
> -- Androcles
fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
Aug 5, 2012, 5:59:27 PM8/5/12
to
In article
<d7368ea2-2ec2-480f...@u17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
What causes "CO2 emissions" also happens to be the same thing that makes
your computer start up when you push the button.
You stop emitting CO2 first.
Deal?
<d7368ea2-2ec2-480f...@u17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
your computer start up when you push the button.
You stop emitting CO2 first.
Deal?
Neolibertarian
Aug 5, 2012, 6:08:13 PM8/5/12
to
In article
<a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
achieve anything of the sort.
I'm surprised you're so easily duped.
Just the opposite occurs, actually.
Those taxes aren't designed to "reduce waste." They're designed to
enrich the bureaucracy and the economic corporatists. Which all of the
taxes and fees so far introduced have achieved brilliantly, without
reducing "waste" by one freaking joule.
With the Carbon Exchanges in Europe collapsing amid the lies upon which
they were built, you'll have to have an American Exchange if you're to
save the circus.
I don't think you're gonna pull that one off, if you don't mind my
pointing it out so bluntly.
<a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
>
> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
achieve anything of the sort.
I'm surprised you're so easily duped.
Just the opposite occurs, actually.
Those taxes aren't designed to "reduce waste." They're designed to
enrich the bureaucracy and the economic corporatists. Which all of the
taxes and fees so far introduced have achieved brilliantly, without
reducing "waste" by one freaking joule.
With the Carbon Exchanges in Europe collapsing amid the lies upon which
they were built, you'll have to have an American Exchange if you're to
save the circus.
I don't think you're gonna pull that one off, if you don't mind my
pointing it out so bluntly.
Bret Cahill
Aug 5, 2012, 6:14:53 PM8/5/12
to
> > Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> > fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
>
> While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
> fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
> achieve anything of the sort.
Whatever happened to the "punishing success" [taxing the rich]
> > fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
>
> While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
> fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
> achieve anything of the sort.
rhetoric?
If taxing the rich reduces success then, by the same reasoning, taxing
carbon should reduce CO2 emissions.
Bret Cahill
Androcles
Aug 5, 2012, 6:48:41 PM8/5/12
to
"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
news:a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Oh yeah, we all love paying taxes and delegating power to someone
that has our best interests at heart because we can't think for ourselves.
Make sure you wear a seat belt, it's the fucking law and pay a fine
if you don't, even if you would do so anyway. Oh wait, you are one of
those that want the power to control, tax and spend my money on what
you think it should be spent on and carbon is just a new way to get it.
There is no excuse for taxes, it began to raise an army to defend the
common wealth of the people and then the army was used to raid
the wealth of others to make the king in his counting house counting
out his money ever richer and more powerful, and if you don't pay you
get thrown in the dungeon as an example to others. Tax is theft under
any excuse.
If you don't want waste stop throwing away perfectly functional TVs
so that you can replace them with big flat screens that show the same
crappy hyperbole. If you don't want waste wash your glass milk bottles
for refilling instead of buying plastic bottles to be used once, expecting
me to sort them for you for remelting, they are made from oil. The
entire contents of my weekly trash bag comes from the grocery store,
and so does yours. Hygiene be damned, wash the bottles in water.
If you don't want waste stop buying a new car every two years because
you don't like the colour and you want to keep up with the Joneses.
Ask yourself how much you waste and how much you spend on taxes
to send your kid to a foreign land to fight a war because they produce
opium from poppies so that they can receive foreign aid out of your
taxes.
Your carbon tax to "reduce waste" excuse is a crock of lying shit.
Either you are totally gullible or you are another shit who wants my
wealth without doing anything to get your own. Fuck you and your
advocations, earn your money by contributing to the wealth of others
instead of stealing it, you fucking communist.
Androcles
Aug 5, 2012, 7:02:44 PM8/5/12
to
"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
There are two kinds of rich.
One is the industrious kind that benefit humanity by what they produce,
and often give their wealth away. They earn their money and expect to
be paid for what they do, which is fair. Carnegie and Gates come to mind.
The other is a greedy jealous bastard who connives to steal through
all he can through power. Hitler and Stalin come to mind.
I don't recall Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie taxing anyone.
Why the fuck do you want to reduce CO2 emissions and pay more taxes
anyway, you dumb bastard?
Neolibertarian
Aug 5, 2012, 7:24:20 PM8/5/12
to
In article
<c5e9ff9e-a5cc-4ebc...@wc13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
That's really not a good analogy, but I suppose I understand the source
of your confusion. You live in America.
Every damned thing in the circus, including your life (let alone liberty
and pursuit of happiness) depends upon the free flow of energy.
I need to remind you at this juncture, there are about 6.9 billion
screaming babies on this cooling ball.
Yet there's less starvation, pestilence and famine today than even when
there were only 1 billion of us. Have you never stopped to consider why?
There's only one answer: Energy.
I can assure you, politicians and populist bureaucrats (who invented the
new taxation and energy credit schemes) are acutely aware of all that.
They know the show must go on...no matter what.
Besides, in Europe, all energy is either directly controlled by the
central governments, or by corporatist enterprises heavily controlled by
the central governments. If taxes go up, the central government can
offset. All in order to keep the circus up and running.
If they don't, then the villagers light their torches and storm the
castle.
Bureaucrats hate when that happens.
As to saving "waste," you gotta realize only about 40% of carbon fuel
use goes to transportation.
Even so, that's what everyone likes to concentrate on.
So, you can establish punitive taxes to herd everyone into driving
battery powered electric cars.
Congratulations! Instead of gasoline/diesel-powered automobiles, now
you're driving coal powered cars.
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch, after all.
Or you can heard everyone into high speed rail. Which may kinda make
sense in claustrophobic Europe. But even there they have trouble filling
all the passenger slots. Trains still run empty.
Then again, the trucks must roll. You literally can't live a single day
in a city without the trucks. And trucks are where the real "waste"
occurs.
There won't ever be any such thing as a battery-powered semi-trailer
truck.
Can you guess why?
Anyway you want to measure it, you haven't saved one damned joule.
Only the worst kind of naive fool would expect that populist-bureaucrats
can "transition society to alternative fuels," anyway.
Populist-bureaucrats don't ever solve problems. Why on God's green earth
would ever want to do THAT?
It certainly could never be construed as to be in their self interest to
do so.
No, populist bureaucrats don't solve problems; they subsidize them.
<c5e9ff9e-a5cc-4ebc...@wc13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
of your confusion. You live in America.
Every damned thing in the circus, including your life (let alone liberty
and pursuit of happiness) depends upon the free flow of energy.
I need to remind you at this juncture, there are about 6.9 billion
screaming babies on this cooling ball.
Yet there's less starvation, pestilence and famine today than even when
there were only 1 billion of us. Have you never stopped to consider why?
There's only one answer: Energy.
I can assure you, politicians and populist bureaucrats (who invented the
new taxation and energy credit schemes) are acutely aware of all that.
They know the show must go on...no matter what.
Besides, in Europe, all energy is either directly controlled by the
central governments, or by corporatist enterprises heavily controlled by
the central governments. If taxes go up, the central government can
offset. All in order to keep the circus up and running.
If they don't, then the villagers light their torches and storm the
castle.
Bureaucrats hate when that happens.
As to saving "waste," you gotta realize only about 40% of carbon fuel
use goes to transportation.
Even so, that's what everyone likes to concentrate on.
So, you can establish punitive taxes to herd everyone into driving
battery powered electric cars.
Congratulations! Instead of gasoline/diesel-powered automobiles, now
you're driving coal powered cars.
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch, after all.
Or you can heard everyone into high speed rail. Which may kinda make
sense in claustrophobic Europe. But even there they have trouble filling
all the passenger slots. Trains still run empty.
Then again, the trucks must roll. You literally can't live a single day
in a city without the trucks. And trucks are where the real "waste"
occurs.
There won't ever be any such thing as a battery-powered semi-trailer
truck.
Can you guess why?
Anyway you want to measure it, you haven't saved one damned joule.
Only the worst kind of naive fool would expect that populist-bureaucrats
can "transition society to alternative fuels," anyway.
Populist-bureaucrats don't ever solve problems. Why on God's green earth
would ever want to do THAT?
It certainly could never be construed as to be in their self interest to
do so.
No, populist bureaucrats don't solve problems; they subsidize them.
Desertphile
Aug 5, 2012, 8:02:24 PM8/5/12
to
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
Yes, obviously. Also ending the government subsides for petroleum
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
products, and allowing the market to set a fair price.
--
"I haven't seen any defensible explanation of any errors by Miskolczi." --- Bill Ward
bjacoby
Aug 6, 2012, 1:37:20 AM8/6/12
to
On 8/5/2012 4:19 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:38 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: (nothing of substance)
>> -Sam Wormley
>
> Sam I predicted this,and asked for temp.readings on ocean floors. Warm
> oceans + CO2,and you get my "Heavy Air Theory" TreBert
Hey, TreeBert, wouldn't that be "your" "heavy water theory"?
> On Aug 5, 12:38 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: (nothing of substance)
>> -Sam Wormley
>
> Sam I predicted this,and asked for temp.readings on ocean floors. Warm
> oceans + CO2,and you get my "Heavy Air Theory" TreBert
bjacoby
Aug 6, 2012, 1:39:11 AM8/6/12
to
On 8/5/2012 5:37 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
And generate money...LOTS of money!
> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
(But with no effect on climate of pollution)
erschro...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2012, 1:35:29 PM8/6/12
to
On Aug 5, 2:15 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 12:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
> >>>http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/03/senators-...
>
> > On 8/4/12 11:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise
>
> >>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
> >>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
> >>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
> >>> climate change on Wednesday.
>
> Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
> And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
> forcing" is at the surface of the ocean
That's not what he said, mentally-challenged one. He said even the
> >>> The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around
> >>> the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James
> >>> McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on
> >>> climate change on Wednesday.
>
> Gosh this is really strange, Ass-hat. Not only are the deepest parts of
> the ocean where it's warming but it's also where the most acidity is!
> And what is strange is that all the fossil fuel CO2 and "radiative
> forcing" is at the surface of the ocean
deepest parts are now showing warming. The surface has been showing
it.
>. Are we all supposed not notice
> this? It sure looks like the tectonic CO2 cycle is forcing the ENTIRE
> CO2 story, but it goes completely unmentioned in the interests of tax
> agendas and political propaganda. This is a truly disgusting and
> shameful display of sold-out science. How many millionaire "scientists"
> can the "global warming" scam support? Apparently quite a few.
quite a few.
>
> > For Marvin's benefit:
>
>
> > For Marvin's benefit:
>
> >> There is no debate that the earth s temperature is increasing,
> >> McCarthy concluded. Over the last half century the atmosphere, land
> >> surface, ocean surface and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions
> >> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
> >> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
> >> refutes this conclusion. (Download McCarthy s prepared remarks here.)
> >> have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the
> >> increase in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
>
> There is no debate that Hansen's GISS data show an increase equal to his
> scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
> of the prediction.
Wrong. You completely mischaracterize it.
> There is no debate that Hansen's GISS data show an increase equal to his
> scenario "C" which proposed absolutely NO increase in CO2 from the time
> of the prediction.
>All other "predictions" were WAY off the mark.
> Hansen's data is KNOWN "adjusted upward" with Urban heat island effects
> ignored.
> In any event the total rise in fudged data over the last half
> century is a mere 0.2 Degree which is hardly "alarming" and more like
> "measurement errors"!
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GISS-TGGWS-temp-da...
>
> "Sam", you have any idea how difficult an accurate temperature
> measurement of WEATHER to a tenth of a degree is? I thought not.
It's not one thermometer, doofus. It's the average of thousands of
> "Sam", you have any idea how difficult an accurate temperature
> measurement of WEATHER to a tenth of a degree is? I thought not.
readings the world over, land, air, sea, satellite, etc.
>
> And furthermore, land surface temperature has been stable for the past
> decade:
>
2012-2010?
> http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSJUNE.htm
>
> Even through June 2012 "record hottest month "ever" blah blah blah"
>
> Ocean surface temperature also FLAT! But IPCC "models" oddly show a
> significant rise!
>
> L:\Data\My Documents\Science\AGWGISS\AGWSEATEMP\AGWIndianSeaTemp.png
>
> So obviously Dr. McCarthy is talking about the heating of "virtual sea
> water" rather than actual sea water! No surprise there.
>
> Which is important because it shows the statement that the non-existent
> warming data he says "can only be explained by the increase in
> greenhouse gases" is also false. It is a blatant unscientific political
> lie. It CANNOT be "explained by any greenhouse gasses, because
>
> 1. CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect:
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
That's different from the _increased_ GH effect now, due to added CO2.
How can a supposedly intelligent person make that mistake?
>
> (Note Ass-hat, I'm using YOUR favorite references to prove my points!)
>
> 2. CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
>
> 3. "Radiative forcing" to use the warmist bullshit term, is not a
> lagging mechanism. Radiation travels at the speed of light. But we find
> in the last decade (see GISS data for last decade above) show virtually
> zero warming while CO2 continues to rise. Hence there is NO, ZERO, NADA,
> ZIP, NONE, NOT ANY correlation, let alone some imagined causality
> between CO2 and "global warming". When CO2 goes UP and temperature GOES
> DOWN, that can ONLY mean that CO2 is NOT a "cause" of any temperature
> anomalies.
>
> McCarthy the faker and liar says there is "no scientific evidence that
> refutes this conclusion." when as we have just demonstrated BEYOND ANY
> SCIENTIFIC DOUBT, all credible evidence refutes that conclusion EVEN
> EVIDENCE TAKEN BY YOU WARMISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF "PROVING" MAN-MADE
> GLOBAL WARMING EXITS!
>
> This testimony is one of the most shameful example of science sold out
> to greed and politics I think I've ever seen! Every honest scientist or
> even science assistants and technicians like you should be mad as hell
> over this dishonesty that is tarnishing ALL of science in the public view.
Transition Zone
Aug 7, 2012, 7:03:10 PM8/7/12
to
And they are the only solution - regardless of how impossible it is.
When they say "inconovenient truth", they're just like Sen. Harry
Reid.
They aren't lying.
Transition Zone
Aug 7, 2012, 7:05:33 PM8/7/12
to
On Aug 5, 7:51 pm, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 6:08 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6-adb1-252ca7678...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> We might be a bunch of gun lovin fat dum rednicks but we see right
> through the AGW scam.
To what? Some damn fantasy world where you can burn all the carbon you
want and have no temperature change?
Go back to your childish kindergarden fantasy fairy-tale.
> On 8/5/2012 6:08 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6-adb1-252ca7678...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> >> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
>
> > While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
> > fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
> > achieve anything of the sort.
>
> > I'm surprised you're so easily duped.
>
> > Just the opposite occurs, actually.
>
> > Those taxes aren't designed to "reduce waste." They're designed to
> > enrich the bureaucracy and the economic corporatists. Which all of the
> > taxes and fees so far introduced have achieved brilliantly, without
> > reducing "waste" by one freaking joule.
>
> > With the Carbon Exchanges in Europe collapsing amid the lies upon which
> > they were built, you'll have to have an American Exchange if you're to
> > save the circus.
>
> > I don't think you're gonna pull that one off, if you don't mind my
> > pointing it out so bluntly.
>
> They won't, don't worry.
>
> >> Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> >> fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
>
> > While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
> > fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
> > achieve anything of the sort.
>
> > I'm surprised you're so easily duped.
>
> > Just the opposite occurs, actually.
>
> > Those taxes aren't designed to "reduce waste." They're designed to
> > enrich the bureaucracy and the economic corporatists. Which all of the
> > taxes and fees so far introduced have achieved brilliantly, without
> > reducing "waste" by one freaking joule.
>
> > With the Carbon Exchanges in Europe collapsing amid the lies upon which
> > they were built, you'll have to have an American Exchange if you're to
> > save the circus.
>
> > I don't think you're gonna pull that one off, if you don't mind my
> > pointing it out so bluntly.
>
>
> We might be a bunch of gun lovin fat dum rednicks but we see right
> through the AGW scam.
To what? Some damn fantasy world where you can burn all the carbon you
want and have no temperature change?
Go back to your childish kindergarden fantasy fairy-tale.
Harold Burton
Aug 7, 2012, 10:04:38 PM8/7/12
to
In article
<2d2eea81-f773-43a1...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<2d2eea81-f773-43a1...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
hold your breath.
Neolibertarian
Aug 7, 2012, 10:47:45 PM8/7/12
to
In article
<f0633854-2357-437e...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
2300 gigatons may seem huge to a puny monkey, of course. Understandable.
But it's less than four tenths of a percent to the Troposphere. Before
man's might industrial age began, it was three tenths.
Even if you were to ignite all the known petroleum reserves on earth in
a single day, were it possible to do so, you wouldn't change the climate.
If the earth were approaching an ice age (which would pose a real
catastrophe to mankind, unlike the small recent warming), you wouldn't
be able to postpone it by one day. Not with all the Mighty and Holy
Carbon Dioxide, Amen, that you might muster.
You're the one spreading terror tales about the Carbon Dioxide Monster.
<f0633854-2357-437e...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
But it's less than four tenths of a percent to the Troposphere. Before
man's might industrial age began, it was three tenths.
Even if you were to ignite all the known petroleum reserves on earth in
a single day, were it possible to do so, you wouldn't change the climate.
If the earth were approaching an ice age (which would pose a real
catastrophe to mankind, unlike the small recent warming), you wouldn't
be able to postpone it by one day. Not with all the Mighty and Holy
Carbon Dioxide, Amen, that you might muster.
>
> Go back to your childish kindergarden fantasy fairy-tale.
Heh. Look at you.
> Go back to your childish kindergarden fantasy fairy-tale.
You're the one spreading terror tales about the Carbon Dioxide Monster.
find WMD yet Repubs?
Aug 8, 2012, 5:30:06 PM8/8/12
to
On Aug 7, 6:54 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT),
>
> "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6-adb1-252ca7678...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> We have been suggesting it for over a decade: in fact, it's our
> idea!
Back to the Future Dec 10, 2009 7:00 PM EST
"The idea of a carbon tax, proposed by Al Gore 17 years ago, is
winning new converts "
-- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/10/back-to-the-future.html
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT),
>
> "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <a7e37b5c-52f7-4cb6-adb1-252ca7678...@iw9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> > > > fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
> > > While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
> > > fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
> > > achieve anything of the sort.
> > Even some Republicans are calling for a carbon tax.
> > > > Except for a few Earth Firsters, no one is advocating getting of of
> > > > fossil fuels without alternatives, just taxing carbon to reduce waste.
> > > While there are vague claims that's, indeed, the purpose of taxing and
> > > fining CO2 emissions, there's exactly zero evidence that those taxes
> > > achieve anything of the sort.
>
> We have been suggesting it for over a decade: in fact, it's our
> idea!
Back to the Future Dec 10, 2009 7:00 PM EST
"The idea of a carbon tax, proposed by Al Gore 17 years ago, is
winning new converts "
-- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/10/back-to-the-future.html
bjacoby
Aug 8, 2012, 11:55:28 PM8/8/12
to
On 8/8/2012 5:30 PM, find WMD yet Repubs? wrote:
> Back to the Future Dec 10, 2009 7:00 PM EST
>
> "The idea of a carbon tax, proposed by Al Gore 17 years ago, is
> winning new converts "
>
> -- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/10/back-to-the-future.html
OF course that poor congressman is now a millionaire many times over and
> Back to the Future Dec 10, 2009 7:00 PM EST
>
> "The idea of a carbon tax, proposed by Al Gore 17 years ago, is
> winning new converts "
>
> -- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/10/back-to-the-future.html
his tax didn't even pass yet! Just imagine when it does and his
"investments" start to come in!
But as for me I'm in a State of Fear because:
"The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
to human health"! I say we pass regulations to stop as many humans from
breathing out greenhouse gases as possible. We can consult world record
holders in this (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) as to how it's best done...
Sam Wormley
Aug 9, 2012, 10:31:20 AM8/9/12
to
On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing
If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no
> CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing
additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface
measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths
that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is
not saturated.
If the CO2 effect is saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional
greenhouse effect. However, observations continue to find an enhanced
greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rise. The paper Increases in greenhouse
forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the
Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between
400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the
IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared
both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the
26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:
Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
(Harries 2001).
What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands
that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The
change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with
theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental
evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest
satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with
additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003.
Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA
satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences
in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels.
Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing
longwave radiation from escaping out to space.
Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse
gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates
longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some
of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to
find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.
Philipona 2004 finds that this is indeed the case - that downward
longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution
spectral data, the increase in downward radiation can be quantitatively
attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The results lead the
authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end
the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the
connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global
warming."
So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for an enhanced CO2
greenhouse effect. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave
radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased
longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching
increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance
is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
--
-Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
Aug 9, 2012, 10:35:44 AM8/9/12
to
On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect
The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based
actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon
dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon)
cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other
short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.
However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a
gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.
In August 2010, Nature published a commentary by Penner et al. which
mainly focused on the uncertainty regarding the effect short-lived
pollutants (such as aerosols and black carbon) have on the climate. As
is often the case, many in the blogosphere misinterpreted and
misunderstood the statements and conclusions in the commentary. Not
surprisingly, the biggest misinterpretation related to the contribution
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to global warming. Below is the most
misunderstood quote, with emphasis on the key word.
"Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black
carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative
forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others — such as sulphate, nitrate and
organic aerosols — cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a
fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide."
Numerous blogs have (mis)interpreted this statement to mean that carbon
dioxide is only causing 35% as much global warming as previously
believed. A more accurate reading of the quote is that certain
short-lived pollutants cause warming in addition to carbon dioxide -
quantitatively, approximately 65% as much warming as CO2. And certain
other short-lived species cause a cooling effect which offsets some of
this warming.
This is not a new conclusion. The IPCC puts the radiative forcing from
CO2 at 1.66 W/m^2, compared to the forcing from other greenhouse gases,
black carbon, and tropospheric ozone at approximately 1.4 W/m^2.
Similarly, the negative forcing from aerosols is approximately -1.2 W/m^2.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm
--
-Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
Aug 9, 2012, 10:38:44 AM8/9/12
to
On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
> Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>
> Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> to human health"!
While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification
> "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
> Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>
> Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> to human health"!
of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.
While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has
severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the
environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a
by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause
breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a
direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the
other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere
long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect
keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability
or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively
stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries
have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on
the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the
atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine
ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer
temperatures.
Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years.
Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome
ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii
(NOAA).
Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to
warmer temperatures which has many consequences. Some effects are
beneficial such as improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased
vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives far
outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising
sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of
millions. Species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate in history.
How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To
focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the
broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2
are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions
of future humanity.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
--
-Sam Wormley
Bill Snyder
Aug 9, 2012, 10:50:29 AM8/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:55:28 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
And if you try breathing *in* a modest concentration of it,
retardo, you'll get a nice fast lesson in how damaging to human
health it can be. In fact, all you need to do is get yourself an
old non-working refrigerator, strip out the shelves, climb inside,
and have somebody close the door, strap it closed, and come back
in, say, 24 hours to see how you're doing. Why don't you?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
wrote:
retardo, you'll get a nice fast lesson in how damaging to human
health it can be. In fact, all you need to do is get yourself an
old non-working refrigerator, strip out the shelves, climb inside,
and have somebody close the door, strap it closed, and come back
in, say, 24 hours to see how you're doing. Why don't you?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 9, 2012, 11:03:31 AM8/9/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>> "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
>> greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
>> Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
>> regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>>
>> Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
>> to human health"!
>
> While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification
> of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.
> While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has
> severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
This is just posturing no different than calling water a poison since
> On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>> "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
>> greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
>> Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
>> regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>>
>> Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
>> to human health"!
>
> While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification
> of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.
> While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has
> severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
drinking too water much will kill you, ass hat.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Aug 9, 2012, 11:48:56 AM8/9/12
to
the current, EU-led (mandatory) USA (voluntary hedgies) scheme
for trading in dioxygen carbide has been very successful,
given that it was launched with the advent of Gulf War Two,
cutting about a tenth of our supply, boom.
let the arbitrageurs make as much as they can,
on the price of your deisel thingie.
for trading in dioxygen carbide has been very successful,
given that it was launched with the advent of Gulf War Two,
cutting about a tenth of our supply, boom.
let the arbitrageurs make as much as they can,
on the price of your deisel thingie.
bjacoby
Aug 9, 2012, 4:06:10 PM8/9/12
to
On 8/9/2012 10:31 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>> CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing
>
> If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no
> additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface
> measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths
> that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is
> not saturated.
> If the CO2 effect is saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional
> greenhouse effect. However, observations continue to find an enhanced
> greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rise. The paper Increases in greenhouse
> forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the
> Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970,
> NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between
> 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the
> IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared
> both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the
> 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:
"Sam", science isn't something you know much about it it? Quoting
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>> CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing
>
> If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no
> additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface
> measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths
> that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is
> not saturated.
> If the CO2 effect is saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional
> greenhouse effect. However, observations continue to find an enhanced
> greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rise. The paper Increases in greenhouse
> forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the
> Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970,
> NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between
> 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the
> IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared
> both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the
> 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:
propaganda sites with purposeful disinformation isn't any proof.
First off, the supposed "greenhouse effect" takes place at the earth's
surface. It is the radiation from the SURFACE that counts. Of course
bands are not saturated at low pressure at high altitudes. Which proves?
Absolutely nothing as usual. You have to show that radiation FROM THE
EARTH increases with increasing CO2. The very fact that current
temperatures are not following CO2 concentration for for that matter the
temperatures during the industrial development cooling period of
1940-1970 did not follow rising CO2 levels puts the lie to your theory.
OR are we talking only about VIRTUAL earth temperatures here?
> Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
> 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
> (Harries 2001).
>
> What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands
> that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The
> change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with
> theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental
> evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
Greenhouse gas and again this does NOT provide direct experimental
evidence as it measures high altitude radiation and not ground radiation
which is the only "significant" factor in warming. And tell us oh wise
one, just how MUCH "greenhouse effect" did they measure? Does the word
"significant" mean they actually measured something and then just
extrapolated to large effect the way you do with CO2 and temperature?
CO2 is BLOCKED at the surface of the planet. Only minor changes in the
band edge can get through which as I've given you NASA references to,
means a minor fraction of the 20% maximum effect of CO2. And it's worse
than that because water vapor blocks one side of the band leaving only
half the effect. Marvin has explained this to you many times and like an
ass-hat you simply pretend nothing was said.
> So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for an enhanced CO2
> greenhouse effect. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave
> radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased
> longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching
> increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance
> is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.
>
> See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
spurious theories. The ENTIRE CO2 "greenhouse effect" theory simply does
not fly.
During a period when there was global COOLING as shown by Hansen
irrefutable data, CO2 was clearly rising.
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/40-70GISS.htm
This was a period of major industrial expansion and use of fossil fuels.
Do you deny that CO2 went up in this 30 year period? Are you a denier?
And it's the same now:
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSJUNE.htm
Again a period of RISING CO2. So where is the "radiative forcing"? Are
you going to tell us again that it somehow didn't warm the land (Hansen
data cannot be questioned) but DID warm the deep ocean? Is that your
"science"?
You know Sam, you are a true ass-hat. I'm not paid to refute your
propaganda sites the way your "climate scientists" are who fake this
data and concoct spurious "scare" theories for you to propagate all over
science groups. If it weren't important to show your lies I wouldn't
even answer.
bjacoby
Aug 9, 2012, 4:16:31 PM8/9/12
to
On 8/9/2012 10:38 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>> "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
>> greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
>> Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
>> regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>>
>> Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
>> to human health"!
>
> While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification
> of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.
> While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has
> severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
> On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>> "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
>> greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
>> Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
>> regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>>
>> Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
>> to human health"!
>
> While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification
> of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.
> While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has
> severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
> Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to
> warmer temperatures which has many consequences.
HOW much "warming" Sam? Half a degree? Maybe even a FULL degree? Gosh it
> warmer temperatures which has many consequences.
seems Greenland was FOUR degrees warmer during the medieval warm period
and the only "consequences" was farming in Greenland colonies with a
healthy trade with Europe. No historical record of 80 meters of sea
level rises! I wonder why that was? Oh, I know. They simply FORGOT to
mention that all coastal towns and villages were totally flooded.
Your assertion that CO2 is the "cause" of warming is unscientific
fantasy. CO2 does not even have a CORRELATION with global warming let
alone a causality. The COOLING 30 year period from 1940 -1970 during
rising CO2 levels PROVES THAT BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/40-70GISS.htm
<Snip ass-hat defense of EPA calling CO2 a "pollutant" so they can have
authority to "regulate" (read tax) it>
<Snip ass-hat usual link to paid warmist propaganda site>
bjacoby
Aug 9, 2012, 4:43:43 PM8/9/12
to
On 8/9/2012 10:35 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>> CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect
>
> The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based
> actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon
> dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon)
> cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other
> short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.
> However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a
> gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.
Penner is bullshit. The misunderstanding is clearly YOURS!
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>> CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect
>
> The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based
> actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon
> dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon)
> cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other
> short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.
> However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a
> gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.
Quote from paper abstract describing YOU:
"The relative contributions of atmospheric long-wave absorbers to the
present-day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted
statistics in public discussions of climate change."
"most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change"?
That sure sounds like YOU, ass-hat.
Again from the "misinterpreted" paper:
And they continue:
"Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review
the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each
absorber at the present-day and under doubled CO2. With a
straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor
is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds
(∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles."
Note they agree with your FORMER assessment that all other "greenhouse
gasses" play minor roles. So why are you changing your position now? I
thought the science was "settled"?
And no, Ass-hat, I did NOT claim CO2 was only 35% I claimed it had a
MAXIMUM value of the 20% asserted by this paper which let us note tries
to take all "feedbacks" into account. In fact, I have asserted this
paper over-estimates real values since it only calculates "virtual
greenhouse warming" rather than real warming which appears to have
nothing or at best very little to do with CO2.
In short you are purposely lying and misinterpreting data to try to fool
SOMEONE. Just who isn't clear since most lurkers here have some
acquaintance with science and know how to read charts and papers.
To all LURKERS:
Fact 1: Total temperature rise from 1900 to present: about 0.85 degree.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_%28Fig.A%29.gif
Historical warm periods had far greater temperature rises with no end of
civilization.
By above paper demonstrates (NASA data is irrefutable) increases in CO2
can take credit for roughly a MAXIMUM OF 20% of the above: or 0.17 degree.
Man made portion of CO2 is a fraction of that!
Energy "Carbon" tax will only reduce man-made CO2 production by just a
tiny fraction of it's total value (if that).
Get the picture yet? A TRILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR "carbon" tax doing
NOTHING but making certain rich men richer.
Neolibertarian
Aug 9, 2012, 10:04:09 PM8/9/12
to
Neolibertarian
Aug 9, 2012, 10:15:48 PM8/9/12
to
In article
<f59f54e4-2197-4f41...@nc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
The European Carbon Credits hit a high in July of 2008 at 30 Euros a
ton. It's at about 7 Euros a ton now. It's been at that price for years
now.
Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Germanyąs EON, urged policymakers
to make fixes. łLetąs talk real: the ETS is bust, itąs dead.˛
http://tinyurl.com/9fnkbdm
http://tinyurl.com/9qvdv3x
<f59f54e4-2197-4f41...@nc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> the current, EU-led (mandatory) USA (voluntary hedgies) scheme
> for trading in dioxygen carbide has been very successful,
> given that it was launched with the advent of Gulf War Two,
> cutting about a tenth of our supply, boom.
>
> let the arbitrageurs make as much as they can,
> on the price of your deisel thingie.
You're an idiot, an I say that with all due respect.
> the current, EU-led (mandatory) USA (voluntary hedgies) scheme
> for trading in dioxygen carbide has been very successful,
> given that it was launched with the advent of Gulf War Two,
> cutting about a tenth of our supply, boom.
>
> let the arbitrageurs make as much as they can,
> on the price of your deisel thingie.
The European Carbon Credits hit a high in July of 2008 at 30 Euros a
ton. It's at about 7 Euros a ton now. It's been at that price for years
now.
Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Germanyąs EON, urged policymakers
to make fixes. łLetąs talk real: the ETS is bust, itąs dead.˛
http://tinyurl.com/9fnkbdm
http://tinyurl.com/9qvdv3x
Desertphile
Aug 10, 2012, 11:31:49 AM8/10/12
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:31:20 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> > CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing
".... on Venus." The alarmist forgot to add "on Venus" again. Here
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> > CO2 significant band is saturated hence more CO2 does nothing
on Earth, where atmospheric CO2 is no where near saturation point,
added CO2 has caused and is causing the planet to warm
anomalously.
> If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no
> additional greenhouse effect.
> However, satellite and surface
> measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths
> that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is
> not saturated.
and killing each other over religious differences." --- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Desertphile
Aug 10, 2012, 11:32:46 AM8/10/12
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:35:44 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> > CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect
"... which is very significant," the alarmist forgot to add again.
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/12 1:15 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> > CO2 is a MINOR player in the warming game at best 20% effect
CO2 � An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
Part Two � why different gases absorb different amounts of energy,
why
some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
Part Three � the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept
of
re-emission of radiation
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/
Part Four � band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as
the
amount of CO2 increases under �weak� and �strong� conditions
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/
Part Five � two results from solving the 1-d equations � and how
CO2
compares to water vapor
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/
Part Six � Visualization -what does the downwards longwave
radiation look like at the earth�s surface
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/
Part Seven � The Boring Numbers � the values of �radiative
forcing� from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/
Part Eight � Saturation � explaining �saturation� in more detail
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/
CO2 Can�t have that Effect Because.. � common �problems� or
responses to the theory and evidence presented
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
find WMD yet Repubs?
Aug 10, 2012, 1:16:25 PM8/10/12
to
On Aug 9, 10:50 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:55:28 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:55:28 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 8/8/2012 5:30 PM, find WMD yet Repubs? wrote:
>
> >> Back to the Future Dec 10, 2009 7:00 PM EST
>
> >> "The idea of a carbon tax, proposed by Al Gore 17 years ago, is
> >> winning new converts "
>
> >> --http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/10/back-to-the-future.html
>
>
>
> >On 8/8/2012 5:30 PM, find WMD yet Repubs? wrote:
>
> >> Back to the Future Dec 10, 2009 7:00 PM EST
>
> >> "The idea of a carbon tax, proposed by Al Gore 17 years ago, is
> >> winning new converts "
>
>
> >OF course that poor congressman is now a millionaire many times over and
> >his tax didn't even pass yet! Just imagine when it does and his
> >"investments" start to come in!
>
> >But as for me I'm in a State of Fear because:
>
> >"The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> >greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
> >Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> >regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>
> >Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> >to human health"! I say we pass regulations to stop as many humans from
> >breathing out greenhouse gases as possible. We can consult world record
> >holders in this (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) as to how it's best done...
>
> And if you try breathing *in* a modest concentration of it,
> retardo, you'll get a nice fast lesson in how damaging to human
> health it can be. In fact, all you need to do is get yourself an
> old non-working refrigerator, strip out the shelves, climb inside,
> and have somebody close the door, strap it closed, and come back
> in, say, 24 hours to see how you're doing. Why don't you?
Because its irrelevant to modern scientific research.
> >OF course that poor congressman is now a millionaire many times over and
> >his tax didn't even pass yet! Just imagine when it does and his
> >"investments" start to come in!
>
> >But as for me I'm in a State of Fear because:
>
> >"The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> >greenhouse gases are damaging to human health provides fair warning to
> >Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> >regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
>
> >Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> >to human health"! I say we pass regulations to stop as many humans from
> >breathing out greenhouse gases as possible. We can consult world record
> >holders in this (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) as to how it's best done...
>
> And if you try breathing *in* a modest concentration of it,
> retardo, you'll get a nice fast lesson in how damaging to human
> health it can be. In fact, all you need to do is get yourself an
> old non-working refrigerator, strip out the shelves, climb inside,
> and have somebody close the door, strap it closed, and come back
> in, say, 24 hours to see how you're doing. Why don't you?
find WMD yet Repubs?
Aug 10, 2012, 1:18:21 PM8/10/12
to
Bill Snyder
Aug 10, 2012, 1:27:16 PM8/10/12
to
health" in sarky-quotes.
bjacoby
Aug 10, 2012, 1:48:08 PM8/10/12
to
to read you be able to see that the statement "greenhouse gases are
damaging to human health" are in the original article describing what
the EPA said! Just what do you think your idiot comments are doing to
further your Alarmist cause? You are only demonstrating what ignorant
morons you true believers in "global warming" are. Keep up the good work!
Is "sarky" an actual word? Not in my dictionary. Oh wait. You must be a
limey using slang limey-talk. Well that explains a lot. Tell us again
how the BBC as an irrefutable source assures us that CO2 causes global
warming and a host of other things "damaging to human health".
Your required viewing/reading: Pygmalion
(once you actually learn how to read)
Bill Snyder
Aug 10, 2012, 1:52:39 PM8/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:48:08 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
Like "gullible." Or "literate," for that matter. But then your
dictionary is only three pages long. In large print.
> Oh wait. You must be a
>limey using slang limey-talk. Well that explains a lot.
Yes, your propensity for making shit up does explain a lot.
> Tell us again
>how the BBC as an irrefutable source assures us that CO2 causes global
>warming and a host of other things "damaging to human health".
Sure, shit-bot, as soon as you tell me when you're going to climb
into that refrigerator to prove it isn't.
>Your required viewing/reading: Pygmalion
>
>(once you actually learn how to read)
Your required reading "See Spot Run." Possibly a bit advanced for
you, but hey, no pain, no gain.
wrote:
dictionary is only three pages long. In large print.
> Oh wait. You must be a
>limey using slang limey-talk. Well that explains a lot.
> Tell us again
>how the BBC as an irrefutable source assures us that CO2 causes global
>warming and a host of other things "damaging to human health".
into that refrigerator to prove it isn't.
>Your required viewing/reading: Pygmalion
>
>(once you actually learn how to read)
you, but hey, no pain, no gain.
Desertphile
Aug 10, 2012, 6:49:13 PM8/10/12
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:38:44 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> > "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> > greenhouse gases are damaging to human health
... something the EPA never claimed....
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> > "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> > greenhouse gases are damaging to human health
> > provides fair warning to
> > Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> > regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
> >
> > Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> > to human health"!
(the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
what they actually do say.
bjacoby
Aug 11, 2012, 2:29:07 AM8/11/12
to
On 8/10/2012 6:49 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> The hysterical paranoid alarmist "bjacoby" attacks what scientists
> (the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
> what they actually do say.
(Almost) Anonymous paid liar and propagandist "Desertphile" sets up
> The hysterical paranoid alarmist "bjacoby" attacks what scientists
> (the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
> what they actually do say.
strawman and beats it down "proving" once again he's right and facts are
wrong.
The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see. I simply logically
extrapolated the idiocy to even more idiocy. You know, just like you do.
Name-calling is no scientific debate. There is no debating with you
ignorant anti-science deniers.
Transition Zone
Aug 11, 2012, 10:11:28 AM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 2:29 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 6:49 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > The hysterical paranoid alarmist "bjacoby" attacks what scientists
> > (the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
> > what they actually do say.
>
> (Almost) Anonymous paid liar and propagandist "Desertphile" sets up
> strawman and beats it down "proving" once again he's right and facts are
> wrong.
You know nothing about Desertphile and you can't disprove anything
> On 8/10/2012 6:49 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > The hysterical paranoid alarmist "bjacoby" attacks what scientists
> > (the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
> > what they actually do say.
>
> (Almost) Anonymous paid liar and propagandist "Desertphile" sets up
> strawman and beats it down "proving" once again he's right and facts are
> wrong.
that he's said.
bjacoby, you have no facts.
> The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see. I simply logically
> extrapolated the idiocy to even more idiocy. You know, just like you do.
prize?
> Name-calling is no scientific debate. There is no debating with you
> ignorant anti-science deniers.
bjacoby
Aug 11, 2012, 11:52:27 AM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/2012 10:11 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> bjacoby, you have no facts.
Sorry, Denier, but I have posted NOTHING but facts while Wormley and
> On Aug 11, 2:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> bjacoby, you have no facts.
your kind post nothing but lies and hair-brained alarmist theories.
>> The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see. I simply logically
>> extrapolated the idiocy to even more idiocy. You know, just like you do.
>
> In a post above, you mentioned Al Gore. Tell us. Why'd he win a nobel
> prize?
>> Name-calling is no scientific debate. There is no debating with you
>> ignorant anti-science deniers.
>
> What do you know about science?
more. Who can argue with anonymous deniers taking potshots from behind
a keyboard? If you want to win a "credential war", you have to start
with a real name and address. I'm in the phone book for Crissakes.
Barbarian Mutual
Aug 11, 2012, 2:00:27 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 11:52 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 8/11/2012 10:11 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 2:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > bjacoby, you have no facts.
>
> Sorry, Denier, but I have posted NOTHING but facts while Wormley and
> your kind post nothing but lies and hair-brained alarmist theories.
>
> >> The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see. I simply logically
> >> extrapolated the idiocy to even more idiocy. You know, just like you do.
>
> > In a post above, you mentioned Al Gore. Tell us. Why'd he win a nobel
> > prize?
>
> Now that is a VERY GOOD question? Any REAL answers to it?
>
> >> Name-calling is no scientific debate. There is no debating with you
> >> ignorant anti-science deniers.
>
> > What do you know about science?
>
> What do YOU know about science?
It doesn't matter what I know, because Hansen and Mann and Al Gore and
> On 8/11/2012 10:11 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 2:29 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > bjacoby, you have no facts.
>
> Sorry, Denier, but I have posted NOTHING but facts while Wormley and
> your kind post nothing but lies and hair-brained alarmist theories.
>
> >> The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see. I simply logically
> >> extrapolated the idiocy to even more idiocy. You know, just like you do.
>
> > In a post above, you mentioned Al Gore. Tell us. Why'd he win a nobel
> > prize?
>
> Now that is a VERY GOOD question? Any REAL answers to it?
>
> >> Name-calling is no scientific debate. There is no debating with you
> >> ignorant anti-science deniers.
>
> > What do you know about science?
>
> What do YOU know about science?
the other world-reknown can provide the knowledge. Not you and George
Bush and what other criminals you want out there
> I know more than HVAC so I need say no
> more. Who can argue with anonymous deniers taking potshots from behind
> a keyboard? If you want to win a "credential war", you have to start
> with a real name and address. I'm in the phone book for Crissakes.
OUT !!!
bjacoby
Aug 12, 2012, 12:14:48 AM8/12/12
to
On 8/11/2012 2:00 PM, Barbarian Mutual wrote:
> On Aug 11, 11:52 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> What do YOU know about science?
> It doesn't matter what I know, because Hansen and Mann and Al Gore and
> the other world-reknown can provide the knowledge. Not you and George
> Bush and what other criminals you want out there
So just like Sam Wormley you think that parroting paid propaganda denier
> On Aug 11, 11:52 am, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> What do YOU know about science?
> It doesn't matter what I know, because Hansen and Mann and Al Gore and
> the other world-reknown can provide the knowledge. Not you and George
> Bush and what other criminals you want out there
sites that deny all science somehow proves that you are as "smart" as
them. Right, Einstein's messenger boy is as "smart" as Einstein. There
is no denying the millions Algore and Hansen have made on AGW, but that
is the idea, right?
>> I know more than HVAC so I need say no
>> more. Who can argue with anonymous deniers taking potshots from behind
>> a keyboard? If you want to win a "credential war", you have to start
>> with a real name and address. I'm in the phone book for Crissakes.
> You are OUT of the top scientific world, though. Now think about that.
> OUT !!!
That is pretty funny. You've never even been near the top scientific
world. We wouldn't let you in the door!
I still haven't heard any real name and address. That gives you true
credibility in judging the "science" of others.
bjacoby
Aug 12, 2012, 12:47:42 AM8/12/12
to
On 8/10/2012 11:32 AM, Desertphile wrote:
>> See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
(war of paid propaganda blogs)
>> See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
(war of paid propaganda blogs)
Desertphile
Aug 12, 2012, 2:21:10 PM8/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:47:42 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
wrote:
> > > See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm
> See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Why?
> See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Desertphile
Aug 15, 2012, 9:38:41 PM8/15/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 02:29:07 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:49:13 -0600, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:38:44 -0500, Sam Wormley
> > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> >
> > > > "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> > > > greenhouse gases are damaging to human health
> >
> > ... something the EPA never claimed....
> >
> > > > provides fair warning to
> > > > Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> > > > regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
> > > >
> > > > Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> > > > to human health"!
> >
> The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see.
So, now you are the EPA? LOL!
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:49:13 -0600, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:38:44 -0500, Sam Wormley
> > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/8/12 10:55 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> >
> > > > "The Environmental Protection Agency announcement this week that
> > > > greenhouse gases are damaging to human health
> >
> > ... something the EPA never claimed....
> >
> > > > provides fair warning to
> > > > Congress that if it doesn't take action, the agency might. And a
> > > > regulatory regime is everybody's second choice."
> > > >
> > > > Can you imagine it? We are all actually BREATHING OUT that gas "damaging
> > > > to human health"!
> >
> > The hysterical paranoid alarmist "bjacoby" attacks what scientists
> > (the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
> > what they actually do say.
> >
> > (the EPA) never said because it's vastly easier than attacking
> > what they actually do say.
> >
> (Almost) Anonymous paid liar and propagandist "Desertphile" sets up
> strawman and beats it down "proving" once again he's right and facts are
> wrong.
No: I corrected your lie. See the difference?
> strawman and beats it down "proving" once again he's right and facts are
> wrong.
> The EPA quote was right there for everyone to see.
tj Frazir
Aug 16, 2012, 12:35:12 AM8/16/12
to
the sky is 5.7 Quadrillin ton with 190 TRILLION ton co2 and mans 15
BBBBillion ton wount feed 2 TRILLION TREES AND 45 TRILLION TON PLANTS
for an HOUR.
Co2 DONT go UP !! any ppm.
its still 270 PPM buy a hand held co2 meter and read it.
GLOBAL GREENTARDS FEAR A CO2 METER.
co2 is effective to 11000 feet and the tree line is not gtting higher
and co2 only mixes with nitrogen to nitrogens saturation point of 270
PPM.
the bottom of the sea is NOT 45 deg F as the gov noaa claims.
Noaa insist its 45 deg all the way down because they never corect thier
lies .
Its -10 at 15000 feet down.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
BBBBillion ton wount feed 2 TRILLION TREES AND 45 TRILLION TON PLANTS
for an HOUR.
Co2 DONT go UP !! any ppm.
its still 270 PPM buy a hand held co2 meter and read it.
GLOBAL GREENTARDS FEAR A CO2 METER.
co2 is effective to 11000 feet and the tree line is not gtting higher
and co2 only mixes with nitrogen to nitrogens saturation point of 270
PPM.
the bottom of the sea is NOT 45 deg F as the gov noaa claims.
Noaa insist its 45 deg all the way down because they never corect thier
lies .
Its -10 at 15000 feet down.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
0 new messages