NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans

[AGWFacts]

NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1

A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the "skepticism" about
climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential
campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research,
that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes
in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.

NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy
imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar
energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to
space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar
activity from 2005 to 2010, the planet continued to absorb more
energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to
space during that time period.

"This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the
dominant driver of global warming," said James Hansen, director of
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research
released Monday.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php

On the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, 16 scientists recently
said there's no need for drastic action to "decarbonize" the
world's economy. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack
of global warming for well over 10 years now," they wrote without
providing data.

Not so, according to U.S. government records. In December, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that all
11 years of the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13
warmest in the 132-year period of record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

The Hansen-led study, published in the December issue of
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, said the magnitude of the
Earth's energy imbalance is fundamental to climate science. If the
imbalance is positive and more energy enters the system than
exits, the Earth warms. If the imbalance is negative, the planet
cools.

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." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[7]

AGWFacts wrote:

> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by

Fakers.



As usual these climate trolls are fake pseudo scientists
that rely on systematic hiding of public scientific data to
avoid legitimate unconditional scrutiny and whine when legitimate
unconditional alternative interpretations are presented:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/cru_foia_landmark/

[Transition Zone]

On Feb 5, 3:45 pm, 7

<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> AGWFacts wrote:
> > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>
> Fakers.

Yes. All fakers are people. All people are humans. AGW is mostly
caused by human activity.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 2:45 PM, 7 wrote:
> AGWFacts wrote:
>
>> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>
> Fakers.
>

Fakers, no. There is increasing evidence that human production
of CO2 is driving is global warming and at a very fast rate.

> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's
> energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>
> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

> The Last Great Global Warming
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming
>

[7]

Sam Wormley wrote:

>>> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>>
>> Fakers.
>>
>
> Fakers, no.

Fakers yes. You snipped the relevant proof:

Snipped Proof:

As usual these climate trolls are fake pseudo scientists
that rely on systematic hiding of public scientific data to
avoid legitimate unconditional scrutiny and whine when legitimate
unconditional alternative interpretations are presented:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global- warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing -again.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/cru_foia_landmark/

And not to mention the stuff you have been
running away from sci.physics on several occasions:



Warmly gets crucified on altar of Physics:
-----------------------------------------


Where is your beef troll?????????????????

We haven't seen your replies to you being crucified
on the altar of Physics lately:




Previous posts of the Wormly Cretin --------------->:


>> Is that 46% of 270 ppm fraction or 46% of the net received energy??
>
>
> IR re-radiation in the downward (back to earth) direction
> is about 46% of of the re-radiation from energized CO2
> molecules.


So in your opinion 69=96?

You UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER CRETIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your snippage buffoonery has been re-instated
so you can answer the same question again.

People are watching while you hang yourself
grappling with real technical issues that warmies
for so long have wished to go away so they
can hallucinate ever more
harder about their unfettered evil.

Think you can storm sci.physics again troll
with your warmie crap? Better think again!!!!






>> Is that 46% of 270 ppm fraction or 46% of the net received energy??
>
> 46 percent of the re-radiated energy from CO2 is downward.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!


Is that 46% of 270 ppm fraction or 46% of the net received energy??

Surely you should by now know the difference??????????????????????????

Running away is not an option boy! Your online global warmie crap
is now toast. But you may wish to answer any way to convince yourself
you have been broadcasting crap all these years.

And, is that percentage you quote apply
across the whole solar power spectrum?

No? What do you mean by No???!!!

So if its not the full solar spectrum
then what percentage of the solar power spectrum are
*you* talking about when you pull this disconnected 46% out of thin air
and why toe rag?

Surely this is elementary global warmie science you would know by now
with the amount of warmie crap you have been posting all these years???




> Related Papers:
>
> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
>
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf





STOP SNIPPING YOUR OWN PURILE RUBBISH TOE RAG!!!!!

ESCAPE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR YOU TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!





>> Put air into a glass jar with oxygen and nitrogen less CO2.
>> And then measure IR reflection of sample.
>> Then add 270ppm CO2 and take measurement again.
>> Piss poor reflection I would say.
>
> The IR is not "reflected" by greenhouse gasses such as CO2, but
> is absorbed by the molecules and is re-radiated.
>
> CO2 + hν <==> CO2*
> CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
> N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
> H20* ==> H2O + hν




WORMLY YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER CRETIN!!!


GO AND *FSCKING* LEARN SOME BASIC SCIENCE ABOUT GASES FOR FSCK SAKE!!!!




What is the percentage of radiation re-radiated back
for 270 ppm CO2?

Is that better or worse than than fake impossible
to draw global warming ray diagrams for fake internal reflections of gases
in a spherical contour so often championed by
warmies??????????????????????????????





Learn some basic physics of internal
angle of reflection before posting.


Here is your own post you snipped!!!:
How could you be so dumb as to post this
below without clearing it with your superior fool? ???????????????


WORKMY THE SUPREME CLIMATE IDIOT TROLL had just posted this
without understanding a word of what it implies for the climate troll
movement:


> The concentration of atmospheric CO2 rose by ∼80 parts per million (ppm),
from ∼190 to 270 ppm, during the last deglaciation. It is widely believed
that the primary source of that CO2 was the deep Southern Ocean. Burke and
Robinson (p. 557,
published online 15 December) present a 25,000-year-long record of the
radiocarbon content of deep-sea corals collected from the Southern Ocean,
which shows evidence of the 14C-depletion that must have accompanied CO2
sequestration. 14C depletion
and ocean stratification ended between 15,000 and 14,000 years ago, in a
manner consistent with the transfer of large amounts of CO2 from the deep
Southern Ocean to the atmosphere. The observed 14C drop can explain the
atmospheric CO2 rise
between 17,500 and 14,500 years ago, adding support to the existing model of
deglacial CO2 dynamics.

See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6068/557



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!



THE WORMLY GLOBAL WARMIE FOOL HAS UNDONE HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


CO2 concentration of 270 ppm?

ppm ???

Parts Per Million ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read that again CO2 concentration of 270 parts per million.

At those levels of CO2, nothing can happen.
No warming effect is possible.

Put air into a glass jar with oxygen and nitrogen less CO2.
And then measure IR reflection of sample.
Then add 270ppm CO2 and take measurement again.
Piss poor reflection I would say.

99% of all energy reaching the Earth will never stick around
long enough to make a difference when a full day and night has
passed. Sun weather controls Earths' temperatures and that is
the only thing that is certain.

[Antares 531]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

>NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>
>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1
>
>A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the "skepticism" about
>climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential
>campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research,
>that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes
>in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.
>

Are you saying that humans were messing up the atmosphere during the
earlier interglacial warm periods?

>
>NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy
>imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar
>energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to
>space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar
>activity from 2005 to 2010, the planet continued to absorb more
>energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to
>space during that time period.
>

That seems congruent with the obvious interglacial warm-up that has
been going on for the past 12,000 years. Polar ice caps/perma-frost
haven't extended to the 45 degree latitude line for several thousand
years, but I don't see the human connection.

How was this accomplished at the end of previous interglacial warm
periods. Did something shut the volcanoes off for a while?

[Dawlish]

On Feb 5, 8:45 pm, 7

<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> AGWFacts wrote:
> > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>
> Fakers.
>
> As usual these climate trolls are fake pseudo scientists
> that rely on systematic hiding of public scientific data to
> avoid legitimate unconditional scrutiny and whine when legitimate
> unconditional alternative interpretations are presented:
>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/cru_foia_landmark/
>
>

It's all a big conspiracy, isn't it, where the toy is hidden and
deniers are just not told where it is........

[Androcles]

"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:qlrti757tfn9de48q...@4ax.com...

| On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
| wrote:
|
| >NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
| >
|
>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1
| >
| >A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the "skepticism" about
| >climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential
| >campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research,
| >that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes
| >in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.
| >
| Are you saying that humans were messing up the atmosphere during the
| earlier interglacial warm periods?

Yep, it was Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble in their RV.

| >
| >NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy
| >imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar
| >energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to
| >space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar
| >activity from 2005 to 2010, the planet continued to absorb more
| >energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to
| >space during that time period.
| >
| That seems congruent with the obvious interglacial warm-up that has
| been going on for the past 12,000 years. Polar ice caps/perma-frost
| haven't extended to the 45 degree latitude line for several thousand
| years, but I don't see the human connection.
| >
| >"This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the
| >dominant driver of global warming," said James Hansen, director of
| >NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research
| >released Monday.
| >
| >http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php
| >
| >On the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, 16 scientists recently
| >said there's no need for drastic action to "decarbonize" the
| >world's economy. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack
| >of global warming for well over 10 years now," they wrote without
| >providing data.
| >
| >Not so, according to U.S. government records. In December, the
| >National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that all

| >11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13

[Antares 531]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:19:25 -0000, "Androcles"

<H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:

>
>"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
>news:qlrti757tfn9de48q...@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>| >
>|
> >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1
>| >
>| >A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the "skepticism" about
>| >climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential
>| >campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research,
>| >that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes
>| >in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.
>| >
>| Are you saying that humans were messing up the atmosphere during the
>| earlier interglacial warm periods?
>
>Yep, it was Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble in their RV.
>

Are you sure it wasn't the dinosaurs spewing out lots of methane rich
flatus?

[Androcles]

"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message

news:pputi7hp0c3vcdksq...@4ax.com...

| On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:19:25 -0000, "Androcles"
| <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
| >news:qlrti757tfn9de48q...@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
| >| >
| >|
| >
>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1
| >| >
| >| >A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the "skepticism" about
| >| >climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential
| >| >campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research,
| >| >that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes
| >| >in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.
| >| >
| >| Are you saying that humans were messing up the atmosphere during the
| >| earlier interglacial warm periods?
| >
| >Yep, it was Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble in their RV.
| >
| Are you sure it wasn't the dinosaurs spewing out lots of methane rich
| flatus?

Dino died 65 million years ago, Fred and Barney ate the last
mammoth eggs 11 thousand years ago. A new NASA study has
been built next to the Oval Office psycho pit.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 3:07 PM, 7 wrote:

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 3:07 PM, 7 wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:

>>> CO2 + h?<==> CO2*

>>> CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
>>> N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2

>>> H20* ==> H2O + h?

>> WORMLY YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER CRETIN!!!

You can lead a horse to water but you can't introduce it to
the theory of greenhouse gases.

--
[Feel the meta-evidence, Luke:]
The great thing about science is that once you understand it you tend
to defend it, especially against pretenders to science like the agw
activists here and at various institutions like the CRU, GISS, Penn
State and against political activists at the IPCC and Greenpeace.
-- Tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com>, 8 Jul 2011 11:05 -0700 (PDT)

[Bast]

AGWFacts wrote:
> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1
>

<SNIP>

Same govt people that say 9/11 was caused by moslems, and that they did put
men on the moon, but can only do it once every hundred years. right ?

...Good thing we can take their word and not be bothered with silly old
facts

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha....
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
CO2 + hf <=> CO2*

CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2

H20* ==> H2O + hf
>>
poster "7" wrote & Sam repeated:

WORMLY YOU UTTER UTTER
UTTER UTTER UTTER CRETIN!!!
>>

hanson wrote:
... yeah, yeah, Anthropic Global screaming
& steaming certainly WARMS up things....
>
Now Sam, do your equations say that
>
(1) CO2 + hf will just juggle [ <==> ] the heat
(hf) back & forth amongst CO2 molecules
and (hf) does not escape into space?
>
(2) it requires N2 & H2O presence to set the
(hf) free to radiate it (hf) out into space?

If not, Sam, than what's the gig?
Sam, the way you argue in your 4 lines above
says that you can blame all kind of things for
the heat's (hf) behavior,... but that CO2 is not
a factor at all & much less being an anthropic
one.... ahahahaha....
>
You would be more convincing to argue that it
is the H2O that is responsible for the (hf) action.
You should make the argument that the H2O
increases directly with CO2 because for each
fossil (CH2) burnt you get 1 CO2 & 1 H2O.
And with the Greener CH4 you actually get 2!
... ahahahaha...
>
So, Sam blame the water for your AGW...
Your problem of course will then be that it is
caused by and comes from the evaporated
sweat of the Green-turds and
Enviro-shits who are STEAMING mad that
==== the Iceman cometh!... ======
>
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahahanson

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 5, 6:56 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> AGWFacts wrote:
> > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>

> >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-...

>
> <SNIP>
>
> Same govt people that say 9/11 was caused by moslems, and that they did put
> men on the moon, but can only do it once every hundred years. right ?
>
> ...Good thing we can take their word and not be bothered with silly old
> facts

The word of our government is kinda whatever you'd care to pay for.

However, I wouldn't place the GW/AGW impact of humans above the 50%
mark of what's warming us up, unless we're talking of "tipping
points".

Internal activity and that of our moon modulating the whole body of
Earth is what should be the primary (greater than 50%) culprit, with
humans picking up perhaps 25% and the other less than 25% from the
sun. However, put all three together and we have a problem.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Unum]

On 2/5/2012 2:45 PM, 7 wrote:
> AGWFacts wrote:
>
>> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>
> Fakers.

Not according to all the data.

> As usual these climate trolls are fake pseudo scientists
> that rely on systematic hiding of public scientific data to
> avoid legitimate unconditional scrutiny and whine when legitimate
> unconditional alternative interpretations are presented:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/cru_foia_landmark/

But wait, that crap has been totally and completely debunked. And
neither link points to anything scientific, these are opinion
pieces on UK tabloids. This all you got, dumbass?

[Harry Merrick]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:33:08 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.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.

[Hägar]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:UoGdnR7mnqn6cbPS...@mchsi.com...

> On 2/5/12 2:45 PM, 7 wrote:
>> AGWFacts wrote:
>>
>>> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>>
>> Fakers.

Say, Warmie, have you ever looked up just how much
CO2 is belched out on a daily basis by the approximately
20 or so (at any given time) active volcanoes around the
world ???

Say, while you're at it, also look up what the underwater
Hydrothermal vents, or "Smokers" belch forth ... they
flourish around the perimeters of the under water tectonic
plates and there could be up to 10,000 of them, if not
more, in all the Oceans of the world.

You can Google all that from your PC. Make sure to
get back with us on what you find out. You can skip me,
because I just looked it up, but the rest of us should be
made aware of what a dummy you really are.

[Antares 531]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:53:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/5/12 2:45 PM, 7 wrote:
>> AGWFacts wrote:
>>
>>> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>>
>> Fakers.
>>
>
> Fakers, no. There is increasing evidence that human production
> of CO2 is driving is global warming and at a very fast rate.
>

And, those damned butterflies flapping their wings in Malaysia are
causing an ever increasing number and increasing severity of storms
across the North American continent.

[Brad Guth]

Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much roadkill, and damn proud of it.

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 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 enough, as well as
diatoms are 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
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 extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you 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.

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 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.

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 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
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 hasn’t specified
a common world religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently
redneck approved. Perhaps the Hagar Guidestones will make this
perfectly clear.

Of course, the planet Venus is not without any number of faults and
consequences that are pretty much all natural and doing a fine job, of
keeping that planet cooler than it would otherwise be if the full 2650
w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to its geothermally heated
surface. Some terrestrial scientists actually want us to try putting
a few million tonnes of sulfur into our upper atmosphere, for the same
reflective cooling effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why
it will not stay up there, and the end result would 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”

On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>

> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-...

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

[Unum]

Sorry but no. Its called the "carbon cycle". Carbon that's resident
in the biosphere gets exchanged around constantly unless it gets
sequestered somehow, a process that is very slow. If you dredge up
previously sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels and dump
it into the biosphere it stays there for thousands of years at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

[saul...@cox.net]

PLEASE TELL THE PIG (WARPHOLE) THAT!

HIS PANIC IS NEVER OVER!

Saul Levy

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 5:40 AM, Harry Merrick wrote:
> The planet is working away to
> rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to cause global
> warming. Panic over!

While the planet (plants) works to re-sequester excess carbon, we
human are increasing our belching of CO2 into the atmosphere at an
increasing rate.

Global temperature will continue to increase, sea level is rise
significantly and the oceans will become more acidic.

So what?

The 1.3 billion people that currently live at sea level can move
up hill. There's plenty of fresh water for everybody is some places.
Who cares about sea food.

[Brad Guth]

Only starving and/or self-sufficient folks care about seafood.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:56:01 -0500, "Bast"
<fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
> >
> > http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1
> >

> Same govt people that say 9/11 was caused by moslems

No, NASA did not say that.

> and that they did put men on the moon

It is an observed fact.

>, but can only do it once every hundred years. right ?

No.

> ...Good thing we can take their word and not be bothered with silly old
> facts

Good for you; please don't vote.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 6, 10:59 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:56:01 -0500, "Bast"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>

> > >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-...

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

So, you're actually a FUD-master on behalf of the mainstream status
quo, that's only pretending to have the facts.

Can we assume that you'll believe anything and everything your
government tells you?

Would you be at least so honest as to tell how much percentage of your
income is public funded? (I'm guessing 100%)

[Brad Guth]

> --
> "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

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
"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 .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are you
buying or not buying into?

296 TW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or weather
extremes are killing you.

[Brad Guth]

GW and AGW obfuscation:, and denial of being in denial, works every
time.
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 .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
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 another 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, 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 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.

(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.

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

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/6/2012 11:31 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/6/12 5:40 AM, Harry Merrick wrote:
>> The planet is working away to
>> rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to cause global
>> warming. Panic over!
>
> While the planet (plants) works to re-sequester excess carbon, we
> human are increasing our belching of CO2 into the atmosphere at an
> increasing rate.

Said "belching" contributing AT MOST 1/2% of total greenhouse warming.

> Global temperature will continue to increase, sea level is rise
> significantly and the oceans will become more acidic.

And monster temperature rise (so far unmeasurable for 12 years) is
causing a "significant" sea level rise of about 2mm per year that is
sure to (eventually) inundate all coastal areas with ocean water made
hideously acidic by all the CO2 driven off by the heat. (For idiots
here, driving off CO2 does not make water acidic. Don't press me or I'll
win this argument with a Wikipedia link!)

> So what?
>
> The 1.3 billion people that currently live at sea level can move
> up hill. There's plenty of fresh water for everybody is some places.
> Who cares about sea food.

You said it, Worm. Here's a great idea we are already trying that is
creating world starvation on a massive scale: LETS BURN FOOD! We need
more "educated" people like you in charge of this problem.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 9:20 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Internal activity and that of our moon modulating the whole body of
> Earth is what should be the primary (greater than 50%) culprit, with
> humans picking up perhaps 25% and the other less than 25% from the
> sun. However, put all three together and we have a problem.

Brad, have you ever considered trying a "scientific" argument in
these USENET science groups?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

the cyclicity of vulcanism in segue with glaciation
-- usually only known as "eustasy" of --
is shown in teh Basin and Range formations
of the southwesterm USA. it appears that
there is about an order of magnitude more vulcanism
during the glacial phase -- and it's much longer
than interglacials, in the Quaternary period.'

see Morner's articles on the lack of sealevel rise;
see the strictly increasing heighth if the icesheeets,
GrIS and AnIS.

finally, see that *insolation is totally differential*
from the equator to the poles, hence "global" warming
is not even wrong, sville.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 12:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:31 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/6/12 5:40 AM, Harry Merrick wrote:
>>
>>> The planet is working away to
>>> rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to cause global
>>> warming. Panic over!
>>
>> While the planet (plants) works to re-sequester excess carbon, we
>> human are increasing our belching of CO2 into the atmosphere at an
>> increasing rate.
>>
>> Global temperature will continue to increase, sea level is rise
>> significantly and the oceans will become more acidic.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> The 1.3 billion people that currently live at sea level can move
>> up hill. There's plenty of fresh water for everybody is some places.
>> Who cares about sea food.
>
> Only starving and/or self-sufficient folks care about seafood.
>

That's about two thirds of the global population, Brad!

[Sam Wormley]

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 1:06 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> So, you're actually a FUD-master on behalf of the mainstream status
> quo, that's only pretending to have the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRza-sBbTrI

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/6/12 8:09 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
> from eating too much roadkill, and damn proud of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRza-sBbTrI

[Brad Guth]

I don't do youtubes. Which side are your on?

[Brad Guth]

Uranium usage and its spent byproducts (none of which are good for the
environment or much less human DNA friendly) isn’t much better than
hydrocarbons and the gauntlet of associated elements (most of which
are toxic and some can even be considered lethal in small dosages),
although unlike hydrocarbon consequences it’ll be dozens of
generations from now that’ll get to pay the most for the uranium
fission consequences initiated today.

Conventional nuclear fission produced electricity isn’t much better
than 20% efficient once the all-inclusive (birth-to grave)
thermodynamics and delivery efficiency is put squarely on the table.
In some instances of a failed or dysfunctional reactor site(s), make
that overall efficiency worth less than 10%. End result is, not much
work for the total amount of thermal energy created.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm

“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 this .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are

you buying or not buying into?

What part of burning hydrocarbons and fission derived energy is this
296 TW of AGW that doesn’t seem all that bad, that is unless your

local drought and/or weather extremes are either draining your bank

account or killing you. In other words, if we added up all the
hydrocarbon burning and fission energy we contribute to our
environment, could 25%(74 TW) be about right, or is it more like
50%(148 TW)?

[Brad Guth]

It's more like 99.9% of the world that isn't rich and powerful enough
to not care about GW and AGW.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

Well Sam seems to have added no comment so let me be the first
to congratulate BJACOBY for getting something right.

Indeed, those that have owned a bottle of pop or a stomach
can vouch for warming carbonic acid driving off gas and making
it less acidic.

We can also see this in the present-day ocean surface layer:

<http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/ocean.html> Ocean temp trends
<http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/ocean-ph.html> Ocean acidity trends

--
> Basically peak oil and ocean acidification are two sides of the _same_
> #@!&@! equation!
Ocean acidfication isn't global warming moron.
-- Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com>, 24 Apr 2011 16:52 PDT

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/7/2012 12:38 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:

>>> The 1.3 billion people that currently live at sea level can move
>>> up hill. There's plenty of fresh water for everybody is some places.
>>> Who cares about sea food.
>>
>> Only starving and/or self-sufficient folks care about seafood.
>>
> That's about two thirds of the global population, Brad!

Hey Worm, I think you are onto something here! There is currently a
complete "Scientific consensus" of "established science" that for the
earth to survive at least one third of the population needs to be
killed. And now YOU provide our saviour! Simply drive our SUVs and use
our electric appliances and DO NOTHING about carbon emissions! (You
know, just like YOU are doing right now) And BINGO! Overpopulation
problem solved! You are a genius, Sam!

I'm switching to your side!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

You mean you'll quote your wikipedia propaganda that boldly states that
even though CO2 is driven off by warming (You actually CAN understand
that much science, right Sam? Go buy a can of Mountain Dew and notice
what warming does to it) Wiki and warmists claim that since CO2 levels
have gone up that is forcing more CO2 to dissolve into the oceans. Great
theory. Any idea how much PRESSURE it would take for this to be true?
Notice the PRESSURE in the warm can of pop that is holding the CO2 in
solution. And then as icing on the cake your OWN ARTICLE gives the data
which shows virtually NO CO2 increase at the ocean surface and greatly
increasing CO2 as you go deeper and deeper! Maybe you need a "warm
ground exudes CO2" theory?

And you think you can "Win" this point with no science and just a quote
from Wiki editors? Just how stoopid are you?

Since I've just pressed you, you may quote Wiki editors now:

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Sam, Have you?

[Androcles]

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:aX5Yq.20170$Sh7....@newsfe15.iad...

Yeah! Won't it be nice when we finally get rid of the snow and
ice all over Greenland and can start farming wheat and beef there?
I can't wait to see those disgusting Victorian slums we call "cities"
inundated under a deluge of water. Pity Jerusalem is so far inland,
it needs wiping out to stop the silly bastards fighting over it.

[Antares 531]

Running a bit late, here. Should have started about 12,000 years ago
when this on-going period of interglacial warming got under way. Too
late to head it off, now, I'm afraid.

[Antares 531]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:31:36 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/6/12 5:40 AM, Harry Merrick wrote:
>> The planet is working away to
>> rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to cause global
>> warming. Panic over!
>
> While the planet (plants) works to re-sequester excess carbon, we
> human are increasing our belching of CO2 into the atmosphere at an
> increasing rate.
>

Also, we need to consider the fact that this warmer earth now has a
LOT more warm sea water that is growing a LOT more things like algae
and seaweed that is eaten by sea creatures then dropped to the bottom
of the sea then covered with silt when they die or expel their feces.
This is what carbon sequestering is all about, and it is going on at a
rate that probably exceeds the release of carbon from fossil fuel
combustion and other such processes.

[Antares 531]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 06:09:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
>from eating too much roadkill, and damn proud of it.
>

>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 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 enough, as well as
>diatoms are 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
>environment has never been greater, and it’s only getting worse.
>

Warmer and much more extensive warm ocean water - more algae and
seaweed - more sea creatures eating this ocean plant life - more dead
sea creatures and fecal material dropping to the ocean floor and being
covered by silt - more carbon sequestering and oxygen release.

>
>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 extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you 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.

>(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that 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.
>

>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 thorium reactor fuel.

>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 hasn’t specified

>a common world religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently

>redneck approved. Perhaps the Hagar Guidestones will make this
>perfectly clear.
>
>Of course, the planet Venus is not without any number of faults and

>consequences that are pretty much all natural and doing a fine job, of

>keeping that planet cooler than it would otherwise be if the full 2650
>w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to its geothermally heated

>surface. Some terrestrial scientists actually want us to try putting

>a few million tonnes of sulfur into our upper atmosphere, for the same

>reflective cooling effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why

>it will not stay up there, and the end result would 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”
>
>
>

>On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

>> 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

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 3:14 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> Hey Worm, I think you are onto something here! There is currently a
> complete "Scientific consensus" of "established science" that for the
> earth to survive at least one third of the population needs to be killed.

Most of the issues associated with global warming go away with
reduced population, including cause. Birth rate reduction can
do wonders in as few as three generations to bring the population
down to, say 100 million persons.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 9:43 AM, Antares 531 wrote:

> Running a bit late, here. Should have started about 12,000 years ago
> when this on-going period of interglacial warming got under way. Too
> late to head it off, now, I'm afraid.

At least you understand that the planet is warming!

[Antares 531]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:15:22 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The main problem with this approach is that the more intelligent,
productive people have already dropped back to a very low birth rate
while the less intelligent, less productive people continue to
reproduce like rabbits. Where will this lead to in a few generations?

[Sam Wormley]

I knew a secretary, once, that proclaimed, "I don't do attachments".
Her position was reclassified to include using business computer
skills. She moved to some other organization--perhaps they didn't
have a need for email attachments. :-o

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 7, 9:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Three generations of zero birth, bankruptcy and starvation should do
the trick, of getting the global population below what those Georgia
Guidestones specified as a maximum of 500 million. Making it look
like a perfectly unavoidable natural cause via global warming, civil
unrest, justifiable social/wealth disparity is even better.

[Antares 531]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:23:43 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Indeed I do understand that the planet is warming but I can't see any
way that this can be blamed on hominids. Their total contribution
would amount to about as much as a fart in a whirlwind.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 11:43 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:15 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On 2/7/12 3:14 AM,BJAC...@teranews.com wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Hey Worm, I think you are onto something here! There is currently a
>>> > > complete "Scientific consensus" of "established science" that for the
>>> > > earth to survive at least one third of the population needs to be killed.
>> >
>> > Most of the issues associated with global warming go away with
>> > reduced population, including cause. Birth rate reduction can
>> > do wonders in as few as three generations to bring the population
>> > down to, say 100 million persons.

> Three generations of zero birth...

No, Brad, reduced, not zero birthrate. Pay attention!

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 7, 11:07 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:23:43 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>

Then you admit that you can't do basic math.

Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating. If that snow and
ice arrived late and is gone within the same or shorter period of time
as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend. For another example,
snow buildup within central Antarctica is only possible due to global
warming.

That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
not the rug on Hagar's 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
only by size but via duration. I take it you and other GWs don’t buy
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/bc7030dc9b65e314?
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?
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 quantitative part of the .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/storm 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?

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.

[Sam Wormley]

Some resources showing the connection between this warming and
human activity.

> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Sorry, Deniers, Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
>
> The Last Great Global Warming
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming
>

[Brad Guth]

With the rich and powerful able to live an extra generation worth of
their living large, it'll take more than a little birth reduction to
get this world down below 500 million, not to mention your 100 million
figure within three generations.

If using 20 years per generation, your 60 years worth of human culling
process is going to have to do something better than using moderate
birth control measures, that is if you're planning on getting rid of
near 7 billion humans (averaging 116 million per year) within 60 years
is going to look and likely smell terribly grim.

[HVAC]

On 2/7/2012 12:34 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> I knew a secretary, once, that proclaimed, "I don't do attachments".
> Her position was reclassified to include using business computer
> skills. She moved to some other organization--perhaps they didn't
> have a need for email attachments. :-o

If she was hot it would have been OK, so I take it that she wasn't
very fit?













--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Antares 531]

This very same kind of interglacial warm-up has happened at least 4
times in the past, as indicated in polar ice core bore samples. These
glaciation, interglaciation cycles happen about every 112,000 years.
There were no hominids of any kind during those previous warm-ups. So,
why would anyone think humans are to blame for this on-going
interglacial warm period?

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 7, 1:07 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:21:32 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
>

> >Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating.  If that snow and
> >ice arrived late and is gone within the same or shorter period of time
> >as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend.  For another example,
> >snow buildup within central Antarctica is only possible due to global
> >warming.
>
> >That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
> >not the rug on Hagar's 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?
>
> This very same kind of interglacial warm-up has happened at least 4
> times in the past, as indicated in polar ice core bore samples. These
> glaciation, interglaciation cycles happen about every 112,000 years.
> There were no hominids of any kind during those previous warm-ups. So,
> why would anyone think humans are to blame for this on-going
> interglacial warm period?

We're talking about tipping points, whereas a little extra global
dimming along with our extensive hydrocarbon heat and its mostly nasty
byproducts going along with all of our nuclear fission and even
hydroelectric generated heat, probably is not exactly helping to cool
us off. Thawing out millions of square miles of tundra that's going
to release a great deal of methane seems like another bad idea.

“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 quantitative part of the .58 w/m2 or 296 TW of global thermal

imbalance are you buying or not buying into?

296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local area drought and/

or weather/storm 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?

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.

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.

Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold, wet or stormy) is taking place,
because they'll always fully insured and 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 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.

How much more acidic can our oceans, rivers and lakes get, without
killing off their inhabitants?

BTW; as far as we objectively know, those early hominids didn't have
much if any seasonal tilt to deal with, and no apparent sign of any
moon. At least as of 10,000 BC they'd bothered to carve and paint
much greater details of everything else around them, and yet somehow
managed to always exclude that absolutely spectacular ice-age
nighttime moon (even impressive by day with our crystal clear
atmosphere plus icy planetshine albedo of 40~45%).

[be...@iwaynet.net]

I should hope so. Seeing as how glaciers have been melting and receding
since the first explorers discovered them and where I'm sitting used to
covered with a mile of ice!

Tell us again why you and yours are so hot to halt this process?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/bc7030...
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293f...
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a695...
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be2803...
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b28...

Yeah, why would anybody think someone could die in an automobile
accident? They never did in the past.

Of course, most children even realize that the thinking "If x caused y
in the past, z cannot cause y now" is stupid.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 2:07 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:23:43 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On 2/7/12 9:43 AM, Antares 531 wrote:
>
> >> Running a bit late, here. Should have started about 12,000 years ago
> >> when this on-going period of interglacial warming got under way. Too
> >> late to  head it off, now, I'm afraid.
>
> >   At least you understand that the planet is warming!
>
> Indeed I do understand that the planet is warming but I can't see any
> way that this can be blamed on hominids.

Maybe because (1) you don't know any science and (2) you don't know
any facts.

Try to remedy both of those before looking foolish next time.

>Their total contribution
> would amount to about as much as a fart in a whirlwind.

Q: Why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise?
Q: Why do you think you know more than almost all the world's
scientists?

[Brad Guth]

Your ice-free world that's also stormy as hell and resource depleted
would be ideal for the rich and powerful.

[Antares 531]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:19:17 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 2:07 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:23:43 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2/7/12 9:43 AM, Antares 531 wrote:
>>
>> >> Running a bit late, here. Should have started about 12,000 years ago
>> >> when this on-going period of interglacial warming got under way. Too
>> >> late to  head it off, now, I'm afraid.
>>
>> >   At least you understand that the planet is warming!
>>
>> Indeed I do understand that the planet is warming but I can't see any
>> way that this can be blamed on hominids.
>
>Maybe because (1) you don't know any science and (2) you don't know
>any facts.
>
>Try to remedy both of those before looking foolish next time.
>

Please explain what caused the very similar global warmings about
every 112,000 years in the past? No humans around, anywhere, during
any of these very similar interglacial warm periods. What's different
about the on-going one and those of the past that makes you think
humans caused this one, when it started 12,000 years ago?

>
>>Their total contribution
>> would amount to about as much as a fart in a whirlwind.
>
>Q: Why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise?
>Q: Why do you think you know more than almost all the world's
>scientists?
>

Big money. Research grants. Something to do to make themselves look
important.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 7, 2:45 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:19:17 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

How about nowadays it's taking 112,000 years for our solar system to
interact with those Sirius stars and their vast Oort cloud.

[Antares 531]

One guess is as good as another, I suppose. My guess is that the sun
pulses at about this rate and when the pulse energy reaches the sun's
surface and radiates off into space we warm up a bit, for about 12,000
years or so. Then when this pulse energy settles down again we go
through another period of increased glaciation that lasts about 97,000
years.

Considering the fact that the energy produced by solar fusion
processes in its core doesn't reach the surface for a long, long time
and can not be radiated away until it does reach the surface as
kinetic energy, it is rational to think that the cycle time of any
such solar brightness oscillations might be equal to our
glaciation/interglaciation cycles.

[Brad Guth]

Except the most quantified energy source that's best understood is our
sun, and if anything the average solar outflux hasn't shifted its
spectrum or the average energy by hardly enough to count either way.
Some have argued the sun has been a wee bit on the cool side, except
for the ongoing 11 year uptick that's fairly predictable and measured
by dozens of methods. Unlike our metallicity saturated moon, our sun
isn't even a source of gamma.

Your idea of some kind of time delayed action or reaction could be the
case, although it has managed to elude science thus far.

[George Webb Jr.]

The moon landings were a big lie, just like Global Warming.

The Pope and the Catholic Church are liars too because the Pope says
global warming is real.

I don't know why God would lie to us about this, but since the Pope
speaks for God, that means he's lying through his teeth.

[Antares 531]

I'm talking about the very long cycle-time pulses, not the short
period fluctuations.

The sun generates its energy by fusion processes at or near its
center. The energy from these fusion processes cannot radiate into
space immediately, but produces a rise in the sun's core temperature,
which, in turn causes a significant expansion, which separates the
fusion fuel and slows the fusion process down, which then allows a bit
of cooling as the kinetic energy migrates away from the sun's center.

This swelling/shrinking seems to have a period of about 120,000 years,
and this is linked with the earth's glaciation/interglaciation cycles.

[saul...@cox.net]

GEE, George, DON'T TAKE IT SO HARD!

HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THE PIG'S (WARPHOLE) LIES?

Saul Levy

[Unum]

On 2/7/2012 6:40 PM, Antares 531 wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:16:54 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

>> Your idea of some kind of time delayed action or reaction could be the
>> case, although it has managed to elude science thus far.
>>
> I'm talking about the very long cycle-time pulses, not the short
> period fluctuations.
>
> The sun generates its energy by fusion processes at or near its
> center. The energy from these fusion processes cannot radiate into
> space immediately, but produces a rise in the sun's core temperature,
> which, in turn causes a significant expansion, which separates the
> fusion fuel and slows the fusion process down, which then allows a bit
> of cooling as the kinetic energy migrates away from the sun's center.
>
> This swelling/shrinking seems to have a period of about 120,000 years,
> and this is linked with the earth's glaciation/interglaciation cycles.

So much for "its the sun".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130172611.htm

"despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010,
the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned
to space"

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 7, 4:40 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:16:54 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So, the sun swells and shrinks on a 120,000 year cycle. Perhaps
that's something that hasn't been measured.

IR thermally it doesn't seem to being doing anything special. Are we
talking about spectrum shifting or magnetic force swelling and
shrinking?

[Brad Guth]

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 good

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.

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.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

While the kooks try to prove if it's A it can't be B, the rational can
accept that an effect can have many causes.

If the sun causes the earth to vary by 10C over a period of 120,000 years
then sobeit. That works out at more than an order of mangnitude
less than the observed warming over the past century+ or if you look
at the CET then several centuries.

--
[CO2 is a] colorless, oderless.... weightless substance.
-- Tony Abbott, Aus Opp'n Leader

If you drop a lump of dry ice on your foot you'll find out
it isn't weightless.
-- Malcolumn Turnbull, former Aus Opp'n Leader, 3 Aug 2011

[Earl Evleth]

On 8/02/12 6:48, in article jgt2bc$8gd$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org,

"k...@kymhorsell.com" <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

>
> If the sun causes the earth to vary by 10C over a period of 120,000 years
> then sobeit.

The sun was radiative constant does not change. Other factors do like the
various positional and orbital changes, CO2 content, and the role of
feedbacks etc

The sun can maintain its radiance but the earth's climate can change.
With the same radiance and no CO2 the earth would be a snow ball.
At 2000 or 3000 ppm he earth"s glabal average would be above 20°C.
So the issue is how much of the incoming radiation to we retain.
At equilbrium incoming = outgoing. Warming occurs if outgoing is less
than incoming. That is what is occurring now and the sun is not involved
with the difference, it is what is occurring on earth which counts.

[Androcles]

"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:CB581F0A.21317A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...

| On 8/02/12 6:48, in article jgt2bc$8gd$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org,
| "k...@kymhorsell.com" <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
|
| >
| > If the sun causes the earth to vary by 10C over a period of 120,000
years
| > then sobeit.
|
| The sun was radiative constant does not change. Other factors do like the
| various positional and orbital changes, CO2 content, and the role of
| feedbacks etc

Could you wave your hands a little faster as I'm having trouble
hearing your idiotic babble and the role of orbital feedbacks etc.

[Dawlish]

On Feb 5, 8:45 pm, 7
<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> AGWFacts wrote:
> > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by
>
> Fakers.
>
> As usual these climate trolls are fake pseudo scientists
> that rely on systematic hiding of public scientific data to
> avoid legitimate unconditional scrutiny and whine when legitimate
> unconditional alternative interpretations are presented:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/cru_foia_landmark/
>
>

Deniers actually believe this and they believe it by what they read in
the "Daily mail" and "The Register".

It's incredible, I know, but it's true.

[Earl Evleth]

On 8/02/12 13:19, in article 7MtYq.3772$6J5....@newsfe17.ams2, "Androcles"

<H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:

> | The sun was radiative constant does not change. Other factors do like the
> | various positional and orbital changes, CO2 content, and the role of
> | feedbacks etc
>
> Could you wave your hands a little faster as I'm having trouble
> hearing your idiotic babble and the role of orbital feedbacks etc.

Challenge what I say with facts, not blather.

[Antares 531]

It hasn't been measured, and probably can not be measured during our
very short time of existence, but the polar ice core information leads
to this hypothesis. We will have to collect solar output data for a
long time before this can be substantially proven. But, it makes more
sense than anything else that has yet been postulated.

>
>IR thermally it doesn't seem to being doing anything special. Are we
>talking about spectrum shifting or magnetic force swelling and
>shrinking?
>

Neither spectrum shifting nor magnetic force swelling. I'm talking
about the core fusion energy output oscillations that are governed by
the combined effect of particle density, temperature and fusion
processes at the sun's core. Start with the conditions where the core
density is at a maximum and the fusion processes will also be at a
maximum. Then, as the fusion processes release energy the temperature
builds up and the sun's core materials expand, moving the individual
particles farther apart, which slows the fusion process, which then
allows the core temperature to drop a bit as the particle kinetic
energy migrates outward from the core, acoustically. This allows the
core to collapse back to its more compressed state which then causes
the fusion processes to increase....and so on. These cycles seem to
take about 110 to 120 thousand years and we've been observing the
solar output for only a few decades.

[Antares 531]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:29:41 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

This is right, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. We
must look at the long solar cycles, not the short term perturbations.

The solar output pulses, very slowly, with a period of oscillation of
about 110,000 years. Those perturbations you mention are superimposed
upon the net solar output, but are of minimal or no effect in
producing global warming during interglacial periods. These are the
jiggle-joggles one sees on the long-term graph of the earth's climate
changes.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:29:41 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

> On 2/7/2012 6:40 PM, Antares 531 wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:16:54 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> >> Your idea of some kind of time delayed action or reaction could be the
> >> case, although it has managed to elude science thus far.
> >>
> > I'm talking about the very long cycle-time pulses, not the short
> > period fluctuations.
> >
> > The sun generates its energy by fusion processes at or near its
> > center. The energy from these fusion processes cannot radiate into
> > space immediately, but produces a rise in the sun's core temperature,
> > which, in turn causes a significant expansion, which separates the
> > fusion fuel and slows the fusion process down, which then allows a bit
> > of cooling as the kinetic energy migrates away from the sun's center.
> >
> > This swelling/shrinking seems to have a period of about 120,000 years,
> > and this is linked with the earth's glaciation/interglaciation cycles.

> So much for "its the sun".
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130172611.htm
>
> "despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010,
> the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned
> to space"

"It's the sun" was shown to be wrong in the early 1980s. Dr.
Hansen's opus put the last nail in the bhypothesis' coffin.

If "It's the sun" were true, Earth's global average temperature
would be 0.08c *LESS* than the 1900-1950 median.

> "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."

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels

to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

You are 100% correct (of course). If atmospheric CO2 was reduced
to the pre-industrial (~278 ppm)Earth would continue to warm for
well over 200 years afterwards due to oceanic out-gassing of CO2
until a new equilibrium was set.

Also, the temperature anomaly that resides in the world's oceans
would still be present for several decades: Commander Roger
Revelle and Dr. Suess did not provide a estimated time frame,
though.

> However, if we can manage to cut CO2 by 42 ppm it stands to good

Why not cut it by 111 ppm? The 42 ppm would man Earth would stay
around +1.6c warmer (+/- 0.6c) than what the biosphere is adapted
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.

Cutting CO2 pollution would mean reducing fossil fuel burning, and
that would save lives (roughtly 17,000 per year just in the USA
alone).

> 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.

Last month I posted a report by NASA and others (such as the
University of California, San Diego) that showed an estimated 1.6
million people in Asia and Africa (combined) die prematurely from
breathing the pollution caused by the fuels they use to cook their
foods.

> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[AGWFacts]

Fortunately none of the scientists are kooks, nor are the
pro-science defenders kooks, so none of them say what you
suggested they say.

> If the sun causes the earth to vary by 10C over a period of 120,000 years

It does not. Solar variation causes a temperature change of -0.08c
to +0.08c over the past 800,000 years. The current global
temperature anomaly is more than one order of magnitude greater,
and atmospheric CO2 is the cause.

> then sobeit. That works out at more than an order of mangnitude
> less than the observed warming over the past century+ or if you look
> at the CET then several centuries.

No. Your assertion is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong.
See:

"Orbital insolation, ice volume, and greenhouse gases," Dr.
William F. Ruddiman (Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia, Clark Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22903,
USA); Received 11 March 2002; accepted 24 February 2003

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/emartin/GLY6075F08/papers/Ruddiman%2703.pdf

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:46:02 +0100, Earl Evleth
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 8/02/12 6:48, in article jgt2bc$8gd$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org,
> "k...@kymhorsell.com" <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

> > If the sun causes the earth to vary by 10C over a period of 120,000 years

... which it does not....

> > then sobeit.

> The sun was radiative constant does not change. Other factors do like the
> various positional and orbital changes, CO2 content, and the role of
> feedbacks etc

In sun's variable radiative output *DOES* change; the changes
account for 0.08c (plus and minus) of tglobal average temperature.

> The sun can maintain its radiance but the earth's climate can change.

Indeed, and chiefly due to changing atmospheric CO2 and other
greenhouse gases.

> With the same radiance and no CO2 the earth would be a snow ball.

Indeed the average global temperature would be around 11f.

> At 2,000 or 3,000 ppm he earth"s global average would be above 20°C.

There would also be another massive extinction event.

> So the issue is how much of the incoming radiation to we retain.

+0.58 m^2 at the moment, plus or minuse around 0.11 m^2

> At equilbrium incoming = outgoing. Warming occurs if outgoing is less
> than incoming. That is what is occurring now and the sun is not involved
> with the difference, it is what is occurring on earth which counts.

You are of course 100% correct. *ONLY* the increase in greenhouse
gases explains the warming.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 8, 5:53 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:17:43 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The end result is still the 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.

Try to remember, that only 0.1 km below the surface, the +/- solar
energy is meaningless.

On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw is melting
from the bottom up.

The amount of stored heat, fission 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.

[Androcles]

"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

news:CB583CA3.2131A7%evl...@wanadoo.fr...

| On 8/02/12 13:19, in article 7MtYq.3772$6J5....@newsfe17.ams2,
"Androcles"
| <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
|
| > | The sun was radiative constant does not change. Other factors do like
the
| > | various positional and orbital changes, CO2 content, and the role of
| > | feedbacks etc
| >

No I didn't write that, you lying bastard, YOU wrote it.

| > Could you wave your hands a little faster as I'm having trouble
| > hearing your idiotic babble and the role of orbital feedbacks etc.
|

That's what I wrote, you ugly pile of snipping shit.

|
| Challenge what I say with facts, not blather.

You haven't stated any facts to challenge, you blustering shithead,
handwaving cretin and babbling moron etc.
What "various positional and orbital changes" are you variously ranting
about, liar, and what evidence do you have to support your ridiculous
claims?

[Brad Guth]

Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW.

Solar variations are 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 when we try to
deductively figure out GW and AGW science.

Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km below the surface, the +/-
solar energy is nearly meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any 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.

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 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.”

So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
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.

However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
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
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.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-...
>
> A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the "skepticism" about
> climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential
> campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research,
> that greenhouse gases generated by human activities -- not changes
> in solar activity -- are the primary cause of global warming.
>
> NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth's energy
> imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar
> energy absorbed by the Earth's surface and the amount returned to
> space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar
> activity from 2005 to 2010, the planet continued to absorb more
> energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to
> space during that time period.
>
> "This provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the
> dominant driver of global warming," said James Hansen, director of
> NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research
> released Monday.
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php
>
> On the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, 16 scientists recently
> said there's no need for drastic action to "decarbonize" the
> world's economy. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack
> of global warming for well over 10 years now," they wrote without
> providing data.
>
> Not so, according to U.S. government records. In December, the
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that all
> 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13
> warmest in the 132-year period of record.
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
>
> The Hansen-led study, published in the December issue of
> Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, said the magnitude of the
> Earth's energy imbalance is fundamental to climate science. If the
> imbalance is positive and more energy enters the system than
> exits, the Earth warms. If the imbalance is negative, the planet
> cools.
>
> 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

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/8/12 12:16 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
> AGW.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[Androcles]

"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

news:CB583CA3.2131A7%evl...@wanadoo.fr...

| On 8/02/12 13:19, in article 7MtYq.3772$6J5....@newsfe17.ams2,
"Androcles"
| <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
|
| > | The sun was radiative constant does not change. Other factors do like
the
| > | various positional and orbital changes, CO2 content, and the role of
| > | feedbacks etc
| >

No I didn't write that, you lying bastard, YOU wrote it.

| > Could you wave your hands a little faster as I'm having trouble
| > hearing your idiotic babble and the role of orbital feedbacks etc.
|

That's what I wrote, you ugly pile of snipping shit.


|

| Challenge what I say with facts, not blather.

[Brad Guth]

Smoke or soot will also warm us up, but it's also only an indicator,
of fire.

Which AGW element should we fear the most; smoke or fire?

[Brad Guth]

With a great deal of applied energy, ice melts and the water causes
land to erode and/or migrate together, although for every 2 km3 of
melted ice there’s perhaps only one km3 of eroded soil that’s going
into the drink (that volume of solids might have to be upward adjusted
to match or even exceed ice melt). 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

AGW, just like smoke or soot is a good indicator of fire.

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
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.”

So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
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.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,

CO, NOx, SO2, 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 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
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&section=3.1

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[saul...@cox.net]

WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL THE INSANE FUCKTARDS FIRST, GOOF!

KILL YOURSELF!

DROWNING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:34:54 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>With the rich and powerful able to live an extra generation worth of
>their living large, it'll take more than a little birth reduction to
>get this world down below 500 million, not to mention your 100 million
>figure within three generations.
>
>If using 20 years per generation, your 60 years worth of human culling
>process is going to have to do something better than using moderate
>birth control measures, that is if you're planning on getting rid of
>near 7 billion humans (averaging 116 million per year) within 60 years
>is going to look and likely smell terribly grim.
>
> Brad Guth, I'M INSANE!

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:10:21 -0600, Antares 531
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:15:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
> >

> > http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1

> Are you saying that humans were messing up the atmosphere during the
> earlier interglacial warm periods?

No.


--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[kym]

I understood it to mean something like "flicking a lightswitch is not
the singular cause of the light going on".

--
[Not a trend].
We weren't talking about some undefined "trend line", we are talking
about
global temperatures. And they have decreased since 1998 [not 1996,,
1997, 1999, 2000?].
-- "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:04
+1100

[Sam Wormley]

Why should you fear either, Brad. Stand up to them like
a man, or are you coming to realize that photons move. :-o

[Brad Guth]

An extra 42 ppm in CO2 by itself can not cause the average AGW of 0.58
w/m2 imbalance. However, adding that 42 ppm to everything else we've
managed to burn and set free, and it's easy enough to see where the
bit of global dimming and all that extra thermal energy (296 TW) is
coming from.

We're talking about tipping points, are we not?

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:47:41 -0800 (PST), kym
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 6:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/8/12 12:16 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

> > > Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
> > > AGW.

No scientist said CO2 is the single caused of the current global
temperature anomaly. However, it is the major cause.

> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

> I understood it to mean something like "flicking a lightswitch is not
> the singular cause of the light going on."

The analogy is poor. Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a feedback
with water vapor, measured to be very slightly more than
two-to-one regarding the resulting retention of heat.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/13/2012 10:53 AM, AGWFacts wrote:

> No scientist said CO2 is the single caused of the current global
> temperature anomaly. However, it is the major cause.

You are a liar, pure and simple. While it maybe true that nobody said
CO2 is the single cause, usually you warmists simply ignore water vapor
as if it weren't there. (See any of the Wormley links)

But what about the Lies? That would be that CO2 and certainly not man
made CO2 is a "major cause".

Listen everybody! Here is TRUTH right from Wormley and NASA.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

Note the important points here:

"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. "

Basically NASA scientists are calling AGWFacts and "wormley" liars too!

"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."

Here we find TOTAL CO2 effects listed at only 20%. Two notches down from
the "major cause" and do not forget that the man made portion of CO2 is
only about 3% so we are talking 3% of 20% CERTAINLY NOT A MAJOR CAUSE!
This clearly proves AGWFacts is a liar. RIGHT FROM NASA! And I suggest
that even this figure is probably exaggerated.

> The analogy is poor. Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a feedback
> with water vapor, measured to be very slightly more than
> two-to-one regarding the resulting retention of heat.

Oh that's it, somehow "feedback" is to make up the difference! Nope.

To continue with NASA proof:

"In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged,
even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is
significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring
the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate
sensitivity."

Did you get that? "THIS ALLOCATION IS ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED"! No CO2
DOES NOT become a "major cause" even with "feedback". And of course this
"feedback mechanism is suspect as well, but we are just going with NASA
assertions here.

Proof positive that AGWFacts, Wormley and all the other propagandists
here are simply lying to further their political agenda on energy
taxation. And the proof comes right from the VERY people they always
point to for "proof" of "anthropogenic" global warming.

So now only ONE question remains. Just how stupid are YOU dear reader?
Are you ready to pretend to believe these lies just as they do? Do you
think this proof will change their propaganda one iota? No it won't.
Because their "scientific arguments" have NOTHING to do with science.

Well, how stupid are you?

> --
> "I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
> theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

Believing in lies is ignorance.