Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission

101 views
Skip to first unread message

kiloVolts

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 3:08:11 PM11/19/08
to
Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1-9, 2008

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and O. G. SOROKHTIN2

1Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
2Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Address correspondence to George Chilingar, Russian Academy of Natural
Sciences, USA Branch, 101 S. Windsor Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90004.
E-mail: gchi...@usc.edu

Abstract

The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of
atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect
show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling
rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

Keywords adiabatic theory, CO2 emission, global cooling, global warming

Introduction

Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states
that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of
utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature
because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the
infrared radiation from the Earth's surface. This statement is based on the
Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The
proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat
transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth's
troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth's
surface is mostly transferred by convection
(Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%,
water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation
accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth's surface to
troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in
troposphere, and all the theories of Earth's atmospheric heating (or
cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)-mass
redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and
Chilingar, 2003, 2004).

When the temperature of a given mass of air increases, it expands, becomes
lighter, and rises. In turn, the denser cooler air of upper layers of
troposphere descends and replaces the warmer air of lower layers. This
physical system (multiple cells of air convection) acts in the Earth's
troposphere like a continuous surface cooler. The cooling effect by air
convection can surpass considerably the warming effect of radiation.

The most important conclusion from this observation is that the temperature
distribution in the troposphere has to be close to adiabatic because the air
mass expands and cools while rising and compresses and heats while dropping.
This does not necessarily imply that at any particular instant distribution
of temperature has to be adiabatic. One should consider some averaged
distribution over the time intervals of an order of months.

Key Points of the Adiabatic Theory of Greenhouse Effect

By definition, the greenhouse effect is the difference T between the average
temperature of planet surface Ts and its effective temperature Te (which is
determined by the solar radiation and the Earth's albedo):

[much snippage of equations, graphs and text]

Figure 1. Relationship between the temperature and elevation above sea level
for (1) existing nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere on Earth, and (2) hypothetical
carbon dioxide atmosphere.

Figure 2. Relationship between temperature and elevation above Venus surface
for (1) existing carbon dioxide atmosphere, and (2) hypothetical
nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere.

The averaged temperature distributions for the existing carbon dioxide and
hypothetical
nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere on Venus are shown in Figure 2.

Conclusions

During the latest three millennia, one can observe a clear cooling trend in
the Earth's climate (Keigwin, 1996; Sorokhtin and Ushakov, 2002; Gerhard,
2004; Khiyuk and Chilingar, 2006; Sorokhtin et al., 2007). During this
period, deviations of the global temperature from this trend reached up to
3iC with a clear trend of decreasing global temperature by about 2iC.
Relatively short-term variations in global temperature are mainly caused by
the variations in solar activity and are not linked to the changes in carbon
dioxide content in atmosphere.

Accumulation of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to
the cooling, and not to warming of climate, as the proponents of traditional
anthropogenic global warming theory believe (Aeschbach-Hertig, 2006). This
conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when the infrared radiation is
absorbed by the molecules of greenhouse gases, its energy is transformed
into thermal expansion of air, which causes convective fluxes of air masses
restoring the adiabatic distribution of temperature in the troposphere. Our
estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several
hundreds ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission,
does not influence the global temperature of Earth's atmosphere.

References

Arrhenius, S. 1896. On influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the
temperature of the ground. Phil. Mag. 41:237-276.

Aeschbach-Hertig, W. 2007. Rebuttal of "On global forces of nature driving
the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?" by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V.
Chilingar. Env. Geol.

Bachinskiy, A. I., Putilov, V. V., and Suvorov, N. P. 1951. Handbook of
Physics. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 380 pp.

Gerhard, L. C. 2004. Climate change: Conflict of observational science,
theory, and politics. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 88:1211-1220.

Keigwin, L. D. 1996. The little ice age and medieval warm period in the
Sargasso Sea. Science 274:1504-1508.

Khilyuk, L. F., Chilingar, G. V., Endres, B., and Robertson, J. 2000. Gas
Migration. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 389 pp.

Khilyuk, L. F., and Chilingar, G. V. 2003. Global warming: Are we confusing
cause and effect? Energy Sources 25:357-370.

Khilyuk, L. F., and Chilingar, G. V. 2004. Global warming and long-term
climatic changes: A progress report. Environ. Geol. 46:970-979.

Khilyuk, L. F., and Chilingar, G. V. 2006. On global forces of nature
driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved? Environ. Geol. 50:899-910.

Landau, L. D., and Lifshits, E. M. 1979. Statistical Physics. Moscow: Nauka,
559 pp.

Marov, M. Ya. 1986. Planets of Solar System, Moscow: Nauka, 320 pp.

Robinson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. 1998.
Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
[in...@oism.org; in...@marshall.org]

Schimel, D. S. 1995. Global Change Biology, 1:77-91.

Sorokhtin, O. G. 1990. The greenhouse effect of atmosphere in geologic
history of Earth. Doklady AN SSSR 315:587-592.

Sorokhtin, O. G. 2001a. Greenhouse effect: Myth and reality. Vestnik Russian
Academy of Natural Sciences 1:8-21.

Sorokhtin, O. G. 2001b. Temperature distribution in the Earth. Izvestiya
RAN, Physics of Earth 3:71-78.

Sorokhtin, O. G., and Ushakov, S. A. 2002. Evolution of the Earth. Moscow:
Moscow Univ. Publishers, 560 pp.

Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., and Khilyuk, L. F. 2007. Global Warming
and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 313
pp.

Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., Khilyuk, L. F., and Gorfunkel, M. V.
2006. Evolution of the Earth's global climate. Energy Sources 29:1-19.

Venus (Atmosphere, Surface and Ecosystem). 1989. Moscow: Nedra, 482 pp.

Voytkevitch, G. V., Kokin, A. V., Miroshnikov, A. E., and Prokhorov, V. G.
1990. Handbook of Geochemistry. Moscow: Nedra, 480 pp.

Bob Eld

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 3:41:18 PM11/19/08
to

"kiloVolts" <man...@nVcpTc.com> wrote in message
news:yn_Uk.6742$ya5....@newsfe19.iad...

Where is the evidence that supports this theory?


Lloyd

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 4:13:29 PM11/19/08
to
On Nov 19, 3:08 pm, "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote:
> Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1-9, 2008
>
> Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
> G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and O. G. SOROKHTIN2
>
> 1Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
> Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
> 2Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
>
> Address correspondence to George Chilingar, Russian Academy of Natural
> Sciences, USA Branch, 101 S. Windsor Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90004.
> E-mail: gchil...@usc.edu
> [i...@oism.org; i...@marshall.org]

>
> Schimel, D. S. 1995. Global Change Biology, 1:77-91.
>
> Sorokhtin, O. G. 1990. The greenhouse effect of atmosphere in geologic
> history of Earth. Doklady AN SSSR 315:587-592.
>
> Sorokhtin, O. G. 2001a. Greenhouse effect: Myth and reality. Vestnik Russian
> Academy of Natural Sciences 1:8-21.
>
> Sorokhtin, O. G. 2001b. Temperature distribution in the Earth. Izvestiya
> RAN, Physics of Earth 3:71-78.
>
> Sorokhtin, O. G., and Ushakov, S. A. 2002. Evolution of the Earth. Moscow:
> Moscow Univ. Publishers, 560 pp.
>
> Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., and Khilyuk, L. F. 2007. Global Warming
> and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 313
> pp.
>
> Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., Khilyuk, L. F., and Gorfunkel, M. V.
> 2006. Evolution of the Earth's global climate. Energy Sources 29:1-19.
>
> Venus (Atmosphere, Surface and Ecosystem). 1989. Moscow: Nedra, 482 pp.
>
> Voytkevitch, G. V., Kokin, A. V., Miroshnikov, A. E., and Prokhorov, V. G.
> 1990. Handbook of Geochemistry. Moscow: Nedra, 480 pp.

Notice almost all of their references are their own work, and in
Russia? Hmmm...

Discussion on physicsforums:

"I don't follow the logic at all. You need warming due to absorption
of infrared radiation leading to expansion and more convection and
then you get a net cooling? But if you get a net cooling you don't
have the warming you need to explain the expansion and the extra
convection you need. It is self contradictory."

See also
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/paper_claims_human_co2_emissio.php
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/chilinger_if_you_assume_that_c.php

Roger Coppock

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:55:59 PM11/19/08
to
Back in the USSR . . .
This thing looks a lot like the pseudo-science
that Pravda used to publish.

On Nov 19, 12:41 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote in message


>
> news:yn_Uk.6742$ya5....@newsfe19.iad...
>
> > Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1-9, 2008
>
> > Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
> > G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and O. G. SOROKHTIN2
>
> > 1Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
> > Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
> > 2Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
>
> > Address correspondence to George Chilingar, Russian Academy of Natural
> > Sciences, USA Branch, 101 S. Windsor Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90004.

> > E-mail: gchil...@usc.edu

> > [i...@oism.org; i...@marshall.org]


>
> > Schimel, D. S. 1995. Global Change Biology, 1:77-91.
>
> > Sorokhtin, O. G. 1990. The greenhouse effect of atmosphere in geologic
> > history of Earth. Doklady AN SSSR 315:587-592.
>
> > Sorokhtin, O. G. 2001a. Greenhouse effect: Myth and reality. Vestnik
> Russian
> > Academy of Natural Sciences 1:8-21.
>
> > Sorokhtin, O. G. 2001b. Temperature distribution in the Earth. Izvestiya
> > RAN, Physics of Earth 3:71-78.
>
> > Sorokhtin, O. G., and Ushakov, S. A. 2002. Evolution of the Earth. Moscow:
> > Moscow Univ. Publishers, 560 pp.
>
> > Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., and Khilyuk, L. F. 2007. Global
> Warming
> > and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
> 313
> > pp.
>
> > Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., Khilyuk, L. F., and Gorfunkel, M. V.
> > 2006. Evolution of the Earth's global climate. Energy Sources 29:1-19.
>
> > Venus (Atmosphere, Surface and Ecosystem). 1989. Moscow: Nedra, 482 pp.
>
> > Voytkevitch, G. V., Kokin, A. V., Miroshnikov, A. E., and Prokhorov, V. G.
> > 1990. Handbook of Geochemistry. Moscow: Nedra, 480 pp.
>
> Where is the evidence that supports this theory?


Here's a whopping big piece of evidence against it.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

Call:
lm(formula = Temp ~ CO2, data = aframe)

Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.2316612 -0.0805322 0.0185249 0.0763159 0.1798386

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.10008e+01 2.41721e-01 45.5103 < 2.22e-16 ***
CO2 9.24797e-03 7.01018e-04 13.1922 < 2.22e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313
F-statistic: 174.034 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.220e-16

The global mean surface "Temp"erature data are the GISS
adjusted J-D yearly land and sea average, available from
NASA at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data
from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt


Bob Eld

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 7:05:21 PM11/19/08
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:851d0d6d-4dee-4779...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Back in the USSR . . .
This thing looks a lot like the pseudo-science
that Pravda used to publish.

On Nov 19, 12:41 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:yn_Uk.6742$ya5....@newsfe19.iad...

Here's a whopping big piece of evidence against it.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

Call:
lm(formula = Temp ~ CO2, data = aframe)

Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.2316612 -0.0805322 0.0185249 0.0763159 0.1798386

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.10008e+01 2.41721e-01 45.5103 < 2.22e-16 ***
CO2 9.24797e-03 7.01018e-04 13.1922 < 2.22e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313
F-statistic: 174.034 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.220e-16

The global mean surface "Temp"erature data are the GISS
adjusted J-D yearly land and sea average, available from
NASA at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data
from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Thanks. I'm aware of the volumes of data supporting the correlation between
CO2 increase and average temp increase. But when some bozo claims the
opposite I would like to see where the crapola comes from. I guess out of
someones fanny! It must be hard being an ignorant republican these days.


Whata Fool

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 8:47:50 PM11/19/08
to
Lloyd <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote:

>On Nov 19, 3:08 pm, "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote:
>> Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1-9, 2008
>>
>> Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
>> G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and O. G. SOROKHTIN2
>>
>> 1Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
>> Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
>> 2Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
>>
>> Address correspondence to George Chilingar, Russian Academy of Natural
>> Sciences, USA Branch, 101 S. Windsor Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90004.
>> E-mail: gchil...@usc.edu
>>
>> Abstract
>

>Notice almost all of their references are their own work, and in
>Russia? Hmmm...
>
>Discussion on physicsforums:
>
>"I don't follow the logic at all. You need warming due to absorption
>of infrared radiation leading to expansion and more convection and
>then you get a net cooling? But if you get a net cooling you don't
>have the warming you need to explain the expansion and the extra
>convection you need. It is self contradictory."
>
>See also
>http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html
>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/paper_claims_human_co2_emissio.php
>http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html
>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/chilinger_if_you_assume_that_c.php

Gosh, is one of your students coaching you now, or did
you really write something besides "lies, all lies, liar"?


Vince Morgan

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 10:35:25 PM11/19/08
to

"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5P1Vk.6499$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...

>
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:851d0d6d-4dee-4779...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Back in the USSR . . .
> This thing looks a lot like the pseudo-science
> that Pravda used to publish.
>
> On Nov 19, 12:41 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:yn_Uk.6742$ya5....@newsfe19.iad...
>
> Here's a whopping big piece of evidence against it.
> Please see:
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg
>
CO2 seems to be rising in line with ocean water temerature in the above
graph.
The CO2 does not seem to be preceding the temp rise, but folowing it?
Isn't this what you would expect to see from water outgassing as it gets
warmer?
If I were to warm a solution of water containing disolved CO2 wouldn't the
graph look exactly like that?
Regards,
Vince


Roger Coppock

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:53:45 AM11/20/08
to
Gee, a Tom Bolger clone!

On Nov 19, 7:35 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[ . . . ]


> Isn't this what you would expect to see from water outgassing as it gets
> warmer?

Global measurements show the oceans gaining CO2,
not losing it. The process is acidifying the
seas, another problem with CO2 emissions beyond
global warming.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_088/ndp088.pdf

Roger Coppock

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:08:13 AM11/20/08
to
On Nov 19, 1:13 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 3:08 pm, "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

>
> Notice almost all of their references are their own work, and in
> Russia?  Hmmm...
>

Yep, just the bibliography would keep it out
of any respectable scientific journal. The
reference that gave me a chuckle was to someone's
old physics textbook.

Bachinskiy, A. I., Putilov, V. V., and Suvorov, N. P.
1951. Handbook of Physics. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 380 pp.

As far back as junior high school I was told
not to reference general knowledge nor cite old
references, except for historical reviews.
Apparently, the word hasn't penetrated into the
fossil fool bubble yet.

gabydewilde

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 8:03:33 AM11/20/08
to
On Nov 20, 12:08 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> As far back as junior high school I was told
> not to reference general knowledge

You was told?

I'm sorry but that is not a rational explanation for doing so. [see
bible]

> nor cite old references,

I think this is a mater of style, if the old stuff sufficiently
explains the topic it is up to you to decide what you use. Newer would
look more modern and more professional but appearance isn't
everything.

> except for historical reviews.

We are making history all of the time :-)

> Apparently, the word hasn't penetrated into the fossil fool bubble yet.

As far back as junior high school I was told not to insult people.

Deal with subjects, attack the point with arguments.

If you have to say you are superiorly interlected it is apparently not
obvious.

Back on the climate topic,

You should glance over this document,

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2

There are to much inventors and to much successful demonstrations
here.

Two worked at NASA, 3 at MIT, 2 have a Nobel prize.

You could try badge assert your superiority again but it would say
more about you than it would say about them. Try attack the subject if
you dare? The world is dieing on a global scale, it is pretty obvious
the truth needs to be applied.

Just read and talk about it,

I'm sorry about the old references :-)

Bill Ward

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 11:27:20 AM11/20/08
to

[pdf page 15]
"During many cruises, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were measured
concurrently with surface water pCO2. However, we suspect that many of
these measurements were contaminated by local sources (such as ship’s
exhausts). Since atmospheric CO2 concentrations vary from one air mass to
another, especially in the northern hemisphere, distinguishing local
contamination from natural variability is difficult. Hence, we decided to
omit the atmospheric CO2 data from this file. We recommend that the
atmospheric CO2 concentration data listed in the GLOBALVIEW-CO2 for
computing the sea-air pCO2 difference."

That seems to beg the question. It assumes the atmospheric CO2 ppm is
invariant wrt location, which is not consistent with the observation that
cold water holds more CO2 than hot water. Assumptions are not data, warm
areas should be releasing CO2, and cold areas absorbing it.

I don't see any support for Roger's contention here other than an
assertion based on questionable assumptions. Or am I missing something?

marcodbeast

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 11:33:38 AM11/20/08
to
Bill Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:53:45 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:
>
>> Gee, a Tom Bolger clone!
>>
>> On Nov 19, 7:35 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
>> wrote: [ . . . ]
>>> Isn't this what you would expect to see from water outgassing as it
>>> gets warmer?
>>
>> Global measurements show the oceans gaining CO2, not losing it. The
>> process is acidifying the seas, another problem with CO2 emissions
>> beyond global warming.
>>
>> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_088/ndp088.pdf
>
> [pdf page 15]
> "During many cruises, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were measured
> concurrently with surface water pCO2. However, we suspect that many of
> these measurements were contaminated by local sources (such as ship's
> exhausts). Since atmospheric CO2 concentrations vary from one air
> mass to another, especially in the northern hemisphere,
> distinguishing local contamination from natural variability is
> difficult. Hence, we decided to omit the atmospheric CO2 data from
> this file. We recommend that the atmospheric CO2 concentration data
> listed in the GLOBALVIEW-CO2 for computing the sea-air pCO2
> difference."
>
> That seems to beg the question. It assumes the atmospheric CO2 ppm is
> invariant wrt location,

Globally, over the ocean, it generally is.


V for Vendicar

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 11:36:33 AM11/20/08
to
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

View with mono spaced font.

1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.56 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature

Correlation Coefficient .8529209

Source NASAS ->
http://data.giss.nasa.gov:80/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

Hank Kroll

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 1:30:57 PM11/20/08
to
On Nov 20, 7:36 am, "V for Vendicar"

A .48 degree (less than 1/2 degree) rise in temperature in 49 years is
nothing when one volcanic eruption can lower global temperatures .6
degrees. Why do people not look at the numbers caused by volcanic
eruptions? The temperature is rising because Earth is recovering from
a series of volcanic eruptions and the million+ undersea volcanic
vents along the Ring of Fire that are heating up the oceans? It is
either the "Chicken Little Syndrom" at work here or government grant
funded sociatal manipulation for population reduction. Tell me which.

Bhanwara

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 1:50:11 PM11/20/08
to
On Nov 20, 6:03 am, gabydewilde <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You should glance over this document,
>
> http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
>

While many people would look at things like that, snicker, feel
superior than "crackpots", and go away, apparently other people
are making money by investigating the effects in detail. Resonance,
like that used by the "Pistol Shrimp", is being used for
wind turbines.

http://thefutureofthings.com/news/1027/windbelt-technology-good-vibrations.html

(The "aerostatic flutter" is a fuller version of the basic
"resonance".)

Lloyd

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:06:58 PM11/20/08
to

Temporarily (and it'd have to be a really big one). This sustained
warming trend is significant.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif


>Why do people not look at the numbers caused by volcanic
> eruptions?

They have.

>The temperature is rising because Earth is recovering from
> a series of volcanic eruptions and the million+ undersea volcanic
> vents along the Ring of Fire that are heating up the oceans?

Rubbish.

>It is
> either the "Chicken Little Syndrom" at work here or government grant
> funded sociatal manipulation for population reduction. Tell me which.

Or, (3) you are rather ignorant.

Lloyd

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:12:59 PM11/20/08
to
On Nov 19, 10:35 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5P1Vk.6499$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message

> >news:851d0d6d-4dee-4779...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > Back in the USSR . . .
> > This thing looks a lot like the pseudo-science
> > that Pravda used to publish.
>
> > On Nov 19, 12:41 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "kiloVolts" <mant...@nVcpTc.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:yn_Uk.6742$ya5....@newsfe19.iad...
>
> > Here's a whopping big piece of evidence against it.
> > Please see:
>
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg
>
> CO2 seems to be rising in line with ocean water temerature in the above
> graph.
> The CO2 does not seem to be preceding the temp rise, but folowing it?
> Isn't this what you would expect to see from water outgassing as it gets
> warmer?
> If I were to warm a solution of water containing disolved CO2 wouldn't the
> graph look exactly like that?
> Regards,
> Vince

Actually you can't tell from the graph. But the oceans are gaining
CO2 -- serving as a sink. So that rules out your idea. Plus, you
have to explain where the warming is coming from to cause the oceans
to outgas CO2.

Lloyd

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:18:29 PM11/20/08
to

DeadFrog

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:22:07 PM11/20/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.11.20...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...
How about logic and chemistry?
We burn millions of tons of carbon based fuels in an oxygenating atmosphere.
The main products are CO2 and H2O.
The CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 partial
pressure drives the solution/gas equilibrium increasing the dissolved gas.
(Assuming constant temperature).


Bill Ward

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 4:21:15 PM11/20/08
to

That's irrelevant to the post. Roger posted the link claiming it proved
no CO2 was coming from warming oceans. Show me how the data confirms
that, keeping in mind there are no simultaneous, co-located measurements
of atmospheric CO2, seawater CO2 and temperature reported.

> The CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 partial
> pressure drives the solution/gas equilibrium increasing the dissolved
> gas. (Assuming constant temperature).

Perhaps, but the dataset deliberately omitted the local atmospheric
CO2 data that might confirm that. Didn't you even read my comment?


V for Vendicar

unread,
Nov 21, 2008, 6:10:40 AM11/21/08
to


"Hank Kroll" <Hank...@gmail.com> wrote


> The temperature is rising because Earth is recovering from
> a series of volcanic eruptions and the million+ undersea volcanic
> vents along the Ring of Fire that are heating up the oceans?

Odd, last week you said it was all due to the cosmic influences of the Grey
space aliens who have been hovering over your home and sending those moon
beams to infuence your mind.


V for Vendicar

unread,
Nov 21, 2008, 6:13:32 AM11/21/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

> That's irrelevant to the post. Roger posted the link claiming it proved
> no CO2 was coming from warming oceans. Show me how the data confirms
> that, keeping in mind there are no simultaneous, co-located measurements
> of atmospheric CO2, seawater CO2 and temperature reported.

There is no point in showing an unthinking ape any data, as it will be
unable to interpret it.

John M.

unread,
Nov 21, 2008, 12:53:12 PM11/21/08
to
Because the effect disappears within two to three years. The
particulates ejected by Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 had settled below a
detectable level by 1995

> The temperature is rising because Earth is recovering from
> a series of volcanic eruptions and the million+ undersea volcanic
> vents along the Ring of Fire that are heating up the oceans?

They were venting the whole time during the last ice age too.

> It is
> either the "Chicken Little Syndrom" at work here or government grant
> funded sociatal manipulation for population reduction. Tell me which.

I expect it's the Nigerian emailers, trying to get your bank account
details.

Al Bedo

unread,
Nov 23, 2008, 11:25:33 PM11/23/08
to
Roger Coppock wrote:
> Back in the USSR . . .
> This thing looks a lot like the pseudo-science
> that Pravda used to publish.
>

See 'The Physics of Climate'.

That GHGs cool the atmosphere radiatively is pretty well understood.

The trick is that they warm the surface and that energy
finds its way into the atmosphere via latent and sensible heat.

So GHGs do warm the atmosphere, they just do so INdirectly.

The AGW question is what is the effect of ADDITIONAL GHGs.

For CO2, that effect is not at the surface which is already opaque
in the CO2 bands. Rather, CO2 forcing starts at the tropopause
and (here's where the monkey business starts ) 'works it's way down'.

--
-

When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?
When global warming comes, can I have your coat?

Whata Fool

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 1:05:19 AM11/24/08
to
Al Bedo <c...@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote:

>Roger Coppock wrote:
>> Back in the USSR . . .
>> This thing looks a lot like the pseudo-science
>> that Pravda used to publish.
>>
>
>See 'The Physics of Climate'.
>
>That GHGs cool the atmosphere radiatively is pretty well understood.

Apparently not by all.


The first reference I tried said;

"The naturally occurring greenhouse gases (present before industrialization)
cause the earth to be 33 oC warmer than if there was no infrared trapping by
the atmosphere."

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm


How much warming of the atmosphere is from solar UV?

The rise in daily temperature during daylight involves more
than IR from the ground absorbed by GHGs.


>The trick is that they warm the surface and that energy
>finds its way into the atmosphere via latent and sensible heat.

That is thinking backwards, the ground absorbs more energy
from the sun than from GHGs, and the amount the ground absorbs
from GHGs can only be a fraction of that absorbed from the sun,
according to differences in temperature.



>So GHGs do warm the atmosphere, they just do so INdirectly.


Al, you can do better than that, with NO GHGs at all,
the air (N2 and O2) would get warmer than it does now, because
N2 and O2 do not radiate much IR at atmospheric temperatures.

There is no way to deny that GHGs absorb energy from the
N2 and O2 that they got through convection and through the
release of latent heat from water phase change, and they
radiate part of that energy to space.

>The AGW question is what is the effect of ADDITIONAL GHGs.
>
>For CO2, that effect is not at the surface which is already opaque
>in the CO2 bands. Rather, CO2 forcing starts at the tropopause
>and (here's where the monkey business starts ) 'works it's way down'.

That would be ok if it had numbers attached.

Bill Ward

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 3:07:03 AM11/24/08
to

Start with the tropospheric lapse rate, Joe. It stays pretty close to
adiabatic, and the 255K effective radiating temp is set by the incoming
solar power. It doesn't look to me like radiation can be much of a factor
in cooling the surface. It would only take a slight change in convection
to compensate for a fairly large change in CO2.

Applying numbers to the wrong mechanism won't help, no matter how accurate
they are.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 7:57:19 AM11/24/08
to
> they are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ingnoring mechanisms as you do is misleading (see gravity waves etc),
which is why you have reached the wrong conclusion.....

Whata Fool

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 5:06:57 PM11/24/08
to
Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:


Sorry, that would be true except, large temperature changes occur
more from horizontal flow than from some solar heating.

Last night, the temperature was dropping through the mid 30s F,
then the wind changed, and by daylight, it was 48 degrees.

And the same yesterday, except it was sunny yesterday morning,
while this morning it was raining.


Weather moves across the map, according to pressure systems,
which is a good reason to junk any speculation about temperature
being related to energy content.

Al Bedo

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 7:30:15 PM11/24/08
to
Whata Fool wrote:
>>
>> That GHGs cool the atmosphere radiatively is pretty well understood.
>
> Apparently not by all.

Looky here:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/toa_balance.mat.py?scheme=ccm3&Insolation=370&Imbalance=0&Albedo=30&lapse_rate=6.2&Trop_height=16.&RH_bl=70&RH_lt=70&RH_ut=70&RH_st=0&RH_control=0&T_air_RH=20.&Trop_height_RH=16.&CO2=375.&CH4=0.&N2O=0.&Drop_size=10.&Cloud_water_lo=0.&Cloud_water_hi=0.&Submit=Do+it!

Do you see the longwave heating rates?

They are negative.

That means cooling.

Al Bedo

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 7:37:03 PM11/24/08
to
Whata Fool wrote:

>> The trick is that they [GHGs] warm the surface and that energy


>> finds its way into the atmosphere via latent and sensible heat.
>
> That is thinking backwards, the ground absorbs more energy
> from the sun than from GHGs

The ground absorbs more energy from GHGs than from the sun:

http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/images/fig1-2.gif

> and the amount the ground absorbs
> from GHGs can only be a fraction of that absorbed from the sun,
> according to differences in temperature.

The net of surface absorption and surface emission is small compared to
solar input, but the absorption alone is greater than solar input.

DeadFrog

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 5:27:23 PM11/24/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.11.20....@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...

I suspect but don't know, that if you download the database you could work
it out for yourself.
But what I was getting at is that is you add CO2 to the atmosphere (and
remove O2 at the same time) you increase the partial pressure of CO2, with
the caveat of constant temperature that will mean more CO2 in solution.

>
>> The CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 partial
>> pressure drives the solution/gas equilibrium increasing the dissolved
>> gas. (Assuming constant temperature).
>
> Perhaps, but the dataset deliberately omitted the local atmospheric
> CO2 data that might confirm that. Didn't you even read my comment?
>

Sorry? Are you suggesting that partial pressures are not relevant because
there are no simultaneous solution and atmospheric measurements of CO2?

Bill Ward

unread,
Nov 24, 2008, 9:30:24 PM11/24/08
to

Why should I? The description indicates the database is incomplete for
that purpose.

> But what I was getting at is that is you add CO2 to the atmosphere (and
> remove O2 at the same time) you increase the partial pressure of CO2, with
> the caveat of constant temperature that will mean more CO2 in solution.

Not necessarily. CO2 is also being removed from the ocean by
photosynthesis to O2 and precipitation of CaCO3. Assuming the results you
want to see is not good science.


>>> The CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 partial
>>> pressure drives the solution/gas equilibrium increasing the dissolved
>>> gas. (Assuming constant temperature).
>>
>> Perhaps, but the dataset deliberately omitted the local atmospheric CO2
>> data that might confirm that. Didn't you even read my comment?
>>
> Sorry? Are you suggesting that partial pressures are not relevant
> because there are no simultaneous solution and atmospheric measurements
> of CO2?

Are you suggesting the atmospheric pCO2 is the same everywhere, all the
time?

You need both the atmospheric and seawater CO2 concentrations at the same
time and place to determine the direction of the flux at that time and
place. The excerpt I quoted explicitly stated the authors deliberately
discarded actual contemporaneous measurements of atmospheric CO2 in favor
of calculated values. Read the excerpt up thread.

Sorry about your frog.

Q

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 2:39:21 AM11/25/08
to
Al Bedo wrote:
> Whata Fool wrote:
>>>
>>> That GHGs cool the atmosphere radiatively is pretty well understood.
>>
>> Apparently not by all.
>
> Looky here:
>
> http://forecast.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/toa_balance.mat.py?scheme=ccm3&Insolation=370&Imbalance=0&Albedo=30&lapse_rate=6.2&Trop_height=16.&RH_bl=70&RH_lt=70&RH_ut=70&RH_st=0&RH_control=0&T_air_RH=20.&Trop_height_RH=16.&CO2=375.&CH4=0.&N2O=0.&Drop_size=10.&Cloud_water_lo=0.&Cloud_water_hi=0.&Submit=Do+it!
>
>
> Do you see the longwave heating rates?
>
> They are negative.
>
> That means cooling.
>
>

This argument has been used a lot by climate skeptics. There has been
extensive research on CO2 in the atmosphere, for more details see:

http://www.realclimate.org/

which incidentally shows that climate skeptics are always wrong.

Q

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 2:44:51 AM11/25/08
to

Whata Fool

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 3:49:57 AM11/25/08
to
Q <q...@universe.com> wrote:


Sure, writing by biased reactionaries is always right, especially
to those politically inclined.

DeadFrog

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 4:02:09 AM11/25/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.11.25....@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...
This has just hit the general news sites.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/24/0810079105.abstract?sid=1a2ac07d-f304-4867-bbe3-abf5e12ba098

It uses a series of measurements made at a single site over 8 years.

Bill Ward

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 11:32:10 AM11/25/08
to

Nice propaganda. I notice the word "convection" is used in the article
only once, somewhat dismissively.

RC's problem is that they take climate models far too seriously.


Bill Ward

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 12:07:01 PM11/25/08
to

It's one site, not the globe. But it's irrelevant, because the issue at
hand is Roger Coppock (and you) claiming the cdiac dataset could be used
to show that the ocean is absorbing CO2.

It can't show that, because it was deliberately left incomplete, as I
pointed out above.

I'll take your failure to address my point as tacit agreement.


Q

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 2:52:24 PM11/25/08
to

Climate change deniers are liars!

Puppet_Sock

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 5:00:35 PM11/25/08
to
On Nov 21, 6:10 am, "V for Vendicar"
> "Hank Kroll" <HankKr...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> > The temperature is rising because Earth is recovering from
> > a series of volcanic eruptions and the million+ undersea volcanic
> > vents along the Ring of Fire that are heating up the oceans?
>
> Odd, last week you said it was all due to the cosmic influences of the Grey
> space aliens who have been hovering over your home and sending those moon
> beams to infuence your mind.

Hmmm... V lies. Is V then a climate denier?
Socks

Q

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 8:32:54 PM11/25/08
to

Anyone who attempts to deny that the Earth's atmosphere is not warming
up due to greenhouse gases such as CO2 caused by combustion of fossil
fuels is a liar. Cosmic rays and the variable output of the Sun don't
explain anything at all, you should read the article of Lockwood and
Frohlich published in 2007. You really need CO2 to explain the last 50
years, it is an inconvenient truth for the deniers. My conclusion is that:

"Climate change deniers are liars"

Please use this signature everywhere where you suspect that a climate
change denier or a climate change skeptic speaks. In case of doubt consult:

http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.desmogblog.com
http://www.ipcc.ch

Nothing is politically motivated about accepting that the AGW theory, it
doesn't matter whether you're left of right. Pushing AGW theory adepts
in the left corner is also a lie spread by the climate change deniers.
Don't buy this, use the signature "Climate change deniers are liars" so
that everyone can recognize the problem.

This petition is meant to battle those who attempt to deny the
implications of modern climate research. Denial is unethical, battle it.

Q

Al Bedo

unread,
Nov 25, 2008, 10:12:33 PM11/25/08
to
Q wrote:
> Al Bedo wrote:
>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>>> That GHGs cool the atmosphere radiatively is pretty well understood.
>>> Apparently not by all.
>> Looky here:
>>
>> http://forecast.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/toa_balance.mat.py?scheme=ccm3&Insolation=370&Imbalance=0&Albedo=30&lapse_rate=6.2&Trop_height=16.&RH_bl=70&RH_lt=70&RH_ut=70&RH_st=0&RH_control=0&T_air_RH=20.&Trop_height_RH=16.&CO2=375.&CH4=0.&N2O=0.&Drop_size=10.&Cloud_water_lo=0.&Cloud_water_hi=0.&Submit=Do+it!
>>
>>
>> Do you see the longwave heating rates?
>>
>> They are negative.
>>
>> That means cooling.
>>
>>
>
> This argument has been used a lot by climate skeptics. There has been
> extensive research on CO2 in the atmosphere, for more details see:

It's not an argument but rather an observationally corroborated fact.

>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
>
> which incidentally shows that climate skeptics are always wrong.

That doesn't give you pause?

The problem with fake climate is that it is a bunch of
self congratulatory hacks who don't entertain any contradictory
evidence.

Here, along with politics, insults, and generally a bunch of garbage,
at least all ideas can be taken on their own merits by discerning readers.

V for Vendicar

unread,
Dec 4, 2008, 2:06:58 AM12/4/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

> Nice propaganda. I notice the word "convection" is used in the article
> only once, somewhat dismissively.

There is essentially no convection in the upper atmosphere. Shit Sack.


V for Vendicar

unread,
Dec 4, 2008, 2:10:40 AM12/4/08
to

"Al Bedo" <c...@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote

> It's not an argument but rather an observationally corroborated fact.

Ahahahahhahahah... Kook Fart.


V for Vendicar

unread,
Dec 4, 2008, 2:12:55 AM12/4/08
to

"Al Bedo" <c...@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote

> The ground absorbs more energy from GHGs than from the sun:
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/images/fig1-2.gif

Ahahahahahahahaha.. Correct on aveage. A fact that confirms the exact
opposite of what you have been claiming, that GHG's cool the atmosphere.

As always URAh MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNN


V for Vendicar

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 1:23:52 AM12/10/08
to

"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Hmmm... V lies. Is V then a climate denier?

Where is the lie?

V for Vendicar

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 1:26:16 AM12/10/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

> Not necessarily. CO2 is also being removed from the ocean by
> photosynthesis to O2 and precipitation of CaCO3. Assuming the results you
> want to see is not good science.

True, but not quickly enough to stop it from acidifying as its CO2
concentration continues to rise.

V for Vendicar

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 1:27:19 AM12/10/08
to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

> It can't show that, because it was deliberately left incomplete, as I
> pointed out above.

Ya, it is all just another KKKonspiracy among the worlds Scientists to
keep you stupid.

hanson

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 12:56:11 PM12/10/08
to
-------- AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA.... ----------------
>
Scott Nudds aka "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote
nothing of consequence.
>
hanson wrote:
VD Scotty just repeated his silly ASCII chart that is
based on phony, massaged and fudged data to fit
the agenda of the Green shits and Enviro turds, under
Al Gore's tutelage to extort from each one of you a
draconian, life-long CARBON HEAD TAX , that only
benefits Al Gore and his green cronies
>.
The real solution is very simple:
If it gets too hot for you make or buy a larger AC.
If it gets too cold for you make or buy a larger furnace.
Naturally, VD Scotty doesn't know that as can be seen
by Naomi Goldstein who observed that VD Scotty
can't even fuck properly.... See here:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.invest/msg/8a69950c26530584?hl=en
wherein Says Naomi:
--- Dear Vendi---,
Vendi, I read some more of your archive and it excited me greatly,
Vendi. Especially your post yesterday where you advertised very
cautiously that you are into blowing doggies. Really, Vendi?
Zoo stuff? That's impressive Vendi. What kind of dogs do you prefer
to nosh off? Vendi you would be the center attraction piece of the
parties when you would blow some dogs amongst some other kind
of kinky stuff. We will make a movie from it of course and you could
have a piece of the action. It's money, and money don't are, Vendi.
Let's party, Vendi. You suck off the doggies and do me doggie style.
I knew I had a winner in you, Vendi. Grand show, Vendi.
Like I said, Vendi, you are invited to party. PRIYARI.
With love,
Naomi Goldstein-Goldman
>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/0d934ebcc7b3fd1f>
wherein Naomi says:
--- Dear Vendi ----,
... you creamed in your pants when I took my bra off and then the
other guys laughed at you and called you "Scuttle Nutts". So, See,
Short-dick/Quick-cumers like you are not best sellers in the adult
movie biz. I hope you'll understand that. Biz is biz. I'm sorry, dear.
With love,
--- Naomi Goldstein-Goldman

More fun with ped-odiuos VD Scotty, the LibratArian here....
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.invest/msg/8a69950c26530584?hl=en


hanson

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 12:56:11 PM12/10/08
to

Spac...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 19, 2013, 2:29:20 PM8/19/13
to
Skeptics is one of those terms that is usually sarcastic,
such as Stoic, Gnostic, Epicurean,
denoting a one-sided, cult thing under the Oracle at Delphi,
later the Romans.

if the Rapture comes, I'm hijacking your car
to Cuba, especially if it is accompanied by "global" warming

> >> Do you see the longwave heating rates?
>
> Skeptics are always wrong.

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Aug 19, 2013, 2:36:37 PM8/19/13
to
Some people were skeptical that the universe was static....

Turns out it is NOT static, it's expanding.



--



*Rumination*
#29 - For your WELFARE there's the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
priceless.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages