Your answer is not a answer
will you believe it when the south pole melts , when the ocean on high tide is running down 52nd street in New York .

Well, I would believe that the climate is changing. But then I am told that the climate is always changing. If we are having an effect on the climate it is miniscule compared to natural forces such as the weather, the sun, the jet stream, the gulf stream, axis and orbital precession.

The CO-2 nonsense is yet another false religion; as all religions it is based on faith and beliefs on non-existant things. It is the lair of snake-oil salesmen, profiteers and those who never got over chicken little paranoia and toilet training.

I can see no way to change your mind so i'll ask you this .

What would it take for you to believe that we are or have changed the climate ?

Irrefutable evidence, which at the moment there is none confirmed..

I'll ask the question again what Irrefutable evidence would it take .

Your answer is not a answer
will you believe it when the south pole melts , when the ocean on high tide is running down 52nd street in New York .

WHAT WILL IT TAKE

Glen, it's a clear and unambiguous answer to your question. Currently there is no
irrefutable evidence so far produced by any scientists supporting man made global
warming. Further to this, scientist will never be able to produce such
evidence since none exists.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Further to this, scientist will never be able to produce such
evidence since none exists.

Now that is a denier's statement! Or, now show that there can not be such evidence ever.

---

Further to this, scientist will never be able to produce such
evidence since none exists.

Now that is a denier's statement! Or, now show that there can not be such evidence ever.

Simply Gary, if there was to be any evidence then they would have discovered it by now.
Because there no evidence does not make one a denier of fact but only a denier
of fiction.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Well what can you say after that !!!!

---

Your answer is not a answer
will you believe it when the south pole melts , when the ocean on high tide is running down 52nd street in New York .

Well, I would believe that the climate is changing. But then I am told that the climate is always changing. If we are having an effect on the climate it is miniscule compared to natural forces such as the weather, the sun, the jet stream, the gulf stream, axis and orbital precession.

The CO-2 nonsense is yet another false religion; as all religions it is based on faith and beliefs on non-existant things. It is the lair of snake-oil salesmen, profiteers and those who never got over chicken little paranoia and toilet training.

The things I have highlighted take thousands of years not 50 or 100 so , it's b/s to use as a answer .

This why 2yrs before the GFC happened I had already heard about it but you lot have potatoes in your ears and don't hear anything and then wonder why shit happens .

---

This why 2yrs before the GFC happened I had already heard about it but you lot have potatoes in your ears and don't hear anything and then wonder why shit happens .

Man 'O Live. I Used To Get My Brainiac Info from The Likes of Sarge, BarryAZ, Charpentier, Bobby, Terror O, OzzFan, Guido(Administrator) and Other Super Brains.

Now, I can put All Them in The Twit Filter, and Be Properly, and Masterfully Informed on Science and World Events by.....Ta Da, Glen, Our New Prez of The MB Brainiac Club!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw.

Bound For IT IT There There SomeWhere Where???

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The things I have highlighted take thousands of years not 50 or 100 so , it's b/s to use as a answer .

Thank you for your response. You are correct we, are talking thousand of years for these cycles--you claim we are in a long-term warming trend. So we are definitely in either an up or down trend of incoming energy variation. When this is coupled with 11 year solar cycles and sporadic short term variances in solar activity as well as weather trends involving moisture we could find ourselves noticing. Since we have set cold temperature records here in Tennessee this Spring and have recorded a very cold Spring that is 6-weeks behind normal; I might conclude that we are in a cooling trend if I didn't fully know that, like the stock market, there are long and short-term trends.

So let me ask what is the evidence that the Earth is actually warming or for that matter cooling. How can you lay it off to man's minuscule contribution to CO-2 which has far less effect on "warming" as say water vapor or Methane.

Water vapor 4% or the atmosphere
CO-2 .04% of the atmosphere.

Water vapor has a much larger effect on "warming" as does CO-2 and you can see that it is 100 times more prevalent.
Man contributes only 3% to total CO-2 production.

So let me ask if we are warming and expecting dire consequences then why would you worry about man-made CO-2.

This why 2yrs before the GFC happened I had already heard about it but you lot have potatoes in your ears and don't hear anything and then wonder why shit happens .

Man 'O Live. I Used To Get My Brainiac Info from The Likes of Sarge, BarryAZ, Charpentier, Bobby, Terror O, OzzFan, Guido(Administrator) and Other Super Brains.

Now, I can put All Them in The Twit Filter, and Be Properly, and Masterfully Informed on Science and World Events by.....Ta Da, Glen, Our New Prez of The MB Brainiac Club!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw.

Bound For IT IT There There SomeWhere Where???

heheheheheheheheheheheheh

---

The things I have highlighted take thousands of years not 50 or 100 so , it's b/s to use as a answer .

Thank you for your response. You are correct we, are talking thousand of years for these cycles--you claim we are in a long-term warming trend. So we are definitely in either an up or down trend of incoming energy variation. When this is coupled with 11 year solar cycles and sporadic short term variances in solar activity as well as weather trends involving moisture we could find ourselves noticing. Since we have set cold temperature records here in Tennessee this Spring and have recorded a very cold Spring that is 6-weeks behind normal; I might conclude that we are in a cooling trend if I didn't fully know that, like the stock market, there are long and short-term trends.

So let me ask what is the evidence that the Earth is actually warming or for that matter cooling. How can you lay it off to man's minuscule contribution to CO-2 which has far less effect on "warming" as say water vapor or Methane.

Water vapor 4% or the atmosphere
CO-2 .04% of the atmosphere.

Water vapor has a much larger effect on "warming" as does CO-2 and you can see that it is 100 times more prevalent.
Man contributes only 3% to total CO-2 production.

So let me ask if we are warming and expecting dire consequences then why would you worry about man-made CO-2.

I'll answer your sarcasm about me knowing about the GFC by telling you I have watched the stock market when I was 18 at 35yrs old I became a day trader with a margin account and bought and sold thousands of dollars of stock I was also very good too making on average over 30% if I hadn't become injured at work and had to quit and use that money to support myself for 4 yrs I would have owned my second house by the time I would have been 39 . I own my first house when I was 27 only mistake I made was getting married mate and she got harf of it when I devoiced her can you say you own your first house at 27 ? So because I do understand the stock market I herd the rumours of what was going on over there 2 years before the GFC happened even thou I was on the streets of Sydney broke by that time I still watched and read the finalical papers and watched certain money shows . any time you want me to prove it i'll send you the contracts I still have them .And you can look in the Wollongong land titles office to see if i'm telling a lie about owning my first house i'll tell you the address if you don't believe me . Time for bed so when I finish doing what I have to do tomorrow in Sydney i'll answer the other parts of your post when I have time

---

The experts are predicting that we are heading for another mini ice age. Mini ice age.

If this predicted mini ice age does start in 2014 then it will have started
about 50 years too early. The next global cooling phase will occur and it will
be starting some time around mid-century. As I have stated before here, "If this
cooling phase is anything like the last one then food production in the west is
going to be a problem for us".

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

William I can't find the show I wanted to quote from as there was a very good scientist that was on a show called Q & A (Question and Answer) where a panel is asked questions from the public they did a show about Climate change and he explained better than anybody else how they can prove we are stuffing the climate up .

So i'll try a put it to you this way , we are at 400ppm of co2 at 800 from your figures we would be at 6% and 1200 9% . If co2 get's that high 1200 9% us humans will start to drop dead we can't live in a atmosphere with co2 that high . Plants can survive up to I think about 15% then they die .Quoteing co2 at 3% is a bit silly as we did not put much CFC's into the atmosphere to destroy the ozone which still has not started to stabilise and will take another 50yrs from what I have heard .

So you don't need heaps , to stuff our atmosphere up of any gas really or to start having affects on the climate . You use water vapour as a argument but I ask you when the north pole started to have the big melts in 2007 and again last year there must have been a increase in water vapour but what caused the melt in the first place ?

The whole system has now entered a closed system that is starting to feed on it's self . There is plenty of evidence for global warming and man is the one that is causing it not super volcanoe or a couple of volcanoes or a sudden release of methane from the ocean or a super big bush fire or axis or precession or the movement of the Earths orbit closer or farther away , in 150yrs just man pumping more and more co2 . Christ man we now put 90billion tons into the atmosphere each year and you want me to believe that is not having a effect ................!!!!!!!!

---

The whole system has now entered a closed system that is starting to feed on it's self . There is plenty of evidence for global warming and man is the one that is causing it not super volcanoe or a couple of volcanoes or a sudden release of methane from the ocean or a super big bush fire or axis or precession or the movement of the Earths orbit closer or farther away , in 150yrs just man pumping more and more co2 . Christ man we now put 90billion tons into the atmosphere each year and you want me to believe that is not having a effect ................!!!!!!!!

I Categorically DENY All Of The Above Statement.

Quadrillions Of Termites Negate all of Man's Effect.

So There.

Bound For IT IT There There SomeWhere Where?

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The climate of the Earth is far from a "Closed System" All of the energy that comes in to the Earth from the sun and all of the energy that is radiated out to dark, cold space makes it not so.There may or may not be evidence for global warming but Man has virtually zero effect on the temperature. We are putting things into the air and groundwater but CO-2 from man is 3% 0f .4% of the atmosphere.

The Earth fixes carbon so how can the Earth be encouraged to absorb the extra .00125 of the atmospheric composition caused by man relating to CO-2. Planting trees might be what you should be clamoring for this will fix carbon by absorption and create more oxygen. But then you are likely to worry that we would burn up or all go blind at birth from too much oxygen.

from Wikipedia: "The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere.[3] Approximately 30% is reflected back to space while the rest is absorbed by clouds, oceans and land masses."

So should we shield the planet from the sun by orbiting reflectors or figure out how to minimize night time clouds to increase radiation to space. all nutty ideas but perhaps more feasible than stopping the minuscule percent of CO-2 that man is adding.

...perhaps more feasible than stopping the minuscule percent of CO-2 that man is adding.

Except that our addition/effect is far far from your 'miniscule'.

How do we know?

We directly measure the proportion of CO2 actually in the atmosphere and what type of CO2 is there.


Brief science lesson:

We have isotopes of atoms and atoms change their isotope depending on time (natural radioactive decay) or radioactive influence from such as cosmic rays for our atmosphere. You also get various natural processes such as fractionation and biological selection/filtering 'selecting' certain isotopes due to the difference in mass between isotopes.

Here on earth, what all that means is that we can look at what isotopes we see for the CO2 in our atmosphere and directly see what is "natural biosphere recycled stuff" vs "millions-of-years-old old stuff" from fossil fuels.

We see an ever increasing proportion of CO2 from the "millions-of-years-old old stuff" which fits exactly with the proportion of pollution from our human industriousness.

See the "Carbon Isotopes" of The History of Climate Science. (There's lots of other science sources for that.)


Meanwhile, the natural biosphere proportional contribution of CO2 has actually gone down as we are steadily overloading the natural soaking up of CO2.

A big fear is that nature is going to dump a lot of that back onto us as the global average temperature rises. Just one example is that as greater volumes of the ocean are warmed, the excess CO2 that the water is presently absorbing (making the oceans measurably significantly more acidic, as demonstrated years ago in an earlier thread), will instead be released. The warmer oceans can hold less CO2.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Here on earth, what all that means is that we can look at what isotopes we see for the CO2 in our atmosphere and directly see what is "natural biosphere recycled stuff" vs "millions-of-years-old old stuff" from fossil fuels.

We see an ever increasing proportion of CO2 from the "millions-of-years-old old stuff" which fits exactly with the proportion of pollution from our human industriousness.

See the "Carbon Isotopes" of The History of Climate Science. (There's lots of other science sources for that.)

Interesting conjecture. Now prove the negative. Prove there is no other source than man for "old" carbon. (You personally have cited at least one.) I see your conjecture also requires proof that the rate of C-14 production from cosmic rays is stable. Prove that. And it says he tested trees, well, if I tested trees downwind of some volcanic activity I bet I would come to that conclusion. So the single datum cited is open to manipulation.

---

Here on earth, what all that means is that we can look at what isotopes we see for the CO2 in our atmosphere and directly see what is "natural biosphere recycled stuff" vs "millions-of-years-old old stuff" from fossil fuels.

We see an ever increasing proportion of CO2 from the "millions-of-years-old old stuff" which fits exactly with the proportion of pollution from our human industriousness.

See the "Carbon Isotopes" of The History of Climate Science. (There's lots of other science sources for that.)

Interesting conjecture. Now prove the negative. Prove there is no other source than man for "old" carbon. (You personally have cited at least one.) I see your conjecture also requires proof that the rate of C-14 production from cosmic rays is stable. Prove that. And it says he tested trees, well, if I tested trees downwind of some volcanic activity I bet I would come to that conclusion. So the single datum cited is open to manipulation.

Very good FUD there from you. Now learn how science is done.

By your own methods: Can you show that Man can pollute the atmosphere with impunity and to no negative effect?

Thought not.


Meanwhile, we have proof positive that the excess CO2 in our atmosphere has indeed been put there directly by our burning of fossil fuels.

Please demonstrate how that proven detail is wrong?

Random FUD not admissible. Please quote direct evidence.


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Meanwhile, we have proof positive that the excess CO2 in our atmosphere has indeed been put there directly by our burning of fossil fuels.

Define excess CO2.

---

Yikes !!

We are having a battle of wits with unarmed men!

That is: Minuscule by comparison to the other CO-2 concentrations caused my non-anthroopgenic sources, and minuscule in relation to the entire atmosphere.

This will be my last word on this subject since my daddy told me never to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. It's like trying to lead a believer in the Supernatural to a point of logical disproof.

Love you all see you on another thread sometime.

Daddio

That is: Minuscule by comparison to the other CO-2 concentrations caused my non-anthroopgenic sources, and minuscule in relation to the entire atmosphere.

Yes, but he has said excess, let him define it. How much you want to bet he can't without going circular logic on us?

---