Yikes !!

We are having a battle of wits with unarmed men!

That is: Minuscule...

... like trying to lead a believer...

Well, you seem to be clinging to your denier's "miniscule" and ignoring everything else around you.

Note how you still show no evidence and just religiously bleat that "it can't be so". And still blind to the industrial output from Man that has been directly measured to have polluted our atmosphere. We have well over a century of hard incontrovertible science fact that CO2 has physical effects that help to warm our planet. The major effect is clear and direct, we are directly forcing extra warming of our planet.

Less clear are all the consequences. However, we do have strong indicators...


To sum up your argument:

2013 SkS Weekly Digest #22




See no CO2? See no 'skeptics' argument to back that up?...

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)

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. ...

Back to your games of words and FUD whilst distracting from the message and the world around you. What has just been said about arguing with skunks?...


As Galileo exclaimed: and still The Earth moves. And still we industrially pollute ourselves out of existence.


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)

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. ...

Back to your games of words and FUD whilst distracting from the message and the world around you.

So you admit it is impossible to define excess CO2. I bet that is because you can't define normal CO2 either.

---

So you admit it is impossible to define excess CO2. I bet that is because you can't define normal CO2 either.

Such are your trite games of denial and fud...


So, lets see for a few recent numbers:


... 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

... the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by 15 billion tons a year, and humans are emitting 30 billion tons a year. So nature's net balance must be an absorption of 15 billion tons a year from the air...

... 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980... 0.5 C warming we've measured since 1980...

The peer-review published paper for that article is published here.


Aside: That article is actually a 'debunk' of the sensationalist blockbuster from Humlum and others (2013) who were erroniously claiming to overturn centuries of previous scientific work. All an innocent mistake? Or too embarrassingly far fetched to be not considered deliberately corrupt?...


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)

So you admit it is impossible to define excess CO2. I bet that is because you can't define normal CO2 either.

Such are your trite games of denial and fud...

How can asking for an answer be called denial?

Just answer a simple question. Why won't you do it? Is it because you can't? Is it because you are spreading FUD and know it?

Here is the engineer -- if you can't tell me how much is excess, then I can't tell you what you need to do to cut it out. Obvious. You can't design a solution if you don't know what it is you need to do. Only a dolt would believe otherwise.

If you don't know how much is excess that is the U and D of FUD. The F is that something terrible is going to happen.

Answer the question or be declared FUD!

---

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

WM, ocean acidification is a valid concern. The local oyster farmers in the Pacific NW are having to adapt to it and a wild ones are not reproducing well.

---

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

WM, ocean acidification is a valid concern. The local oyster farmers in the Pacific NW are having to adapt to it and a wild ones are not reproducing well.

That is why it is vitally important that we know how much is excess.

---

So you admit it is impossible to define excess CO2. I bet that is because you can't define normal CO2 either.

Such are your trite games of denial and fud...

How can asking for an answer be called denial?

Just answer...

I see, you just simply ignore any answer you do not wish to see.

So... For our "excess", please usefully comment upon:

So, lets see for a few recent numbers:


... 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

... the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by 15 billion tons a year, and humans are emitting 30 billion tons a year. So nature's net balance must be an absorption of 15 billion tons a year from the air...

... 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980... 0.5 C warming we've measured since 1980...

The peer-review published paper for that article is published here.


Aside: That article is actually a 'debunk' of the sensationalist blockbuster from Humlum and others (2013) who were erroniously claiming to overturn centuries of previous scientific work. All an innocent mistake? Or too embarrassingly far fetched to be not considered deliberately corrupt?...

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)

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

WM, ocean acidification is a valid concern. The local oyster farmers in the Pacific NW are having to adapt to it and a wild ones are not reproducing well.

That is why it is vitally important that we know how much is excess.

Note the tactics of the professional denier and troll:


The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial

All movements that reject an overwhelming scientific consensus show 5 inevitable characteristics. They celebrate fake experts, cherry pick the data, argue using misrepresentation and logical fallacies, indulge in conspiracy theories, and demand impossible expectations of what research can deliver....


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)

... 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

So am I to take this to mean that any CO2 man emits is excess? Am I reading you correctly? 100% is your number.

---

... 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

So am I to take this to mean that any CO2 man emits is excess? Am I reading you correctly? 100% is your number.

Gary, the way I read the article man is making 50% more than nature can handle.

---

... 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

So am I to take this to mean that any CO2 man emits is excess? Am I reading you correctly? 100% is your number.

Gary, the way I read the article man is making 50% more than nature can handle.

Then if we know how much we make we can work backwards and get a tons a year number. But that actually doesn't give us an excess number, never mind adding a bit for a margin for error. We still need to know if we are in an average spot in natural emissions. If we are, fine. If nature happens to be putting out a bit more than average, our excess is less, if nature is a bit less than average the opposite. This is why references that include man are circular.

Also that seems to be for temperature rise only. Not ocean acidification or the other things linked to CO2. What is the excess number for those? I doubt they are all 50%.

The proper way to get these numbers is to figure out how much nature emits along with the standard deviation. Also figure out how much nature can absorb along with a standard deviation. Add a couple standard deviations to the average nature emits, then subtract what is can absorb less a couple standard deviations and you arrive at a number that man can emit. Anything over that is excess. Of course you run the risk of finding out nature emits more than it can absorb.

---

... The proper way to get these numbers is to figure out how much nature emits along with the standard deviation. Also figure out how much nature can absorb along with a standard deviation. Add a couple standard deviations to the average nature emits, then subtract what is can absorb less a couple standard deviations and you arrive at a number that man can emit. Anything over that is excess. Of course you run the risk of finding out nature emits more than it can absorb.

Note the tactics of the professional denier and troll:

The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial

All movements that reject an overwhelming scientific consensus show 5 inevitable characteristics. They celebrate fake experts, cherry pick the data, argue using misrepresentation and logical fallacies, indulge in conspiracy theories, and demand impossible expectations of what research can deliver....

All unnecessary. We have the numbers in that we are directly measuring what is in the atmosphere and by the beauty or radio-isotope analysis, we can directly measure where the CO2 in the atmosphere has come from. No FUD-mumbo-jumbo impossibilities needed. Very good at your FUD attempt at example 5 of "demand impossible expectations".



How clearer can you get?:

... the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by 15 billion tons a year, and humans are emitting 30 billion tons a year. So nature's net balance must be an absorption of 15 billion tons a year from the air...

... 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980... 0.5 C warming we've measured since 1980...

Now, would you actually care to read the article and make useful comment based upon the article, rather than your usual random FUD please?

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)

All unnecessary. We have the numbers in that we are directly measuring what is in the atmosphere and by the beauty or radio-isotope analysis, we can directly measure where the CO2 in the atmosphere has come from.

But still you won't post numbers.

How clearer can you get?:

... the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by 15 billion tons a year, and humans are emitting 30 billion tons a year. So nature's net balance must be an absorption of 15 billion tons a year from the air...

Wow you are capable of posting numbers, not just random words that are links to who knows what, because you refuse to say what they are. I learned long ago from your posts in other threads to not click on your links.

However you still have not addressed how much is excess. And remember it is you who used the word excess so it is incumbent upon you to define what it means, preferably with error bars if you expect to be taken seriously.

---

As for ocean acidifacation, the local oyster farmers started noting this problem about 5 years ago so one factor to look at would be the detla in CO2 in the last 5 years.

---

Of course you run the risk of finding out nature emits more than it can absorb.

Gary, I would suggest here that nature emits what ever she likes and the climate
and oceans both then respond to this level of CO2 accordingly, as has been the
case for the past umpteen million years. Rising, and for that matter, falling
levels of ocean acidity is nothing knew to this planet. So to this end oysters
would have eventually died out in time due to the normal historical event of
natures own generated rise in CO2 levels. This planet made man so to this end
the planet will adjust to us who it created. Has planet Earth created a
species call man who will eventually kill the planet, no. Man can't kill Earth
it will be Earth who will eventually kill man as it has done to every species
in the past. If man attempts to over-step his boundaries regarding how he uses
this planet then nature will respond to bring things back to equilibrium.
Man generating CO2, whether excessively or not, can not be a problem that this
planet is unable to handle. It's had to handle very high levels of CO2 in the
past and life has been maintained throughout these times. The burning of fossil
fuels has a maximum life expectancy of no more than another 40 odd years
before alternative cleaner fuels will have been discovered to replace these
rapidly waning supplies. Personally I will be very surprised if fossil fuels
have not been replaced by alternative cleaner sources of energy by 2030'ish.
I reiterate again on what I have stated in past threads here, global warming
has virtually had it's day in the spotlight, global cooling is just around the
corner...potentially a much bigger problem for us to have to handle. So time
we stopped worrying about global warming and started to think about global
cooling.

As it stands, the UK Meteorological Office is holding a meeting today with
various climate specialists to discuss the noted cooling down of temperatures
in the UK....all very interesting....global cooling, lets hope we don't get
caught out with our trousers down around our ankles, for it's coming!!

---

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.

I have found some old blankets, winter coats and a swell electric heater. Can I send them over to youse Brits so that you can survive the cold temperatures over there. I recall the girls playing beach volleyball in your Olympic Stadium there in 55 degree (fahrenheit) weather. Bloody cold I should say !!

... just random words that are links to who knows what...

So indeed, you are just playing word games and trolling with no interest in reality.


Following the old adage: Do Not Feed The Trolls.

Please waste your useless noise and thread pollution elsewhere.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

... Bloody cold I should say !!

Try explaining that to India and Pakistan at the moment:


Pakistan wilts under record heat wave

... Pakistan in recent weeks has suffered its most severe heat wave in decades, with temperatures reaching as high as 51 degrees Celsius (124 Farenheit)...

... Such extreme temperatures – which are becoming more common as a result of climate change - are an enormous health threat. They also make almost every function of daily life a nearly intolerable struggle – including, for millions, trying to earn a daily living...

... Government hospitals across the country remained on emergency alert throughout much of the last month because of the heat wave...


Again, note: "Global Warming" does not mean that we all get 'nicely' gently warmer. It actually means more heat energy in the atmosphere and oceans to cause greater extremes of daily weather.

Meanwhile, that longer term thing we call Climate inexorably changes the world around us.


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)

I have found some old blankets, winter coats and a swell electric heater. Can I send them over to youse Brits so that you can survive the cold temperatures over there. I recall the girls playing beach volleyball in your Olympic Stadium there in 55 degree (fahrenheit) weather. Bloody cold I should say !!

The temperature at sunrise this morning dropped down to 9 degs C (48.2 F)
west of London....very odd. There was an occasion during the Victorian era
when one year they stated that England had no summer at all, stayed chilly all
through the summer months.

---

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.