... He pointed out that the natural change in CO2 has been steady at about 0.0001 ppm/year, whereas the human-generated rate today is at about 2 ppm/year. ... maintained for the past 6000–7000 years. ...

Exactly how much CO2 did he say is the correct amount? ...

Can you do the math for yourself?

So we are now, after much industrial effort, creating change at over 20,000 times faster than anything seen for the last few thousand years, and you're asking what exactly?

So, we have a nice cosy comfortable planet and you want us to trash it ever faster?

Do you know for sure, with hard evidence, that jumping rapidly from 7000 years of balanced ecosystems is going to be anything other than disaster? I know you haven't a clue in reality. You cannot have any idea about ecosystem productivity and the conditions required for good productivity.


We have enjoyed a productive stability for a long time. We can trash that, from which a new stability may well be formed, and a new ecosystem will develop. That new ecosystem might be more productive than at present. One crucial detail in making the leap to a new ecosystem is that most of Mankind would no longer exist.


x20,000 is a lot of industrial pollution. We have already procrastinated perilously too long. Now is the time to rapidly reduce that excess... Or are you determined to argue for your own holocaust?

This is still 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)

... He pointed out that the natural change in CO2 has been steady at about 0.0001 ppm/year, whereas the human-generated rate today is at about 2 ppm/year. ... maintained for the past 6000–7000 years. ...

Exactly how much CO2 did he say is the correct amount? ...

Can you do the math for yourself?

I can do math and science which puts me ahead of you in two areas.

So we are now, after much industrial effort, creating change at over 20,000 times faster than anything seen for the last few thousand years, and you're asking what exactly?

Speaking of math how do you define change and based upon that definition how did you calculate 20,000? Please show your work.

Obviously you cannot use words like fast and faster without definition and quantifying what you are talking about.

So, we have a nice cosy comfortable planet and you want us to trash it ever faster?

I merely want to learn the definitions you are using and the number you have calculated based upon those definitions. Why do you find that impossible? Why is it impossible for all melters to do?

Do you know for sure, with hard evidence, that jumping rapidly from 7000 years of balanced ecosystems is going to be anything other than disaster? I know you haven't a clue in reality. You cannot have any idea about ecosystem productivity and the conditions required for good productivity

Rapidly has the same problem as faster so don't forget the definition. Add to that a definition of balanced and describe how it has been measured over the last 7000 years.

Until you define your terms and show your math there is no way I can possibly address your statements as we do not share a common vocabulary.

We have enjoyed a productive stability for a long time. We can trash that, from which a new stability may well be formed, and a new ecosystem will develop. That new ecosystem might be more productive than at present. One crucial detail in making the leap to a new ecosystem is that most of Mankind would no longer exist.

I am certain everyone will find it fascinating to read who people measured ecosystem balance 7000 years ago. Where were their records discovered?

x20,000 is a lot of industrial pollution.

Until you define your terms that is a meaningless statement.

We have already procrastinated perilously too long. Now is the time to rapidly reduce that excess... Or are you determined to argue for your own holocaust?

Have you forgotten it was too late 13 years ago and that nothing can be done now to stop it? What keeps you people going so long after you know it is to late? Pretending you don't know it is transparent.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

... He pointed out that the natural change in CO2 has been steady at about 0.0001 ppm/year, whereas the human-generated rate today is at about 2 ppm/year. ... maintained for the past 6000–7000 years. ...

Exactly how much CO2 did he say is the correct amount? ...

Can you do the math for yourself?

I can do math and science which puts me ahead of you in two areas.

Good. So you ignore all numbers and meaning and attack me with insults instead. Sorry, you've gone ad-hominem. You've lost any argument you might have had.

So we are now, after much industrial effort, creating change at over 20,000 times faster than anything seen for the last few thousand years, and you're asking what exactly?

Speaking of math how do you define change and based upon that definition how did you calculate 20,000? Please show your work.

Oh dear, you're sounding like an old crusty school teacher.

So, lets see: "the natural change in CO2 has been steady at about 0.0001 ppm/year, whereas the human-generated rate today is at about 2 ppm/year."

Just compare a change of 0.0001 ppm/year of atmospheric CO2 that has been stable (unchanging) over the last few thousand years vs over 2 ppm/year now. 2 divided by 0.0001 = 20,000. Or do you just simply refuse to see anything?


Please discover the real world, and science, and then you may be able to usefully discuss something. Sorry, but cussing is just useless noise.

Please try to improve. I'm sure you can do much better. At present, your line of argument is an embarrassment for even school children.


Also note carefully that I am not attacking you personally. I have said nothing of your character. My comments are directed purely at your argument and your line of arguing. My only comment towards you personally is that you please improve your awareness of the world.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

... He pointed out that the natural change in CO2 has been steady at about 0.0001 ppm/year, whereas the human-generated rate today is at about 2 ppm/year. ... maintained for the past 6000–7000 years. ...

Exactly how much CO2 did he say is the correct amount? ...

Can you do the math for yourself?

I can do math and science which puts me ahead of you in two areas.

Good. So you ignore all numbers and meaning and attack me with insults instead. Sorry, you've gone ad-hominem. You've lost any argument you might have had.

As a physicist I know that numbers are meaningless without foundation. I only ask for your foundation. It is clear you have no foundation for your statements.

So we are now, after much industrial effort, creating change at over 20,000 times faster than anything seen for the last few thousand years, and you're asking what exactly?

Speaking of math how do you define change and based upon that definition how did you calculate 20,000? Please show your work.

Oh dear, you're sounding like an old crusty school teacher.

Who obviously flunked your in arithmetic and reasoning ability.

So, lets see: "the natural change in CO2 has been steady at about 0.0001 ppm/year, whereas the human-generated rate today is at about 2 ppm/year."

What is the basis for this 'natural' claim?

It can also be expressed as a fraction of the total atmosphere. As it is 0.039% of the atmosphere or 0.00039 or 390 ppm of the atmosphere then we multiply 2e-6 by 390e-6 and discover the increase is 78 parts per billion. This is not to suggest 2 ppm was a scary number of course. Excuse me, only for people like you who go running screaming into the night at the sight of any number.

Just compare a change of 0.0001 ppm/year of atmospheric CO2 that has been stable (unchanging) over the last few thousand years vs over 2 ppm/year now. 2 divided by 0.0001 = 20,000. Or do you just simply refuse to see anything?

Tell me how you know that will produce a better climate. If you say it will not then tell me how you know it will not.

Please discover the real world, and science, and then you may be able to usefully discuss something. Sorry, but cussing is just useless noise.

I have replied to at least five of your posts quoting journalism majors which contained no science at all where your included comment was about the science in the article.

You have no business claiming the least knowledge of science. You have demonstrated you are completely ignorant of science and have no concept of what it is all about.

Please try to improve. I'm sure you can do much better. At present, your line of argument is an embarrassment for even school children.

Also note carefully that I am not attacking you personally. I have said nothing of your character. My comments are directed purely at your argument and your line of arguing. My only comment towards you personally is that you please improve your awareness of the world.

I guess I might be embarrassing know-it-all kids like you who have demonstrated total ignorance of science. And who has demonstrated a total disregard for the deaths of hundred of millions of people by being against the only known method of reducing CO2 output -- depraved indifference to human life. And then we have the one to top them all. You buggers have known it is too late to do anything about for 13 years now and yet your continue to preen and posture and parade just for the pretension that you care when there is no one in your life who cares about you.

Disgusting really.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

It can also be expressed as a fraction of the total atmosphere. As it is 0.039% of the atmosphere or 0.00039 or 390 ppm of the atmosphere then we multiply 2e-6 by 390e-6 and discover the increase is 78 parts per billion. This is not to suggest 2 ppm was a scary number of course. Excuse me, only for people like you who go running screaming into the night at the sight of any number.

I always wish to acknowledge error. That is 39 ppm resulting in 7.8 parts per billion.

2 ppm is still not scary.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

... still not scary.

What is scary is your disregard and apparent lack of concern for the rest of the world.


Enjoy your dreamworld whilst you can,

Regards,
Martin

---

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

Yet more ever more deeply researched effects of what we are doing to our world:


Animals 'shrinking' due to climate change

Polar bears are shrinking because of the impact of climate change on their natural habitats, along with many other animals and plants...

... The change could have a major impact on the expanding human population, with major food sources like fish likely to reduce in size and crops expected to grow smaller and less reliably than today.

Species which are unable to adapt quickly enough are at risk of extinction as ecosystems shift dramatically, altering the balance of food and other resources needed for survival. ...


Climate change 'grave threat' to security and health

Climate change poses "an immediate, growing and grave threat" to health and security around the world, according to an expert conference in London.

Officers in the UK military warned that the price of goods such as fuel is likely to rise as conflict provoked by climate change increases.

A statement from the meeting adds that humanitarian disasters will put more and more strain on military resources.

It asks governments to adopt ambitious targets for curbing greenhouse gases. ...

... Without urgent action, carbon emissions could rise to levels that should cause major alarm, said Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London.

Already, he noted, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen to about 380 parts per million [ppm] - whereas in the millions of years before the pre-industrial era, it fluctuated between about 180ppm during Ice Ages and about 280ppm in the warm interglacial periods.

"If we don't do something, then at the rate we're going, carbon emissions will continue to accelerate, and the atmospheric concentration is not going to be 450ppm or 650ppm by the end of the century, but 1,000ppm," he said.

"That is 10 times the difference between an Ice Age and an interglacial; and you have to be a pretty huge optimist to think that won't bring major changes."



Note how there are simply no reputable articles that show we are NOT doing any polluting and that we are not having any adverse effects...

Overwhelming, very disappointingly in all respects. Have we all been sold out by our politicians and corrupt industrial interests?...

We've had more than enough warning of all this, and for long enough... Do we all just sit idly by whilst we see our planet burn?


This is our only one world,
Martin

---

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

When I went to grade school 60 years ago the average height of an adult male in the US was 5 foot seven. Now Norwegans and Germans average about 6 feettall.

I guess that I have to conclude that CO-2 increases cause humans to grow larger.

When I went to grade school 60 years ago the average height of an adult male in the US was 5 foot seven. Now Norwegans and Germans average about 6 feettall.

I guess that I have to conclude that CO-2 increases cause humans to grow larger

That makes sense taking one view...

To back that up, I can claim that can be expected from Mankind now being the dominant species on the planet. A consequence of gaining that dominance has been the generation of industrial vast volumes of CO2.

So, that's one possibility for our increase in size at the expense of the planet around us.

A second possibility is that actually we have nothing to worry about and our recent leap in size over the last one or two generations is merely a side effect of intensive food production techniques and artificial growth hormone residue from farming practices...


So... You continue to ignore the danger of ever increasing CO2 pollution in our atmosphere. All despite the very clear physics that demonstrate the increase in CO2 will radically change our planet? All despite seeing accelerating change in the environment all around you?

This is our only world,
Martin

---

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

or the fact that we understand nutrition better than we have ever in the past. Food is laced with vitamins and minerals for proper human growth.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

For those of us who are aficionados of popular science folklore:

Increased CO-2 concentrations allow more robust plant growth. The food chain for humans starts with plants which now produce more protein. Protein is the building block for our muscles, bones, nerves and organs. That is why we are bigger now.

Actually this is no more a crackpot theory than attributing climate cycles that correlate in the short term but falsely ascribe causation to CO-2.

Here's another: lower Co-2 concentrations in the past caused the glaciers to melt due to the non-shading of the sun's rays. They are melting now due to the 100 equivalent watt output of each of the Earths billions of inhabitants and their food animals. Add this to the rejected heat from billions of autos and trucks, power generation, shipping, home heating and cooling , rail etc and there you have a lot of extra heat. Co-2 is too small a cloud cover to compensate for this extra infrared radiation.

Can you put forth any others ??

... Actually this is no more a crackpot theory than attributing climate cycles that correlate in the short term but falsely ascribe causation to CO-2.

Here's another: lower Co-2 concentrations in the past caused the glaciers to melt due to the non-shading of the sun's rays. They are melting now due to the 100 equivalent watt output of each of the Earths billions of inhabitants and their food animals. Add this to the rejected heat from billions of autos and trucks, power generation, shipping, home heating and cooling , rail etc and there you have a lot of extra heat. Co-2 is too small a cloud cover to compensate for this extra infrared radiation. ...

Ok for your crackpot theory. One small detail that you have overlooked: CO2 does NOT 'shade' the sun's rays. Hint: Look at the spectrum of sunlight and compare that to the spectrum of what is radiated from the earth...


Now, out of the thousands of reputable science publications covering the issue, can you find any that back up your view?

I'll be very interested in what you find and the quality of what you find.


This is still our only planet, whether you ignore it or not.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

Just one of the immediately human consequences?


Climate change migration warning issued through report

Governments and aid agencies should help the world's poorest to move away from areas likely to be hit by flooding and drought, a UK report says.

The government-commissioned report warns of potential humanitarian disasters because of climate change.

It says the cost of acting now would be much less than the cost of the conflicts and huge loss of life that would otherwise ensue. ...


This is our only world,
Martin

---

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

I didn't mean for any of my crackpot theories to be correct or to be taken seriously.

I didn't mean for any of my crackpot theories to be correct or to be taken seriously.

Cue: Cartoon?

;-)

Cheers,
Martin

---

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

... CO2 does NOT 'shade' the sun's rays. Hint: Look at the spectrum of sunlight and compare that to the spectrum of what is radiated from the earth...

For the sake of the lazy:

Our sun radiates with most of the radiation energy peaking at around visible wavelengths. Hence why we have evolved to use those wavelengths of light for our sight. Those wavelengths pass through CO2 gas largely undisturbed.

In stark contrast, the wavelengths that are re-radiated from the Earth are strongly absorbed by CO2 gas. Hence at the right concentrations, we get a beneficial warming effect that has greatly helped life on Earth to develop as we know it. However, continue to increase the CO2 concentration and we literally overheat.

The effects of the rapidly ever increasing concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere are being directly measured.

One effect that is being noticed is that our upper atmosphere is now COOLING. So how does that indicate warming?... The increasing CO2 at lower altitudes is insulating the Earth better and so the higher extremities are now cooling more to the cold of space.

As to what that change does to our weather?... One effect appears to be that we now see the beautiful noctilucent clouds more often and increasingly at ever lower latitudes...


A beautiful harbinger of a doom of our own making?

This is 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)

And the news rolls on. Business as usual to an ever accelerating calamity?


Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study

The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.

The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change. ...

... The Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth's average temperature varies globally from year to year. ...

... The group's work also examined claims from "sceptical" bloggers that temperature data from weather stations did not show a true global warming trend. ...

... developed a new way of analysing the data to plot the global temperature trend over land since 1800.

What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world's three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles. ...

... "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Professor Muller.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions." ...

... "So-called 'sceptics' should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities," he said.

"More broadly, this study also proves once again how false it was for 'sceptics' to allege that the e-mails hacked from UEA proved that the CRU land temperature record had been doctored.

"It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists." ...

... But they emphasise that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.

"Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW," said Professor Muller.

"Had we found half as much, it would have suggested that prior estimates [of AGW] were too large; if we had found more warming, it would have raised the question of whether prior estimates were too low.

"But we didn't; we found that the prior rise was confirmed. ...


Companies call for tougher climate action

Leaders of nearly 200 major companies around the world have called for tougher action on climate change.

The 2C Challenge, co-ordinated by the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group, says that climate change puts society's future prosperity at risk.

But the window to keep global warming below 2C has "almost closed", it warns. ...


For real? Or a smoke-screen for "business as usual"?



This is 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 just read the news on the CNN site. Seems even though the scientists had a bias they were still able to report the data honestly. Hmmmmm dang liberals

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I just read the news on the CNN site. Seems even though the scientists had a bias they were still able to report the data honestly. Hmmmmm dang liberals

Or... Is the bias in the ears and re-interpretation of the listener?...

Well, if the worst complaint is "Seems even though the scientists had a bias they were still able to report the data honestly.", then a full and sincere apology is indeed very long overdue for the severe harassment thrown at various scientists.


Meanwhile, the story rolls on:


Hot Dog Bites Skeptical Man: Koch-Funded Berkeley Temperature Study Does “Confirm the Reality of Global Warming”

Four new papers confirm that “the world is warming fast,” as the Economist summed it up. One paper finds that “the effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible.” Another finds that the work of the scientist-smearing denier Anthony Watts is pure BS. ...


Climate Ethicist: Why Should People in the Future Pay to Clean Up Our Mess?

The global challenge of climate change poses a perfect moral storm — by failing to take action to rein in carbon emissions, the current generation is spreading the costs of its behavior far into the future. Why should people in the future pay to clean up our mess? ...


Steven Chu Compares Climate Disinformation Campaign to Tobacco Industry’s Efforts

The AP reports on our Nobel prize-winning physicist Energy Secretary, Steven Chu:

The U.S. energy secretary says the debate about climate change reminds him of the old argument that smoking isn’t bad for you.

Steven Chu also urged greater investment in clean energy as he spoke Tuesday in Paris to an International Energy Agency meeting of energy ministers and industry leaders.

He says that because the evidence of climate change is growing more compelling and the price is oil is likely to rise, countries must turn to clean-energy production.

Chu criticized attempts to “muddy the waters” on climate change science.

He said the debate in the U.S. reminds him of what he “heard as a young person growing up about how cigarette smoking was not really bad for your health.” ...



I wonder if Mr Watts-Up is himself all a-wonder with what's up with his own approach?

Perhaps now after all that "BS" has been blown up, we can at last quickly move onto doing something useful and positive.

There is only so much patience towards those trying to create a "Titanic" out of the world for everyone... On the present course, are we headed for a new Revolution?...


This is our only world,
Martin

---

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

... still not scary.

What is scary is your disregard and apparent lack of concern for the rest of the world.

Enjoy your dreamworld whilst you can,

There may be a medication for your consistently hysterical fear of things you do not understand. You might look into it.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult