| Heaven Forbid - It's Warming - We may leave our current Ice Age05-08-2017 01:08 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
If you look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated.jpg
you will discover that Earth is presently in an ice age. This is something that appears to have gone over the heads of Al Gore and his cronies that are trying to scare people that we may actually LEAVE our Ice Age and go to a normal climate.
If we are presently in an Ice Age exactly why would people think that we should continue on with it? |
| 05-08-2017 02:57 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up": If'n we is presently in a Ice Age exactly....
Correction:
If'n we is presently in a ICE AGE, let's back up the climate 20,000 years & see if'n that Ice Age fits us'n better....inexactly.
Edited on 05-08-2017 02:58 |
| 05-08-2017 04:33 |
still learning★★☆☆☆
(244) |
Wake wrote:
......If we are presently in an Ice Age exactly why would people think that we should continue on with it?
It's what we're used to.
The graph you linked to shows that there are known to have been five distinct "ice ages," including the current one. The term "ice age" in this case referring to a period in which there are year-round polar ice sheets.
This sort of formal definition of an "ice age" is divided into glacial-interglacial periods (there is also a division into stadial-interstadial periods.) Informally, especially in the press, an ice age refers to a time when ice caps have advanced out of polar areas to lower latitudes where lots of people now live.
Formally, we're in an interglacial period of an ice age. Probably most folks here in the US, if asked, would say that we're not in an ice age though. In grade school most of us learn a little about woolly mammoths and the last glacial advance here in North America and sort of assume that "ice age" refers only to what is actually a glacial period within a much longer ice age.
Outside of an ice age, with no polar ice caps, sealevel is considerably higher, perhaps 200 meters higher. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/Filehanerozoic_Sea_Level.png[/url]
Two hundred meters of sealevel rise? A lot of folks live in that two hundred meters.
Natural climate changes occur slowly. |
| 05-08-2017 21:25 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......If we are presently in an Ice Age exactly why would people think that we should continue on with it?
It's what we're used to.
The graph you linked to shows that there are known to have been five distinct "ice ages," including the current one. The term "ice age" in this case referring to a period in which there are year-round polar ice sheets.
This sort of formal definition of an "ice age" is divided into glacial-interglacial periods (there is also a division into stadial-interstadial periods.) Informally, especially in the press, an ice age refers to a time when ice caps have advanced out of polar areas to lower latitudes where lots of people now live.
Formally, we're in an interglacial period of an ice age. Probably most folks here in the US, if asked, would say that we're not in an ice age though. In grade school most of us learn a little about woolly mammoths and the last glacial advance here in North America and sort of assume that "ice age" refers only to what is actually a glacial period within a much longer ice age.
Outside of an ice age, with no polar ice caps, sealevel is considerably higher, perhaps 200 meters higher. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/Filehanerozoic_Sea_Level.png[/url]
Two hundred meters of sealevel rise? A lot of folks live in that two hundred meters.
Natural climate changes occur slowly.
I don't believe that the Earth has "snowball Earth" ice ages anymore. That means that Ice Ages are like the little ice age only longer - very cold winters and advancing glaciers at mid latitudes. I was looking at an illustration of the Thames in the Dalton Minimum and it showed and entire fair on the river with horses and carriages carrying people and ice skating. The atmosphere is a really large place and I believe that any warming is recovery from that. After all it ended approximately 1790-1850. |
| 06-08-2017 12:37 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
If we are presently in an Ice Age exactly why would people think that we should continue on with it?
Even though we are in an "ice age," that ice age has been going on since humans have been around. And we are very accustomed to it. So is the rest of our world. The world will survive what we are going through, but not without major consequences to life. The problem is related to how long it takes fauna [including humans] to migrate. Forests don't just pack up and start heading north, any more than cities do. The die off will exceed expansion for years to come, and when it is over, most people and many species of animals will no longer exist. |
|
| 06-08-2017 18:18 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
If we are presently in an Ice Age exactly why would people think that we should continue on with it?
Even though we are in an "ice age," that ice age has been going on since humans have been around. And we are very accustomed to it. So is the rest of our world. The world will survive what we are going through, but not without major consequences to life. The problem is related to how long it takes fauna [including humans] to migrate. Forests don't just pack up and start heading north, any more than cities do. The die off will exceed expansion for years to come, and when it is over, most people and many species of animals will no longer exist.
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear? |
| 06-08-2017 20:41 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
If we are presently in an Ice Age exactly why would people think that we should continue on with it?
Even though we are in an "ice age," that ice age has been going on since humans have been around. And we are very accustomed to it. So is the rest of our world. The world will survive what we are going through, but not without major consequences to life. The problem is related to how long it takes fauna [including humans] to migrate. Forests don't just pack up and start heading north, any more than cities do. The die off will exceed expansion for years to come, and when it is over, most people and many species of animals will no longer exist.
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
It sure sounds like it to me also. Perhaps:
1) he doesn't like change.
2) he believes the 'end of the world' predictions from the Church of Global Warming.
3) is willing to quote all of the manufactured data he can muster to support his religion.
4) is unwilling to admit that animals, plants, forests, and even towns can and often do move even fairly rapidly due to changing conditions. Those conditions are not related to temperature changes of a few degrees.
5) He has forgotten or is unwilling to recognize that daily and seasonal changes in regional temperature are a LOT wider than anything predicted by the Church of Global Warming.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-08-2017 20:44 |
| 07-08-2017 08:08 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 07-08-2017 09:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
Wow. You really are into the 'end of the world is nigh' belief, aren't you?
Since you believe so strongly in the Church of Global Warming, it is YOU that has to live with your own fear. It must really suck to have an outlook like yours.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 10:36 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wow. You really are into the 'end of the world is nigh' belief, aren't you?
Since you believe so strongly in the Church of Global Warming, it is YOU that has to live with your own fear. It must really suck to have an outlook like yours.
Not even close to the "end of the world," Parrot. Could be gaining on the end of humanity though. And you shouldn't mistake concern for fear. One is the result of understanding that there is a problem down the road, the other is an understanding that there is an immediate problem.
I already know that it's too late to prevent catastrophic warming of the earth's surface, because of the amount of greenhouse gases already present and how long it takes for the primary one to dissipate. So I know that it doesn't matter how many people you confuse into not reacting, because even if everyone reacted appropriately, it would still get too hot for people and most other inhabitants of earth. The only real solution is to get ready for the inevitable.
Perhaps you need another name for me. I'm not your run of the mill tree hugger, trying to get you to reduce your reliance on fossil fuel. Oh yeah, you pointed out that fossils don't make good fuel. Why don't you take that up with the next lump of coal you come across?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 07-08-2017 17:53 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy. |
| 07-08-2017 19:08 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-08-2017 19:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others. |
| 07-08-2017 19:25 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others.
I can read what he wrote and see that he is making a prediction not wishing that fate upon people.
I can also see what you write is just random spiteful attacks and not addressing the points raised.
I suppose it's not your fault, dementia is a horrible disease.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-08-2017 19:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wow. You really are into the 'end of the world is nigh' belief, aren't you?
Since you believe so strongly in the Church of Global Warming, it is YOU that has to live with your own fear. It must really suck to have an outlook like yours.
Not even close to the "end of the world," Parrot.
Still confused I see. I am not a parrot. I kill parrots for entertainment purposes.
Your scenario sounds just like any other 'end of the world is nigh' scare tactic I hear from the fundamentalist Christians.
GreenMan wrote:
Could be gaining on the end of humanity though.
They say the same thing.
GreenMan wrote:
And you shouldn't mistake concern for fear.
Your only concern is fear mongering.
GreenMan wrote:
One is the result of understanding that there is a problem down the road, the other is an understanding that there is an immediate problem.
There IS an immediate problem. It is idiots like you that keep pushing the Church of Karl Marx on as many people as you can. If it takes the Church of Global Warming to do it, that's your tool.
GreenMan wrote:
I already know that it's too late to prevent catastrophic warming of the earth's surface,
You don't know the temperature of the Earth. No one does.
GreenMan wrote:
because of the amount of greenhouse gases already present
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Your Holy Gas, carbon dioxide, does not warm the Earth. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
and how long it takes for the primary one to dissipate.
CO2 doesn't 'dissipate'. It is a natural part of our atmosphere. You wouldn't be alive to fear monger without it. It currently has a concentration of around 0.04% of our atmosphere (according to the Mauna Loa observatory, one of very few stations even capable of measuring CO2 concentration. There are problems with this number being used to describe global concentrations. There are also problems with the instrument design.).
GreenMan wrote:
So I know that it doesn't matter how many people you confuse into not reacting, because even if everyone reacted appropriately, it would still get too hot for people and most other inhabitants of earth. The only real solution is to get ready for the inevitable.
So how many chicken entrails are you using to make your predictions?
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you need another name for me. I'm not your run of the mill tree hugger,
Oh...you're a special tree hugger, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
trying to get you to reduce your reliance on fossil fuel.
I don't rely on fossil fuels. Fossils don't burn.
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, you pointed out that fossils don't make good fuel.
They don't.
GreenMan wrote:
Why don't you take that up with the next lump of coal you come across?
Coal is not a fossil. It is primarily amorphous carbon. An element of the periodic table is not a fossil. It may contain fossils embedded within it though.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 07-08-2017 19:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
Fortunately, we also have actual scientists working to make it easier to grow more food more efficiently and in poorer growing conditions. They've been successful too. We now have safer ways to deal with pests, produce crops that don't need as much water as before, make use of poorer soils than before, etc.
America not only feeds the world, it is helping the world to feed itself. Part of the benefits of theories of science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 19:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
It is part of the reason.
spot wrote:
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
Fear mongering is fear mongering. Greenman wants people to join his (and your) religion, plain and simple.
spot wrote:
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
Not true. Death threats have occasionally happened on this forum before since the forum opened. Usually they come from members of the Church of Global Warming.
spot wrote:
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
Most people here tend to discuss whatever goes through their mind. Surely you've notice that? You have also.
If you want to talk about 'climate change', try first defining what 'climate change' actually is without using circular definitions, not even the one layer circular definitions by resorting to 'greenhouse effect'.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 19:42 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others.
I can read what he wrote and see that he is making a prediction not wishing that fate upon people.
Yes. He is making a prediction. As far as I can tell he is using chicken entrails to do it.
Did you provide him with the chicken?
spot wrote:
I can also see what you write is just random spiteful attacks and not addressing the points raised.
Actually, Wake does tend to address the points you worshipers are trying to make. Resorting to lies isn't helping your case.
spot wrote:
I suppose it's not your fault, dementia is a horrible disease.
Resorting to insults isn't helping your case either. Both lies and insults are not arguments...they are fallacies.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 20:17 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others.
I can read what he wrote and see that he is making a prediction not wishing that fate upon people.
Yes. He is making a prediction. As far as I can tell he is using chicken entrails to do it.
Did you provide him with the chicken?
spot wrote:
I can also see what you write is just random spiteful attacks and not addressing the points raised.
Actually, Wake does tend to address the points you worshipers are trying to make. Resorting to lies isn't helping your case.
spot wrote:
I suppose it's not your fault, dementia is a horrible disease.
Resorting to insults isn't helping your case either. Both lies and insults are not arguments...they are fallacies.
At least you can see what his intentions are, as for Wake addressing points, he sticks to the subject more then you but that's not saying allot, very few have the patience for endless sophomoric discussions that you seem to like.
The fact is he has threatened people, he threatened me and as I recall he threatened you as a matter of fact. Someone who acts like that has zero credibility.
My saying that he has dementia is not an insult but the only rational explanation for his behaviour.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-08-2017 20:18 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others.
I can read what he wrote and see that he is making a prediction not wishing that fate upon people.
I can also see what you write is just random spiteful attacks and not addressing the points raised.
I suppose it's not your fault, dementia is a horrible disease.
What you can see is a man without one iota of scientific training making a "prediction". Such are NOT predictions but wishes.
And you still haven't explain how 36 scientist who signed the Mainau declaration (out of 65 who were at that meeting), none of whom were climate scientist could know anything about climate change other than what they were told?
Exactly why are you avoiding this? Is it too painful to know that you haven't one single leg to stand on? That your own mouth puts you deeper and deeper in debt? |
| 07-08-2017 20:31 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
The fact is he has threatened people, he threatened me and as I recall he threatened you as a matter of fact. Someone who acts like that has zero credibility.
My saying that he has dementia is not an insult but the only rational explanation for his behaviour.
And believe me - if I can find you I will more than follow up on my threats. So why don't you give me your full proper name and address and you can test my resolve. |
| 07-08-2017 20:33 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others.
I can read what he wrote and see that he is making a prediction not wishing that fate upon people.
I can also see what you write is just random spiteful attacks and not addressing the points raised.
I suppose it's not your fault, dementia is a horrible disease.
What you can see is a man without one iota of scientific training making a "prediction". Such are NOT predictions but wishes.
And you still haven't explain how 36 scientist who signed the Mainau declaration (out of 65 who were at that meeting), none of whom were climate scientist could know anything about climate change other than what they were told?
Exactly why are you avoiding this? Is it too painful to know that you haven't one single leg to stand on? That your own mouth puts you deeper and deeper in debt?
So we are to believe that you are a superior intellect then the 36 noble prize winners who only believe in global warming because of what they are told I.E reasons that can read up on if one is so inclined where as you with your credentials know its a hoax for some reason that you so far failed to demonstrate.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-08-2017 20:36 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The fact is he has threatened people, he threatened me and as I recall he threatened you as a matter of fact. Someone who acts like that has zero credibility.
My saying that he has dementia is not an insult but the only rational explanation for his behaviour.
And believe me - if I can find you I will more than follow up on my threats. So why don't you give me your full proper name and address and you can test my resolve.
Honest answer; Because you are crazy and there is a chance you would buy a plane ticket and fly over here and show up on my door with a gun.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 07-08-2017 21:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Do you actually believe that the ending of an ice age is something to fear?
No, it's not the ending of an ice age that concerns me, it's the die-off that precedes that ending that is of concern. That die-off occurs when our farmland no longer produces, as a result of heat and drought. And of course, there are a list of other things that will happen as we approach that point in time, none of which are good. Nations will fight over scarce resources as our resources begin to dwindle [it's not like we will wake up one morning, and all the farmland is gone]. Climate refugees will become a problem for those who are lucky enough to have a piece of dry land that produces. And of course, diseases will run rampant. Of course, there will also be gangs of people, walking the streets [mostly former Global Warming Deniers] looking for people with food, so they can kill them and take their food.
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
The reason we are growing more food is not increased CO2 levels.
No matter how likely or unlikely I think the picture that Greenman paints is; I don't think Greenman wants the outcome that he is describing anymore then Cassandra wanted Troy to be destroyed, I don't think you can read.
As for evil you are the only person on this forum that has actively wished death on another individual.
He might naively thought a place called Climate debate forum might have been a place to discuss the implications of climate change, rather then whatever goes through your mind.
So YOU don't think? One of the specialties of you morons is speaking for others.
I can read what he wrote and see that he is making a prediction not wishing that fate upon people.
I can also see what you write is just random spiteful attacks and not addressing the points raised.
I suppose it's not your fault, dementia is a horrible disease.
What you can see is a man without one iota of scientific training making a "prediction". Such are NOT predictions but wishes.
And you still haven't explain how 36 scientist who signed the Mainau declaration (out of 65 who were at that meeting), none of whom were climate scientist could know anything about climate change other than what they were told?
Exactly why are you avoiding this? Is it too painful to know that you haven't one single leg to stand on? That your own mouth puts you deeper and deeper in debt?
So we are to believe that you are a superior intellect then the 36 noble prize winners who only believe in global warming because of what they are told I.E reasons that can read up on if one is so inclined where as you with your credentials know its a hoax for some reason that you so far failed to demonstrate.
It doesn't matter what they say. It's a religious statement.
Science is not a Nobel or any other prize.
Science is not a credential.
You can't even define what 'global warming' actually means. You can't even define what 'climate change' actually means. No one has been able to define either term without using circular definitions, a hallmark of a religion.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 22:05 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote: So we are to believe that you are a superior intellect then the 36 noble prize winners who only believe in global warming because of what they are told I.E reasons that can read up on if one is so inclined where as you with your credentials know its a hoax for some reason that you so far failed to demonstrate.
We? WE? HALF of the Nobel laureates at that meeting thought that those neurologists and biologists were crazy for signing a declaration about something entirely out of their expertise.
But YOU are now telling us that a biologist knows more about climate change than I do.
This isn't just a hoax - it is criminal. NOAA and NASA have purposely counterfeited data and they are in the process of having their budgets cut because of that. |
| 07-08-2017 22:41 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
We? WE? HALF of the Nobel laureates at that meeting thought that those neurologists and biologists were crazy for signing a declaration about something entirely out of their expertise.
Nope, you just made that up. Liar. |
| 07-08-2017 22:44 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: So we are to believe that you are a superior intellect then the 36 noble prize winners who only believe in global warming because of what they are told I.E reasons that can read up on if one is so inclined where as you with your credentials know its a hoax for some reason that you so far failed to demonstrate.
We? WE? HALF of the Nobel laureates at that meeting thought that those neurologists and biologists were crazy for signing a declaration about something entirely out of their expertise.
But YOU are now telling us that a biologist knows more about climate change than I do.
This isn't just a hoax - it is criminal. NOAA and NASA have purposely counterfeited data and they are in the process of having their budgets cut because of that.
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 22:52 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/ |
| 07-08-2017 23:16 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
You might try quoting government budget records instead of news agencies and blogs.
The government does write this stuff down you know.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 23:16 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
Edited on 07-08-2017 23:17 |
|
| 07-08-2017 23:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
So...you would rather have all scientists work for the government, eh? THAT sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Unfortunately, government funding is the sole source for most scientists.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-08-2017 00:14 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
So...you would rather have all scientists work for the government, eh? THAT sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Unfortunately, government funding is the sole source for most scientists.
No, I didn't say or imply that at all. |
| 08-08-2017 00:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
So...you would rather have all scientists work for the government, eh? THAT sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Unfortunately, government funding is the sole source for most scientists.
No, I didn't say or imply that at all.
It's right there in black and gray over several posts. Now you deny it all???
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-08-2017 00:24 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
So...you would rather have all scientists work for the government, eh? THAT sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Unfortunately, government funding is the sole source for most scientists.
No, I didn't say or imply that at all.
It's right there in black and gray over several posts. Now you deny it all???
Where have I said that I'd rather have all scientists work for the government? |
| 08-08-2017 00:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
So...you would rather have all scientists work for the government, eh? THAT sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Unfortunately, government funding is the sole source for most scientists.
No, I didn't say or imply that at all.
It's right there in black and gray over several posts. Now you deny it all???
Where have I said that I'd rather have all scientists work for the government?
You didn't. You inferred it by lamenting over the loss of government funding for scientists.
Government funding of science IS the problem.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-08-2017 00:47 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Well...at least their increases are less than they hoped for. Their budgets were not cut.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/30/6-ways-noaa-budget-cuts-will-hurt-weather-reporting-and-americans
http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
Here in the rational part of the world, we find it rather chilling that the current US administration is threatening to cut the budgets of scientists who don't produce the politically desired results. It echoes the behaviour of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
So...you would rather have all scientists work for the government, eh? THAT sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Unfortunately, government funding is the sole source for most scientists.
No, I didn't say or imply that at all.
It's right there in black and gray over several posts. Now you deny it all???
Where have I said that I'd rather have all scientists work for the government?
You didn't. You inferred it by lamenting over the loss of government funding for scientists.
Government funding of science IS the problem.
No, that's a logic glitch on your part. Lamenting the loss of government funding for scientists who disagree with the party line is not the same as wanting all scientists to work for the government! What I want is for those scientists who do happen to work for the government to be free of intimidation (such as the threat of job losses) if they produce politically inconvenient results.
Mind you, it's not all bad. The USA's loss will be Europe's gain. Your best brains will have a warm welcome here as your country lurches back towards medieval superstition and anti-intellectualism. |
| 08-08-2017 01:58 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Wake wrote:
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
Wake, what makes you think my dream includes the death of hundreds of millions? How do you know that my dream doesn't include the lives of millions, those who live through what the likes of you are causing?
I'm aware as everyone else is too, that CO2 is a necessity for life on the planet. Plants do need it to live, the same as we need oxygen. I'm thinking that little kids are still being taught that in school. And I'm also aware that just because a little is good, that it doesn't mean that a lot is even better. In the case of CO2, a lot is disastrous, because of its warming affect on the planet. The heating affect we receive from CO2 is not linear. It increases exponentially. This is the algorithm to solve for the amount of heat being applied to the earth, from the sun, and greenhouse gases, and dust.
H=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((F5^4)/Y$1)+((H5^4)/Y$2)+(J5^4)/Y$3))
H - Heat W/m2
C - Insolation W/m2
D - Dust ng/g
F - CO2 ppmv
H - CH4 ppbv
J - N20 ppbv
Y$1 - Constant 1,000,000,000
Y$2 - Constant 250,000,000,000
Y$3 - Constant 1,000,000,000,000
That is the Climate Code Algorithm, and it is how I produced the chart that is attached, which shows the earth's climate for the last 800,000 years, as well as the model's guestimate of what the climate should have been. If you know what the current values are, you can determine what the control knob is currently set on. If you know anything about temperature control, you know that the controlled element will eventually reach the same temperature as the heat source. It's just a matter of time.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:
 |
| 08-08-2017 02:32 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are a moron - because of the increased CO2 farm production has never been higher. The entire globe is exploding with farm production since plants grow larger and more productive with less water under these conditions.
You think that this is going to change? You are an idiot. Photosynthesis cuts OFF at about 200 ppm of CO2 and we were at 280 ppm in the late 1800's.
If anything the world is feeding 6 times more people now than at that time and you want to return to that.
Your dream is the death of hundreds of millions. Nice guy.
Wake, what makes you think my dream includes the death of hundreds of millions? How do you know that my dream doesn't include the lives of millions, those who live through what the likes of you are causing?
I'm aware as everyone else is too, that CO2 is a necessity for life on the planet. Plants do need it to live, the same as we need oxygen. I'm thinking that little kids are still being taught that in school. And I'm also aware that just because a little is good, that it doesn't mean that a lot is even better. In the case of CO2, a lot is disastrous, because of its warming affect on the planet. The heating affect we receive from CO2 is not linear. It increases exponentially. This is the algorithm to solve for the amount of heat being applied to the earth, from the sun, and greenhouse gases, and dust.
H=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((F5^4)/Y$1)+((H5^4)/Y$2)+(J5^4)/Y$3))
H - Heat W/m2
C - Insolation W/m2
D - Dust ng/g
F - CO2 ppmv
H - CH4 ppbv
J - N20 ppbv
Y$1 - Constant 1,000,000,000
Y$2 - Constant 250,000,000,000
Y$3 - Constant 1,000,000,000,000
That is the Climate Code Algorithm, and it is how I produced the chart that is attached, which shows the earth's climate for the last 800,000 years, as well as the model's guestimate of what the climate should have been. If you know what the current values are, you can determine what the control knob is currently set on. If you know anything about temperature control, you know that the controlled element will eventually reach the same temperature as the heat source. It's just a matter of time.
Firstly CO2 doesn't effect the climate. What your chart is is hooey. CO2 is a TRACE gas and since it composes but .04% of the atmosphere anyone with the slightest training would tell you that thermal energy is moved in the Troposphere via conduction and convection. That radiation occurs for the most part only in the Stratosphere or above. There are several studies showing just that.
About every millennia for the last 10,000 years or so we have had a climatological warm period - we have hard evidence for the last one - the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the little ice age and it was warmer than today.
We also have hard evidence of CO2 levels within the last 2,000 years as high or higher than today using plant stomata evidence. There was the Roman Warm Period in the time of Christ and another a millennia before that.
The present warm period STARTED in 1886 long before man had the capacity to effect the CO2 levels. What's more you SHOWED the satellite data that demonstrated that since 1979 there has been an average of ZERO change in Earth's MGT. Of course you didn't even know how to interpret that but you tried to get a run. This year will be considerably colder on the average and the usual weather patterns suggest that it will be colder for several years after that.
Why would YOU have to produce anything since that is a formula used by the government and is in the archives?
Are you the one that admitted to no credentials in science?
Time for you to revert to your only out - "IT IS BIG OIL ASSAULTING US". |
| 08-08-2017 08:48 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Wake wrote:
Firstly CO2 doesn't effect the climate. What your chart is is hooey. CO2 is a TRACE gas and since it composes but .04% of the atmosphere anyone with the slightest training would tell you that thermal energy is moved in the Troposphere via conduction and convection. That radiation occurs for the most part only in the Stratosphere or above. There are several studies showing just that.
About every millennia for the last 10,000 years or so we have had a climatological warm period - we have hard evidence for the last one - the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the little ice age and it was warmer than today.
We also have hard evidence of CO2 levels within the last 2,000 years as high or higher than today using plant stomata evidence. There was the Roman Warm Period in the time of Christ and another a millennia before that.
The present warm period STARTED in 1886 long before man had the capacity to effect the CO2 levels. What's more you SHOWED the satellite data that demonstrated that since 1979 there has been an average of ZERO change in Earth's MGT. Of course you didn't even know how to interpret that but you tried to get a run. This year will be considerably colder on the average and the usual weather patterns suggest that it will be colder for several years after that.
Why would YOU have to produce anything since that is a formula used by the government and is in the archives?
Are you the one that admitted to no credentials in science?
Time for you to revert to your only out - "IT IS BIG OIL ASSAULTING US".
Wake, the only way you would know if something was hooey or not would be that someone else told you, because you don't have enough intelligence to analyze the simplest of problems, much less complex ones like we are discussing. So your opinion on my Climate Model isn't valid. Analyze it first, then we can talk about it.
Your argument that it got warmer before is total nonsense. Of course it has been warmer before, and then it cooled back down. Your argument then is simply making the assumption that it will cool down on its own, without any kind of intervention from people. And I suspect that the reason you think it will cool off the next several years is because that is what it did following 1998. But you are wrong about both assumptions, my simple minded fool.
You are also wrong about where the algorithm that I presented came from. The government doesn't have it yet. It originated from my mind. You see, little douche, though I am not a scientist, I am an engineer, and writing algorithms is what I do for a living. So it's not outside my field of expertise to create temperature control algorithms, which is what that is. I merely applied what I could find out about the Greenhouse Affect, and available data. From there it was just a matter of working out the ratios. As anyone can see from the graph I presented, I was able to work the ratios out quite well.
And since you are all concerned about everyone else's credentials, could you please state what gives you the right to be here, harassing those who want to learn about Global Warming? What are your credentials? I'm sure those who pay you to troll this forum made sure they weren't just paying an idiot to say stupid things. If so, they could get my cousin a lot cheaper than what you work for.
And your argument that a TRACE gas can't possible be a driving factor in the earth's climate is ridiculous, and isn't even used by any serious trolls anymore. It's just too stupid.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 08-08-2017 15:42 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote: Wake, the only way you would know if something was hooey or not would be that someone else told you, because you don't have enough intelligence to analyze the simplest of problems, much less complex ones like we are discussing. So your opinion on my Climate Model isn't valid. Analyze it first, then we can talk about it.
I thought that we had settled that you have no scientific credentials? On the other hand I've done the design and programming for a machine that use Polymerase Chain Reaction that won our chief chemist a Nobel Prize, identified HIV in the blood banking system and saved literally millions of lives world wide. Then I expanded it to be the first DNA analyzer. And my partner, Dr. Michael McCown, who handled the chemistry side of the project was given a full professorship at the University of Connecticutt.
I am the go-to man for Charley Button who has many, many engineering awards including at least two Emmy Awards.
I have worked in gas and liquid chromatography, I developed the first working poison gas detector for the military so that they could protect their men from those WMD that jackasses like you were saying weren't there.
I did the initial calculations on the expansion of the aorta for the first real heart/lung machine.
I increased the power for the UC Berkeley linear accelerator. I worked in quantum physics.
Tell us again what YOU have done? That is besides shoot your stupid mouth off pretending to know something because you read it from some man who read it from some man who misinterpreted it from some other man. |