sunsettommy

A good time to post this. Dark Hour - a Sign of the Times http://carbon-sense.com/2008/03/28/dark-ho...-times/#more-64 Note how governments are listening to the wrong people.

We have yet to consume half of KNOWN reserves we ever discovered.200 billion more barrels just recently reported in America available for drilling. The AGW hysteria is disrupting the marketing of oil.If the governments and environmentalists would stop meddling.There would a greater speed of developing and using alternative fuels.But now the brain dead politicians are slowing it all down because of Carbon tax and other proposals.Creating uncertainty in the energy market. It would be really nice if the idiots (politicians and environmentalists) would stop fighting the use of Nuclear plants construction with known ZERO CO2 emissions.The high level waste is a problem only because politics are in the way.Environmentalists are the problem since Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 emissions.They oppose it anyway.Because they are drooling stupid.

I go to all that trouble replying your links.Then when it was apparent that I showed how little they added to the discussion that was based on solid scientific ground.The extinction events are still speculative. You DUCKED! LOL The birth rates the world over are in decline.It is now estimated that around the year 2060.There will no longer be any more population growth at all.Many nations are in negative population growth now.Such as Japan,Italy,Spain and yes even the native American birth rate is below replacement rate. I would think it would be better use of those $$$ if they were spent on better medicine.sanitation,birth control and more.Than to chase the CO2 nonsense.Where the desired results will be negligible. The waste of TRILLIONS on the effort of reducing CO2 emissions is stupid!

To further expose the acidification of the oceans will doom us all in 91+ years baloney. Here is I am quoting myself from GWS forum. "Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2 Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2 In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2 Vegetation,Soils and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2 Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT C." Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year. The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years. CO2 is NOT a pollution." The IPCC supports what I just quoted. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm As you can see that the ocean has most of the CO2 already.

Aside from your hypocritical attack on Kirtland Griffin.I will not bug you about Will Baid who is a computer systems analysis. The link YOU provided has little to say about CO2.It is built on a number of wikipedia links and other links. Siberian Traps--- A wikipedia entry Douglas Erwin--- A simple BIO page Deccan Traps--- A wikipedia entry form of ices---- A wikipedia entry better greenhouse gas---- A wikipedia entry simulations---- A paper built on modeling simulations whacking the ozone and unleashes a lot of normally blocked ultraviolet light---- Another modeling simulation encouraged growth of anaerobic bacteria---- quoted from this link: "Pedro Marenco, a doctoral student in Bottjer's lab, has been testing a leading theory for the P-T extinction: that a warming of the earth and a slowdown in ocean circulation made it harder to replace the oxygen sucked out of the water by marine organisms. According to the theory, microbes would have saturated the water with hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic chemical. For a mass extinction "you really needed a good killer, and it [hydrogen sulfide] is really nasty stuff," Bottjer said." No mention of CO2 in the article Extinction---- An Amazon book for sale fungal spike'---- A wikipedia entry It is silly to state that Methane is a much more powerful GHG than CO2.It is simply meaningless.Because water vapor swamps the very frequencies that Methane falls in (which is negligible).Not only that it is far less common GHG than CO2 which in itself is a trace atmospheric GH gas. Methane blocks a very tiny amount of all possible outgoing IR.Since Will Baird is fond of an easily edited source (wikipedia) I will post this link to show how negligible methane is as an IR absorber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmosph...ransmission.png The chart is easy to read.Even CO2 is exposed as a minimal GHG as well. I have long known about the "great dying" event.Since having read about it more than 10 years ago.I have two books that talks about it.I am still not convinced on the many speculated possibilities of the main cause of the mass dying. Meanwhile the man you called a crank.Stated openly his lack of credentials. The Economist link.Does not mention any science paper published or not.It was DEVOID of any research reference.This was the closest it went to any sort of science.I quote: Then I read this misleading part: my emphasisBut of course the ocean is strongly alkaline.Even now.Then there are BUFFERING agents in the ocean waters. The Economist was trying to blame CO2.I quote this dishonest misleading B.S. my emphasisCarbonic acid is a weak acid that is easily buffered in the ocean waters. Here is a giant link that really educational on ocean chemistry.The author is a doctorate in the field. http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#intro There is a lot more to know in science than reading misleading climate propaganda.

I noticed that you did not present any credible counterpoint to the ICECAP article.Nor to Riverwind's comments. Just another pointless post you made.Maybe that is because you really have no idea what is going on? The latest reports shows that part of the broken ice shelf section is being refrozen back into the shelf. Imagine that!

Instead of responding to your silly attack on skeptics.How about tackling this link instead?: OCEAN ACIDIFICATION An email from Kirtland C. Griffin [[email protected]] of Guilford, CT In an article in the Economist, Feb 21st 2008, it talks about the acidification of the oceans caused by anthropogenic CO2. It says that if something doesn't change, portions of the world's oceans could no longer support certain forms of aquatic life. Specifically at risk are sponges, corals and brachiopods. The concern relates in part to the huge volcanic eruptions at the end of the Permian Period 252 million years ago. They say that CO2 spewed from the volcanos caused the world's oceans to become more acidic, or probably more correctly, less alkaline. The origin of the concern is a mathematical model. Where have we heard that before? They say that it is not only the reduction in alkalinity that is a concern but that, in conjunction with increasing ocean temperature, is more detrimental than either alone. Of course, the claim is made that this could lead to a domino effect and who knows what could happen if we continue to emit green house gas pollution? my emphasis http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ AGW believers are getting desperate.Global Warming has not been happening since 2001.So they are now pushing the even less supported idea that acidification of the ocean is near the level of destruction of ocean life.At least in large areas of the waters.

The title is incorrect.

The photos in the link Jazzer are very nice. But the "bad" news it really is not. Here is the more honest assessment of the ever changing ice shelf. Mar 25, 2008 Misleading Reports About Antarctica By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM EXCERPT: Last year when Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. They focused on the north polar regions where the ice set record low levels. This summer when unprecedented anomalous cover continued in the Southern Hemisphere again no coverage. Then this report in the news today. You probably saw it on your favorite network or internet news site (pick one, anyone). http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The media hardly peeps a word about the new record sea ice extent of last winter and the and currently well above sea ice average extent heading into winter.But when a tiny sliver beaks off.They go bananas. Selective reporting bias is what I see.

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" No what it did was erase all of the warming anomoly as according to the 1961-1990 anomoly. There is still about .15 degrees left to erase. The La Ninya of 1999 was actually colder than this one.So was the 1996 La-ninya. That quote is simply wrong.

From the link: "As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth." 2 of the 3 CO2 bands have negligible absorptive powers.They can be safely ignored.

Forum rules: "But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?" Does attempt to stimulate discussion. Check Two paragraphs long Check It is not found anywhere else in the forum. check I linked to my forum because the EDITORIAL is in the original.But since some people are irrationally whining over it. Here is the newer version from James Peden himself! http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html Meanwhile: Forum rules, How many people here has been discussing the contents of the EDITORIAL?

That is because you have no point to make on the editorial and that you have not discussed the contents of the editorial I posted either. Since posting the editorial in 3 forums and seeing it in 2 more in the last week.I have yet to get an actual counterpoint to the editorial. I think that is because you and other people do not have one. Look at the others in the thread.They are not even on the topic of the editorial at all.Maybe because the editorial is good and they simply want to discuss some other topic of "climate change"?

Meaning that you have nothing to offer in the form of a counterpoint with the posted editorial. The planet earth CO2 levels in at least the last 1 BILLION years.Has never exceeded 10,000 ppm.Meaning less than 1% of the atmosphere by volume. See why Venus is a red herring?

It appears that no one has any complaints about the content of the editorial. Venis is not the subject of the editorial.It is a red herring. Why not stick with the atmosphere of earth instead?

Wow what a smarmy reply! Is there a forum rule that states that the person starting a thread MUST comment first? You missed this part: Editor's Science Bio I think he is more than a web designer. I know a lot about the ARGO project.Since I posted that at my forum last week .I have been correcting AGWer's over it too in two forums. James Peden gave me permission to post this in its entirety at my forum.I simply connected to it from here.Because it is in the ORIGINAL form.Since there has been no debate over the editorial.I have no reason to update it.Yes James has changed part of his editorial. Your attitude here is repelling and irrational. Try debating instead.

No comments over this Editorial?

It works fine as it is.

Jim Pedan has given us permission to post this in it's entirety at my forum. Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax? EXCERPT: Editor's Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily "global". However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that. But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies? http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modu...?name=Jim_Peden

Drea: Do you know how that organization got started? He he he............ One of my brothers was a scientologist for many years.He was brainwashed and nearly blew his health over it.Skinny as a rail and bad teeth. He finally got out along with his wife who was also a scientologist.They were tired of being in the organization.Tired of the poor pay and lack of respect they got for the years of doing significant work. The organiztion is a menace to society.

Translation: Since I can not make credible rebuttals to what he posts on his website.I will instead drag out the endless AGW hogwash by implying that sinister funding sources are all that matters. The second hand smoke lies have long been exposed.The EPA just like the IPCC have been making up claims that are easily blown down.They distort,lie and just plain make bogus arguments to bolster their power game. I see this B.S. a lot now.AGW's have no arguments anymore because they are being CLOBBERED! They know it and that is why they now use one of the following: Smear the writer. Mock the writers educational background. Bash the funding sources. Belittle the skeptics positions. Lie like hell about the issue. Trash a skeptic paper but provide no rebuttals to them. I have seen any or all of them in a single post in other forums. AGW's have lost the argument and now wallow in so much B.S.ing it is sickening. It is apparently too much for AGW's to consider just posting a decent rebuttal attempt to what the writer thinks about global warming.With all the computer games AGW's must play.Discussion is out of the question! There are no reasonable debates anymore.Shoggoth is the ONLY one in this forum who attempts to discuss it reasonably as a AGW believer. I bet that right now not a single AGW believer in this forum even knows what is going on about the suns unusual behavior and what it portends in the near future.Skeptics know all about it of course.I as Site Administrator of a skeptic forum post almost everyday an article discussing something about the topic.Lately it has been about the sun's unusual behavior. There has been no warming since 1998.

I saw that movie recently. It is a terrible and movie. I was amazed that people thought it had any relevance to the topic global warming climate change catastrophic change. Pure crap is what it was.

Stevoh: I have gone over this before with you.I will color it red for you so maybe you remember it later on so that way you don't post the same "I have to make this standard loaded AGW statement" moment. SKEPTICS aknowledge that some human caused warming has occured. Your silly way of asking me to prove a negative exposes your shallow approach to this discussion.Scientists do not do that.Once again you expose your lack of understanding of how science research works. Now here is the moment YOU have been waiting for! THERE ARE NO PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT REFUTES HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. This again exposes your shallow understanding of the subject.They never existed! Drop this crap and go on. What is going on is that skeptics believe that MOST of the warming is NOT human induced.That has been the standard position for a long time now.Skeptics do not believe that CO2 does that much warm forcing and there have been good papers showing that other warm forcing agents have a significant impact. The IPCC themselves admit they know very little about warming/cooling factors outside of CO2. You are just beginning to believe it? LOLOLOLOL!!! I believed it many years ago.That is because it has been warming since the 1850's.I hope you realize that the LIA ended by that time. I told you all this a few months ago when we went over this similar stuff.Were my answers inconvenient to you then? are they inconvenient now? You have no idea what this whole global warming climate change is about.You also show your ignorance on what skeptics think.I am a site administrator of a forum where everyday I read what skeptics think about the AGW claims and what new research that come out showing that CO2 can only be a minor player.I am a skeptic and more and more so as time goes by. I bet that right now you have no idea what is going on about the sun that is so UNUSUAL and what it can mean for us in the next 20 or so years from now.I have posted a number of articles on it at the forum the last few weeks. Maybe you dare come to the forum and see what skeptics read and think.Presently there are ZERO AGW members in the forum.Do you know why? You are being an ass when you do this.It is a stupid debate trick to ask the impossible.There are no such papers. Again: NO SKEPTICS ARE TRYING TO REFUTE HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. Skeptics has long been saying that CO2 is a minor player in the warming.There are other causes such as land use changes,Urbanization of the cities creating heat islands,farming methods,Solar changes,Cosmic Rays and so on.I brought all this up to you a while back and you write as if you have a hole in your head and the words fall out. You are NO skeptic.Just a closet AGW is what you really are.Why not admit it and then I will not think you a liar.

Was he your brother?

LOL, But is a legal requirement to provide an excerpt and a link BACK to the source of the quoted article. Everything I said was correct. It was illegal in its format. There was NO link provided. I have no idea why you got snippy about it. I had no objection to the article he posted.Just the FORMATTING of it. By the way. I should NOT have to do the work to find the source of the article.That was ARAS responsability.Surely you knew that. If what I did was so horrible to YOU.You are welcomed to run to the moderator about it. By the way the Moderator has edited ARAS post in another thread and said if was because of COPYRIGHT infringement.The very same error ARAS made in this thread. Go here and see for yourself: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry275786