|
|
|
|
|
[1] Posted by Lloyd Parker 07-09-2003, 03:14 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
In article <uqCOa.388899$ro6.9429800@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> ,
"Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote: >From: >http://www.webace.com.au/~wsh/fairy.htm > >Further into Fairyland > >Major Distortions in the IPCC Version of Global Warming / Greenhouse Science Then why wasn't this published in a scientific journal instead of "Bubba's right-wing web site"? > >A review of instances over the last decade where the IPCC has promulgated >their own unique brand of "consensus science". Liar. > >The core position of the IPCC is that "global warming" as measured by CRU >is deemed to be caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect driven by >increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic >emissions from burning of fossil fuels. Since its inception in 1988 the UN >based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken the often >shaky science of greenhouse and driven a political process aimed at >mandatory reductions in fossil fuel emissions. This process manifests itself >to the public by a series of conferences, such as the notable, Rio, Berlin, >Kyoto, all aimed at cajoling sometimes reluctant governments into signing on >to mandatory emission controls. Any enforced reductions in the use of >fossil fuels is likely to increase energy costs to users which will reduce >peoples overall standard of living. > >There are three main pillars to the IPCC scientific position. > >1 The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing due to >burning of fossil fules and warming the planet due to the greenhouse effect >.. > >2 Global temperatures are rising due to 1, which will also cause sea >levels to rise due to polar ice melting.. > >3 Computer models predict even greater temperature and sea level rises >than we have so far seen > >Instances where the IPCC has got the science wrong have been numerous over >the last 12 years but we will list some examples arranged by the subject >groups above. A constant theme in IPCC model outputs / predictions from >1988 has been a steady reduction in the seriousness of indicated increases >of temperature, sea level rise and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. >The effect of this has been that politicians went to the Rio Conference in >1992 influenced by outdated exaggerated data and of course the IPCC nevers >tells policymakers that the problem is not so severe after all. > >1 Carbon Dioxide > >[a] From the very start in 1988 the IPCC published graphics showing >variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide content with temperature over a >period extending back through some of the ice ages. Unfortunately for the >IPCC they drew the wrong conclusion from the graphic which shows increasing >temperature correlating with periods of increased carbon dioxide. The facts >are that rising ocean temperatures coming out of a glacial period would >cause release of carbon dioxide because as High School students know, more >gas dissolves in cold water than hot. So where does all the CO2 from combustions go, into another parallel universe? > Of course the IPCC promulgated the >propaganda that it was rising gas levels driving temperature which suits >their version of the world, when in fact close examination of the data shows >that the temperature rise (or fall) precedes the gas content rise (or fall). > >[b] The IPCC has always overstated the importance of carbon dioxide as a >greenhouse gas and under-estimated the importance of water vapour. You don't understand the science, obviously. > This of >course fitted their fairystory view of the science and filled the need for a >simple version of the science to bring non-scientific politicians and >policymakers onside. I mean you can hardly be convincing a politician of >the need to restrict carbon emissions and at the same time give water vapour >its due position as the most important greenhouse gas. Your metabolism is the most important factor in your body temperature, so you can ignore a virus? >This sort of >pathetically inadequate science has lead to false model inputs and >exaggerated model outputs, the damage just keeps on. > >[c] Following on from global cooling induced by the June 1991 volcanic >eruption of Mount Pinatubo, cooler ocean surfaces dissolved more carbon >dioxide than prior to the eruption which reduced the annual increase in >carbon dioxide for some years. In 1991 the IPCC was declaring that carbon >dioxide was increasing at 1.8 ppm per year and it took the IPCC years to >publicly change its position to the more reasonable 1.5 ppm. So it's increasing. Glad you admit it. > Politics of >denial once again, and another cause of false model inputs & outputs, the >old rubbish in - rubbish out principle. > >[d] From the outset, the IPCC talked about the risk of a "runaway >greenhouse effect" based on the premise that rising temperatures would warm >ocean surfaces driving out carbon dioxide which would in turn drive >temperatures higher leading to a "positive feedback". The only runaway >climate changes apparent are the frequent ice ages that we are subjected to, >frequent in terms of geological time. In all of earths known climate >history there are no instances of runaway hot periods suggesting that >warming might be buffered by negative feedbacks. The absence of an event in the past does not prove it cannot occur. > >[e] You will not find the IPCC talking much about increased plant growth >due to rising carbon dioxide levels. Because it only happens up to a point. > Increasing forest volumes will lead to >an increase in the land carbon sink Then why has the CO2 risen 30%? >but you can be sure that research in >these areas and reporting of research results will likely be warped by >some scientists taking care not to question IPCC dogmas. > >2 Temperature and Sea Levels > >[a] The IPCC has never properly come to terms with the obvious fact that >our planets climate has always gone through natural variations including in >the recent geological past of the last million years, at least four major >ice ages, all long before man was burning fossil fuels. These climate cycles >are thought to be due to subtle cyclic variations in the earths orbit and >spin; with solar fluctions superimposed. More recent climate fluctuations, >all before the industrial era burning of fossil fuels include a warm period >at the time of the Roman Empire, a cool period during the Dark Ages, the >Medieval Climatic Optimum (warm period ) from about 1000 AD to say 1300 AD, >then a cool period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) extending with two cold >troughs, from 1400 to say 1800 AD. > >[b] From the start in 1988 the IPCC made a point about denigrating the >role of variations in solar output in causing climate change. No, that had been studied and cannot explain the entire rise. >The IPCC >position had developed to the silly point where climate change can only be >through the agency of carbon dioxide variations. Liar. They never said that. > This has had the effect of >pushing some solar scientists towards the greenhouse sceptics camp as they >publish findings that clash with IPCC dogmas. > >[c] The wild early IPCC estimates of sea level rise, as evidenced by >pictures used in our schools of the sea a few floors up city buildings, was >mainly due to the IPCC completely misunderstanding the infuence of movements >of the earths crust on tide gauges. The poor dears would have been confused >because many of the worlds great ports (and tide gauges) are in places where >the crust is naturally subsiding, such as river estuaries and drowned >coastlines where subsidence gives the appearance of rising sea levels. Over >the decade estimates of sea level rise have been reduced so much that one >suspects there must be a department there in Fairyland charged with getting >the numbers up again. Of course now we have satellite measurements >accumulating so in decades to come there will be worthwhile time series of >data to analyse. Silly and exaggerated IPCC pronouncements eagerly promoted >by the Media have lead to unreal claims by island states hoping to win >compensation from the West. An example of these unscientific claims is from >the Maldive Islands. > >[d] The IPCC has always played down the importance of the LIA (Little Ice >Age) because the last thing they want is for people to realize that since >about 1800 temperatures have been rebounding in fits and starts from the LIA >cool period. Their dogmas insist that this warming is due to increasing >carbon dioxide levels but this notion is obviously spurious because most of >the temperature rise was pre-1940 and most of the gas increase post 1940. Wrong. Half the rise was 1880-1940 and half 1940-present. And as a % increase, CO2 rose dramatically early on. > >[e] The IPCC has always been happy promoting global temperature trends >over the last 150 years based on land stations which include probably 30% of >city stations where the Urban Heat Island (UHI) has exaggerated the trend. >An issue that is exposed on this web site. Liar. This is taken into account. If you think you've got something, publish it in a scientific journal. > >[f] The IPCC has always minimised the importance of the NASA satellite >based temperature record that commences in 1979 and which to this day shows >very little trend Liar. >and thus is in disagreement with the Jones land based >trend.. Liar. > The integrity of the NASA data has for years been under attack from >greenhouse industry funded scientists. However in recent times the >satellite trends have become more accepted which leaves the thorny issue for >the IPCC that the satellites do not pick up the warming found in the >surface record. Big fat liar. > I would say that is because the satellites are measuring a >layer several kilometers up while the surface data is severely compromised >by having too many stations in UHI's. From a greenhouse theory point of >view it is vital to note that the surface can only be warmed by the >greenhouse first warming the atmosphere which can then warm near surface air >layers. NASA now has a web site highlighting the differences in the two >data sets so this issue is one that will continue to haunt the IPCC. > >[g] One technique the IPCC has used to explain away the small magnitude of >land warming has been to invoke the concept that it is aerosol particles >from industrial pollution that has cooled some of the warming. Like most >IPCC driven notions this one is easily shot down when you realize that the >satellite temperature trend for the southern hemisphere shows slight cooling >( where aerolsols are weakest), while in the more polluted Northern >Hemisphere satellite trends show slight warming. >On my Melbourne Air Quality page Are you a scientist? > a graph is presented showing visibility >data going back 45 years which demonstrates a steady improvement in >visibility, hence reduction in pollutant aerosols over that time. Surely >there is nothing exceptional about Melbourne as an industrial city and many >First World cities could be expected to show a similar improving air quality >trend. > >[h] The Hockey Stick graph portraying temperature variations over the last >millenium is derived from manipulation of tree ring data. It shows current >temperatures as being higher than in the Medieval Climatic Optimum which is >a liitle far fetched I can't help it if your closed mind won't accept facts. >considering the Viking settlements farmed cattle before >being wiped out in the LIA. I am not aware the dairy industry has yet >re-established in Greenland to the extent of activity in Viking times 8-900 >years ago. > >3 Computer Models > >Computer simulations of climate can not yet replicate the past century; Liar. They can and do. >are based on unreasonably high IPCC inspired inputs and assumptions; >and as these imputs have been modified to be slightly less ridiculous over >the last decade, so model results have improved slightly. > >I know of no computer climate model results promoted by the IPCC that do not >look to have come from Fairyland. Because you have a closed-mind. > >Wrap Up > >It has to be said that this entire IPCC / Greenhouse / Global Warming >paradigm could not have caused the scientific infection it has, had >climatology been a larger and more mature branch of science in the 1980's. >It is only a few decades ago that climatology was only taught at a handfull >of universities and pioneers of the science could be counted on a few >fingers. Climatology over century and millenial timescales was pioneered by >geologists, not meteorologists. The implications are that once the >greenhouse paradigm was picked up in the 80's by the coalition of pink & >green bureaucrats and the green industry aided and abetted by the media; >the scientific establishment directly involved in climate studies was so >small that the usual checks and balances that moderate sciences's >interaction with politics, was ineffective in this case. >Throughout the 12 year history of the IPCC you can count on the fingers of >two hands the scientists that have been the driving force behind >greenhouse. Liar. Try reading scientific journals. >Consider that the IPCC is at the center of a "greenhouse >industry" siphoning of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies from schools >& hospitals, Idiot. >to what was previously a minor science and you can understand >why there has been a reluctance among most tenured climate / environment >scientists to question the debatable underpinnings to the entire bandwagon. > >Clearly the world would be a better place if the IPCC was disbanded; >taxpayer funds could be more productively employed and science could settle >down without these huge funding induced distortions. > >Posted 19, February, 2001 > >Warwick Hughes, >globalwarming-news.com > > > And is scientific illiterate. |
|
|
| Sponsored Links | ||
|
|
|
|
[2] Posted by rander3127@rogers.com 07-09-2003, 07:15 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On 9 Jul 2003 18:14:27 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <uqCOa.388899$ro6.9429800@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> , > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote: >>From: >>http://www.webace.com.au/~wsh/fairy.htm >> >>Further into Fairyland >> >>Major Distortions in the IPCC Version of Global Warming / Greenhouse Science > >Then why wasn't this published in a scientific journal instead of "Bubba's >right-wing web site"? > > >> >>A review of instances over the last decade where the IPCC has promulgated >>their own unique brand of "consensus science". > >Liar. > >> >>The core position of the IPCC is that "global warming" as measured by CRU >>is deemed to be caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect driven by >>increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic >>emissions from burning of fossil fuels. Since its inception in 1988 the UN >>based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken the often >>shaky science of greenhouse and driven a political process aimed at >>mandatory reductions in fossil fuel emissions. This process manifests itself >>to the public by a series of conferences, such as the notable, Rio, Berlin, >>Kyoto, all aimed at cajoling sometimes reluctant governments into signing on >>to mandatory emission controls. Any enforced reductions in the use of >>fossil fuels is likely to increase energy costs to users which will reduce >>peoples overall standard of living. >> >>There are three main pillars to the IPCC scientific position. >> >>1 The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing due to >>burning of fossil fules and warming the planet due to the greenhouse effect >>.. >> >>2 Global temperatures are rising due to 1, which will also cause sea >>levels to rise due to polar ice melting.. >> >>3 Computer models predict even greater temperature and sea level rises >>than we have so far seen >> >>Instances where the IPCC has got the science wrong have been numerous over >>the last 12 years but we will list some examples arranged by the subject >>groups above. A constant theme in IPCC model outputs / predictions from >>1988 has been a steady reduction in the seriousness of indicated increases >>of temperature, sea level rise and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. >>The effect of this has been that politicians went to the Rio Conference in >>1992 influenced by outdated exaggerated data and of course the IPCC nevers >>tells policymakers that the problem is not so severe after all. >> >>1 Carbon Dioxide >> >>[a] From the very start in 1988 the IPCC published graphics showing >>variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide content with temperature over a >>period extending back through some of the ice ages. Unfortunately for the >>IPCC they drew the wrong conclusion from the graphic which shows increasing >>temperature correlating with periods of increased carbon dioxide. The facts >>are that rising ocean temperatures coming out of a glacial period would >>cause release of carbon dioxide because as High School students know, more >>gas dissolves in cold water than hot. > > >So where does all the CO2 from combustions go, into another parallel universe? Plants. In fact the evolution of the planet pretty much dictates that plant (and us) are going to die out. The DROP in global CO2 levels over the last few million years has resulted in a drop in the number of forests and an increase in arid grasslands. -Rich > > >> Of course the IPCC promulgated the >>propaganda that it was rising gas levels driving temperature which suits >>their version of the world, when in fact close examination of the data shows >>that the temperature rise (or fall) precedes the gas content rise (or fall). >> >>[b] The IPCC has always overstated the importance of carbon dioxide as a >>greenhouse gas and under-estimated the importance of water vapour. > >You don't understand the science, obviously. > > >> This of >>course fitted their fairystory view of the science and filled the need for a >>simple version of the science to bring non-scientific politicians and >>policymakers onside. I mean you can hardly be convincing a politician of >>the need to restrict carbon emissions and at the same time give water vapour >>its due position as the most important greenhouse gas. > > >Your metabolism is the most important factor in your body temperature, so you >can ignore a virus? > > >>This sort of >>pathetically inadequate science has lead to false model inputs and >>exaggerated model outputs, the damage just keeps on. >> >>[c] Following on from global cooling induced by the June 1991 volcanic >>eruption of Mount Pinatubo, cooler ocean surfaces dissolved more carbon >>dioxide than prior to the eruption which reduced the annual increase in >>carbon dioxide for some years. In 1991 the IPCC was declaring that carbon >>dioxide was increasing at 1.8 ppm per year and it took the IPCC years to >>publicly change its position to the more reasonable 1.5 ppm. > >So it's increasing. Glad you admit it. > > >> Politics of >>denial once again, and another cause of false model inputs & outputs, the >>old rubbish in - rubbish out principle. >> >>[d] From the outset, the IPCC talked about the risk of a "runaway >>greenhouse effect" based on the premise that rising temperatures would warm >>ocean surfaces driving out carbon dioxide which would in turn drive >>temperatures higher leading to a "positive feedback". The only runaway >>climate changes apparent are the frequent ice ages that we are subjected to, >>frequent in terms of geological time. In all of earths known climate >>history there are no instances of runaway hot periods suggesting that >>warming might be buffered by negative feedbacks. > >The absence of an event in the past does not prove it cannot occur. > > >> >>[e] You will not find the IPCC talking much about increased plant growth >>due to rising carbon dioxide levels. > >Because it only happens up to a point. > > >> Increasing forest volumes will lead to >>an increase in the land carbon sink > >Then why has the CO2 risen 30%? > > >>but you can be sure that research in >>these areas and reporting of research results will likely be warped by >>some scientists taking care not to question IPCC dogmas. >> >>2 Temperature and Sea Levels >> >>[a] The IPCC has never properly come to terms with the obvious fact that >>our planets climate has always gone through natural variations including in >>the recent geological past of the last million years, at least four major >>ice ages, all long before man was burning fossil fuels. These climate cycles >>are thought to be due to subtle cyclic variations in the earths orbit and >>spin; with solar fluctions superimposed. More recent climate fluctuations, >>all before the industrial era burning of fossil fuels include a warm period >>at the time of the Roman Empire, a cool period during the Dark Ages, the >>Medieval Climatic Optimum (warm period ) from about 1000 AD to say 1300 AD, >>then a cool period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) extending with two cold >>troughs, from 1400 to say 1800 AD. >> >>[b] From the start in 1988 the IPCC made a point about denigrating the >>role of variations in solar output in causing climate change. > >No, that had been studied and cannot explain the entire rise. > > >>The IPCC >>position had developed to the silly point where climate change can only be >>through the agency of carbon dioxide variations. > >Liar. They never said that. > > >> This has had the effect of >>pushing some solar scientists towards the greenhouse sceptics camp as they >>publish findings that clash with IPCC dogmas. >> >>[c] The wild early IPCC estimates of sea level rise, as evidenced by >>pictures used in our schools of the sea a few floors up city buildings, was >>mainly due to the IPCC completely misunderstanding the infuence of movements >>of the earths crust on tide gauges. The poor dears would have been confused >>because many of the worlds great ports (and tide gauges) are in places where >>the crust is naturally subsiding, such as river estuaries and drowned >>coastlines where subsidence gives the appearance of rising sea levels. Over >>the decade estimates of sea level rise have been reduced so much that one >>suspects there must be a department there in Fairyland charged with getting >>the numbers up again. Of course now we have satellite measurements >>accumulating so in decades to come there will be worthwhile time series of >>data to analyse. Silly and exaggerated IPCC pronouncements eagerly promoted >>by the Media have lead to unreal claims by island states hoping to win >>compensation from the West. An example of these unscientific claims is from >>the Maldive Islands. >> >>[d] The IPCC has always played down the importance of the LIA (Little Ice >>Age) because the last thing they want is for people to realize that since >>about 1800 temperatures have been rebounding in fits and starts from the LIA >>cool period. Their dogmas insist that this warming is due to increasing >>carbon dioxide levels but this notion is obviously spurious because most of >>the temperature rise was pre-1940 and most of the gas increase post 1940. > >Wrong. Half the rise was 1880-1940 and half 1940-present. And as a % >increase, CO2 rose dramatically early on. > >> >>[e] The IPCC has always been happy promoting global temperature trends >>over the last 150 years based on land stations which include probably 30% of >>city stations where the Urban Heat Island (UHI) has exaggerated the trend. >>An issue that is exposed on this web site. > >Liar. This is taken into account. If you think you've got something, publish >it in a scientific journal. > >> >>[f] The IPCC has always minimised the importance of the NASA satellite >>based temperature record that commences in 1979 and which to this day shows >>very little trend > > >Liar. > >>and thus is in disagreement with the Jones land based >>trend.. > >Liar. > >> The integrity of the NASA data has for years been under attack from >>greenhouse industry funded scientists. However in recent times the >>satellite trends have become more accepted which leaves the thorny issue for >>the IPCC that the satellites do not pick up the warming found in the >>surface record. > >Big fat liar. > > >> I would say that is because the satellites are measuring a >>layer several kilometers up while the surface data is severely compromised >>by having too many stations in UHI's. From a greenhouse theory point of >>view it is vital to note that the surface can only be warmed by the >>greenhouse first warming the atmosphere which can then warm near surface air >>layers. NASA now has a web site highlighting the differences in the two >>data sets so this issue is one that will continue to haunt the IPCC. >> >>[g] One technique the IPCC has used to explain away the small magnitude of >>land warming has been to invoke the concept that it is aerosol particles >>from industrial pollution that has cooled some of the warming. Like most >>IPCC driven notions this one is easily shot down when you realize that the >>satellite temperature trend for the southern hemisphere shows slight cooling >>( where aerolsols are weakest), while in the more polluted Northern >>Hemisphere satellite trends show slight warming. >>On my Melbourne Air Quality page > > >Are you a scientist? > >> a graph is presented showing visibility >>data going back 45 years which demonstrates a steady improvement in >>visibility, hence reduction in pollutant aerosols over that time. Surely >>there is nothing exceptional about Melbourne as an industrial city and many >>First World cities could be expected to show a similar improving air quality >>trend. >> >>[h] The Hockey Stick graph portraying temperature variations over the last >>millenium is derived from manipulation of tree ring data. It shows current >>temperatures as being higher than in the Medieval Climatic Optimum which is >>a liitle far fetched > >I can't help it if your closed mind won't accept facts. > > >>considering the Viking settlements farmed cattle before >>being wiped out in the LIA. I am not aware the dairy industry has yet >>re-established in Greenland to the extent of activity in Viking times 8-900 >>years ago. >> >>3 Computer Models >> >>Computer simulations of climate can not yet replicate the past century; > >Liar. They can and do. > > >>are based on unreasonably high IPCC inspired inputs and assumptions; >>and as these imputs have been modified to be slightly less ridiculous over >>the last decade, so model results have improved slightly. >> >>I know of no computer climate model results promoted by the IPCC that do not >>look to have come from Fairyland. > >Because you have a closed-mind. > >> >>Wrap Up >> >>It has to be said that this entire IPCC / Greenhouse / Global Warming >>paradigm could not have caused the scientific infection it has, had >>climatology been a larger and more mature branch of science in the 1980's. >>It is only a few decades ago that climatology was only taught at a handfull >>of universities and pioneers of the science could be counted on a few >>fingers. Climatology over century and millenial timescales was pioneered by >>geologists, not meteorologists. The implications are that once the >>greenhouse paradigm was picked up in the 80's by the coalition of pink & >>green bureaucrats and the green industry aided and abetted by the media; >>the scientific establishment directly involved in climate studies was so >>small that the usual checks and balances that moderate sciences's >>interaction with politics, was ineffective in this case. >>Throughout the 12 year history of the IPCC you can count on the fingers of >>two hands the scientists that have been the driving force behind >>greenhouse. > >Liar. Try reading scientific journals. > > >>Consider that the IPCC is at the center of a "greenhouse >>industry" siphoning of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies from schools >>& hospitals, > >Idiot. > > >>to what was previously a minor science and you can understand >>why there has been a reluctance among most tenured climate / environment >>scientists to question the debatable underpinnings to the entire bandwagon. >> >>Clearly the world would be a better place if the IPCC was disbanded; >>taxpayer funds could be more productively employed and science could settle >>down without these huge funding induced distortions. >> >>Posted 19, February, 2001 >> >>Warwick Hughes, >>globalwarming-news.com >> >> >> >And is scientific illiterate. |
|
|
|
|
[3] Posted by Roger Coppock 07-09-2003, 10:23 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
rander3127@rogers.com wrote:
> > . . . The DROP in global CO2 levels > over the last few million years has resulted in a drop in the number > of forests and an increase in arid grasslands. > -Rich I am not aware of any reliable report of a drop in levels of atmospheric CO2 over the last 20 million years. Please see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#331 I quote: "In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Myr BP and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were <300 ppm by about 20 Myr BP (Pagani et al., 1999a; Pearson and Palmer, 1999, 2000; Figure 3.2e). Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favoured the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Myr BP (Cerling et al., 1993, 1997; Pagani et al., 1999b). Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, they are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years." You'll have to go back more than a few million years, over 100, Rich. -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcoppock@adnc.com) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|
|
[4] Posted by Ian St. John 07-09-2003, 11:32 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
<rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message news:3chpgvsf1jbvlmal90lkpq10fgb7e2jbfv@4ax.com... > On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:23:46 -0700, Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com> > wrote: > > >rander3127@rogers.com wrote: > >> > >> . . . The DROP in global CO2 levels > >> over the last few million years has resulted in a drop in the number > >> of forests and an increase in arid grasslands. > >> -Rich > > > >I am not aware of any reliable report of a drop in levels > >of atmospheric CO2 over the last 20 million years. Please > >see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#331 > > > >I quote: > >"In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about > >60 Myr BP and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were <300 ppm by > >about 20 Myr BP (Pagani et al., 1999a; Pearson and Palmer, 1999, 2000; Figure 3.2e). > >Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favoured the evolution of C4 > >plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Myr BP (Cerling et al., > >1993, 1997; Pagani et al., 1999b). Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were > >exceeded during earlier geological epochs, they are likely higher now than at any > >time during the past 20 million years." > > > >You'll have to go back more than a few million years, over 100, Rich. > > Unlike the unproven and unsupported global warming nonsense, the > change in plant life due to CO2 reductions is clear. You are now exposed as a ignorant troll making with unsupported spew and not facts. > -Rich |
|
|
|
|
[5] Posted by rander3127@rogers.com 07-10-2003, 10:40 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On 10 Jul 2003 01:18:50 -0700, keneth_miles@hotmail.com (Keneth Miles)
wrote: >rander3127@rogers.com wrote in message news:<3chpgvsf1jbvlmal90lkpq10fgb7e2jbfv@4ax.com>. .. >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:23:46 -0700, Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com> >> wrote: >> >> >rander3127@rogers.com wrote: >> >> >> >> . . . The DROP in global CO2 levels >> >> over the last few million years has resulted in a drop in the number >> >> of forests and an increase in arid grasslands. >> >> -Rich >> > >> >I am not aware of any reliable report of a drop in levels >> >of atmospheric CO2 over the last 20 million years. Please >> >see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#331 >> > >> >I quote: >> >"In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about >> >60 Myr BP and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were <300 ppm by >> >about 20 Myr BP (Pagani et al., 1999a; Pearson and Palmer, 1999, 2000; Figure 3.2e). >> >Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favoured the evolution of C4 >> >plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Myr BP (Cerling et al., >> >1993, 1997; Pagani et al., 1999b). Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were >> >exceeded during earlier geological epochs, they are likely higher now than at any >> >time during the past 20 million years." >> > >> >You'll have to go back more than a few million years, over 100, Rich. >> >> Unlike the unproven and unsupported global warming nonsense, the >> change in plant life due to CO2 reductions is clear. >> -Rich > >Is it so clear that you don't feel you have to supply any supporting >evidence for your assertion? That's ok since there is no hard evidence that: There is a global warming trend. If there is, it's due to human CO2 emissions. How come the scientists who support this scam never talk about natural CO2 release levels? How does a 150,000 acre forest first stack up against pollution controlled cars in a city? -Rich |
|
|
|
|
[6] Posted by Ian St. John 07-10-2003, 11:13 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
<rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message news:q95sgv09i9860flumc6285od7a5eph26l4@4ax.com... > On 10 Jul 2003 01:18:50 -0700, keneth_miles@hotmail.com (Keneth Miles) > wrote: > <Snip> > > > >Is it so clear that you don't feel you have to supply any supporting > >evidence for your assertion? > > That's ok since there is no hard evidence that: > There is a global warming trend. > If there is, it's due to human CO2 emissions. False. The hard evidence is completely in support of a majority of current warming being due to GHGs accumulations from industry primarily CO2 and Methane, with solar and aerosols forming other factors int he trend over hte last century. The current state has aerosols pretty much balanceing off solar forcing leaving GHGs as the only variable of consequence. Not all of these GHSs are anthropoegneic but a majority of the major ones are. > > How come the scientists who support this scam never talk > about natural CO2 release levels? Beause these are two way fluxes in balance and thus do not affect accumulation levels, while the one way release from fossil fuels does. This can be easily seen by looking at the evidence of CO2 increase since the start of the industrial age ( keeling curve ). > How does a 150,000 acre > forest first stack up against pollution controlled cars in a city? That is a meaningless question. I can partly answer it to say that forest fires are a negligeable source of CO2 compared to Fossil Fuel emissions. > -Rich |
|
|
|
|
[7] Posted by rander3127@rogers.com 07-11-2003, 12:12 AM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:13:51 -0400, "Ian St. John"
<istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote: > ><rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message >news:q95sgv09i9860flumc6285od7a5eph26l4@4ax.com.. . >> On 10 Jul 2003 01:18:50 -0700, keneth_miles@hotmail.com (Keneth Miles) >> wrote: >> ><Snip> >> > >> >Is it so clear that you don't feel you have to supply any supporting >> >evidence for your assertion? >> >> That's ok since there is no hard evidence that: >> There is a global warming trend. >> If there is, it's due to human CO2 emissions. > >False. The hard evidence is completely in support of a majority of current >warming being due to GHGs accumulations from industry primarily CO2 and >Methane, with solar and aerosols forming other factors int he trend over hte >last century. The current state has aerosols pretty much balanceing off >solar forcing leaving GHGs as the only variable of consequence. Not all of >these GHSs are anthropoegneic but a majority of the major ones are. > >> >> How come the scientists who support this scam never talk >> about natural CO2 release levels? > >Beause these are two way fluxes in balance and thus do not affect >accumulation levels, while the one way release from fossil fuels does. This >can be easily seen by looking at the evidence of CO2 increase since the >start of the industrial age ( keeling curve ). > >> How does a 150,000 acre >> forest first stack up against pollution controlled cars in a city? > >That is a meaningless question. I can partly answer it to say that forest >fires are a negligeable source of CO2 compared to Fossil Fuel emissions. >> -Rich > You are full of it. Wood fires are a huge source of C02. Some of the fires we see in Canada and Russia cover areas of THOUSANDS of square miles. There is also volcanism as a source for noxious gasses. Also, undersea gas vents are a large source. Show me the data that proves humans produce significant amounts of C02 or methane compared to those sources. -Rich |
|
|
|
|
[8] Posted by Ian St. John 07-11-2003, 12:45 AM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
<rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message news:9kasgvcf3clioerodgsuthl2sabtoksdrv@4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:13:51 -0400, "Ian St. John" > <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote: <snip of previous errors> > > You are full of it. Wood fires are a huge source of C02. Some of the > fires we see in Canada and Russia cover areas of THOUSANDS of square > miles. There is also volcanism as a source for noxious gasses. Also, > undersea gas vents are a large source. Show me the data that proves > humans produce significant amounts of C02 or methane compared to > those sources. It is probably beyond your understanding to analyse but the data is easily found. http://www.bp.com/files/10/statistical_review_1087.pdf Volcanoes are about 1% of all CO2 emissions and balanced out by deposition/subduction of the sea bed ( which is where the CO2 comes from ). Forest fires are trivial even in comparison to this and the total acreage burned does not change anything because the resulting new growth in old burns balances it out rather quickly. The only source of a non-recylced CO2 emissions and by FAR the most important change is fossil fuel emissions which are stored carbon from millions of years ago. The balance can be easily seen as being sourced from fossil fuels because of isotope studies. Carbon and oxygen isotopes are created by cosmic rays at steady rate so the active biosphere has particular ratios of the isotopes. Let us call the radioactive isotopes 'new' as opposed to buried deposits which are had a long time to radioactively decay ( old ). Forest fires have new carbon/new oxygen since they are part of the living biosphere. Subduction and volcanic emissions have old carbon and old oxygen because the subduction take a LONG time to recycle. Fossil fuels burn old carbon with new oxygen. From these facts, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be easily shown to be from fossil fuels. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by_new/bys...ml#atmospheric > -Rich |
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Re: Storm levels couple's greenhouse | Peter Hearnden | Politics | 0 | 07-12-2003 12:55 PM |
| Re: Greenhouse science wrong! | William PF | Politics | 0 | 07-08-2003 10:47 PM |
| Re: Greenhouse science wrong! | Psalm 110 | Politics | 0 | 07-08-2003 05:15 PM |
| Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled | Dr. Convection | Politics | 8 | 07-08-2003 04:59 PM |
| Junking Junk Science | Dr. Convection | Politics | 2 | 07-07-2003 04:14 AM |
Linear Mode
