Emission Trading and climate change

Page 231 of 377 FirstFirst ... 131 181 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 281 331 ... LastLast
Results 11,501 to 11,550 of 18819
  1. #11501
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    This is my pick of the bunch and yes there are a few that are a bit too American for my taste, but some may like them.
    This is real good and to the point.
    Bigger letters must make it truer! NOT!

    Which government was that, Marc? And how did they get every other government, eastern and western, communist and capitalist, first world and third world, to go along with their scam? Or could it be that you have a propensity to believe the Tooth Fairy (amongst other things)?

  2. #11502
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Bigger letters must make it truer! NOT!

    Which government was that, Marc? And how did they get every other government, eastern and western, communist and capitalist, first world and third world, to go along with their scam? Or could it be that you have a propensity to believe the Tooth Fairy (amongst other things)?
    maybe he thinks you can't read it because you conveniently misplace your glasses when he posts, which from the casual observer maybe the reason why the message isn't getting through!
    The brighter amongst us realise the scam is along the same lines as religion / cults which have been the foundation of civilisations for thousands of years, now I'm not saying your not bright, but maybe just in your own special way only our mothers can fully appreciate.
    regards inter

  3. #11503
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Inter, still nothing pertinent to say, just more smutty personal innuendoes?

    Oh BTW - no need for your concern about my ability to read - Marc's post is targeted to the lazy-minded who live off drip-feed BS, not people who are conscientious sceptics, like me.

  4. #11504
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Well I have the same outrage at all the rubbish published by the ipcc and the rest of the propaganda machine including the mercenary scientist, but that does not matter.
    You are of course well aware that you are also linking to the products of just another propaganda machine. At least I hope you are...not that it matters either.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  5. #11505
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    You are of course well aware that you are also linking to the products of just another propaganda machine. At least I hope you are...not that it matters either.
    Oh, and the much maligned (by Marc et al) IPCC is a review body only. The IPCC doesn't conduct, direct or finance research, it simply reviews the research financed, conducted and published by anyone anywhere, regardless of how they are financed and what their ideology might be. The IPCC's "expert" review panel is open to anyone and everyone - even celebrated denialists like Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts are registered as expert reviewers for the IPCC. Would the Heartland Institute welcome, for example, Michael Mann on its review panel for the publications of the pseudoscientific Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change? Hypothetical question: since they do not have a review panel anyway - LOL!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  6. #11506
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    maybe he thinks you can't read it because you conveniently misplace your glasses when he posts, which from the casual observer maybe the reason why the message isn't getting through!
    The brighter amongst us realise the scam is along the same lines as religion / cults which have been the foundation of civilisations for thousands of years, now I'm not saying your not bright, but maybe just in your own special way only our mothers can fully appreciate.
    regards inter
    I think we can award you the prize "master of the cheap shot" along with the "bugger the ball just play the man" prize. At least pretend you are trying please

  7. #11507
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I think we can award you the prize "master of the cheap shot" along with the "bugger the ball just play the man" prize. At least pretend you are trying please
    That may well be so, but I pale into insignificance when compared to the "master debaters" here who "drop the ball" & can't explain or answer the nagging facts about insignificant warming since 1998, nor how the globe never heated up catastrophically in the past when CO2 levels were around 20 times what they are now.
    regards inter

  8. #11508
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    I have written this in very little font so it takes up very little room

    Here's the proof of the climate change fraud


    Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:



    The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

    After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers
    wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

    Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:




    The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

    This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

    This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

    EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax

    What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

    The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.


    Learn more: Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  9. #11509
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Best article ever on the definition of junk "science" aka climate change.

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Science isn't about joining the herd. Science isn't about confirming someone else's work. Science is about looking at the world, looking at the current explanation, deciding that the world is wrong and you are right, and then going out and proving it. In real science the status quo is the null hypothesis to be rejected, not confirmed. Never in my life have I seen scientists going out to prove the null hypothesis is true...except in the field of climate "science." In real science studies are done to reject the null hypothesis, not confirm it. It is called the "scientific method," something people that blindly accept the man made climate change theory apparently know nothing about.
    Like medieval inquisitors, supporters of climate change "science" don't debate the issue, they insult, intimidate, smear and ridicule. Real scientists are by nature skeptical, it is a defining characteristic of science. Somehow in Orwellian fashion being a "skeptic" has become an insult, not a merit is climate "science." Skeptics are called "flat earthers," "deniers," and climate "heritics." Skeptics are to be shunned and ignored, and ironically the ones who don't have science on their side."
    Read it all here:
    http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...st-the-experts
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  10. #11510
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    "While the Earth's atmosphere has seen higher levels of carbon dioxide than it does now, as well as higher temperatures and far greater sea levels, those instances were due to natural drivers of climate change, such as periodic variations in the planet's orbit and in solar energy output. Scientists have studied and ruled out natural climate drivers as the main cause of global warming since the preindustrial era."

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...950493/?no-ist
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  11. #11511
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I have written this in very little font so it takes up very little room

    Here's the proof of the climate change fraud


    Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:


    You could have saved a lot more room, Marc: US land surface temperatures do not represent global surface temperatures. The rest of your post is based on a false premise - FAIL.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #11512
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    "I could go on and on and on about how flawed the statistics, data, methods, results and conclusions are of the "consensus" scientists, but I think I've made my point. If you want more you can read thisinstablog post.
    Climate science is the manifestation of what President Eisenhower warned society about in his farewell address. He warned of an "intellectual elite" that would abuse their power, and that in a nutshell is what climate "science" is all about. Political activists masquerading as "scientists" have used their respected positions to push a political agenda. Few things in history have a more horrifying record than thepoliticization of science, and everyone should be concerned when "science" is used to promote political objectives. Policy should reflect the science, science should not reflect the policy."
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  13. #11513
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    And a bit of history about political fraud, recent history it is but apparently it only takes 15 years for people to forget the past.Size does matter

    http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...nd-the-curtain
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  14. #11514
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    "I could go on and on and on about how flawed the statistics, data, methods, results and conclusions are of the "consensus" scientists, but I think I've made my point.
    The point you made was based on faulty logic and therefore all of the subsequent conclusions are most likely wrong as well.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  15. #11515
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post


    You could have saved a lot more room, Marc: US land surface temperatures do not represent global surface temperatures. The rest of your post is based on a false premise - FAIL.
    Well, I did not expect you to read any of the very interesting published data and reasoning, but here is a hint: that particular article is about fraud. You know? falsification of data for political purposes. It does not matter it is the US or Kazakhstan, it is fraud, or rather the usual scientific method of warmist mercenaries.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  16. #11516
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Why politicized science is dangerous
    MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  17. #11517
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I have written this in very little font so it takes up very little room

    Here's the proof of the climate change fraud


    Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:



    The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."
    Welcome to 2007.

    Interesting rewrite of temperature trend history you have found on a non-scientific blog there Marc.

    If you want to find the REAL reason the trend changed, it's not real hard.

    Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

    On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.
    So the data was found to have errors and it was corrected. Denialists would have said nothing if the change reduced the recorded temperature trend, but because it did the opposite, they were all up in arms. That's the difference between skepticism and denialism. The skeptic finds something actually wrong with the data regardless of the result, whereas the denialist finds something wrong with the data just because it disagrees with his opinion.

    Despite this historical storm in a teacup, you will be happy to know that the data rework had no effect on the global trend. The only change was for the US itself.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  18. #11518
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Well, I did not expect you to read any of the very interesting published data and reasoning,
    Oh I did read it, Marc, because I am a true sceptic and willing to test what I believe. I just spared everyone else an analysis of the drivel, since it has already been debunked in this thread.

    You since haven't said who you think is in charge of the "great global warming fraud" or offered any insight into how they control 1000's of institutions, some public, some private, some industry funded, some in first world countries and some third world countries, some with capitalist governments, some communist, some dictatorships, and how the that control extends to the 10,000s of researchers, plus the 10,000s of radical students who would all like to shove it up their professors, mostly working in dependently and yet all in general agreement...

    Wouldn't the same people want to be in charge of international relationships, making sure we don't have conflict and wars. That would be a simpler task by far...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  19. #11519
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Well, I did not expect you to read any of the very interesting published data and reasoning, but here is a hint: that particular article is about fraud. You know? falsification of data for political purposes. It does not matter it is the US or Kazakhstan, it is fraud, or rather the usual scientific method of warmist mercenaries.
    Long bow there Marc.

    What would have been fraud, would be if NASA failed to investigate and correct the errors pointed out by McIntyre. What was actually done (investigating, recognising and correcting errors pointed out by a third party) represents honesty, not fraud. If they were fraudulent, they would have removed any data on their own site that shows the fraud, yet as your article explains, both charts are on their website.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  20. #11520
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Why politicized science is dangerous
    MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law
    Eugenics was a political and social exercise, not a scientific one. The science behind Eugenics (genetics, for example) hasn't been de-bunked or put aside at all, it still features prominently in medical research.

    Just a minor point, Eugenics was never a response to a perceived "impending problem" anyway so the comparison to global warming is fallacious. Your BS filter is broken, Marc.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  21. #11521
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    And a bit of history about political fraud, recent history it is but apparently it only takes 15 years for people to forget the past.Size does matter for the feeble minded perhaps

    http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...nd-the-curtain
    The fraud didn't happen. Peak oil did happen. But because it was based on projected consumption growth, and governments acted and legislated for energy efficiency and unconventional oil has displaced conventional oil, and​ there was a little thing called the GFC, petroleum supply has kept up with demand.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  22. #11522
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    " The above graphic demonstrates what would never, I repeat never, happen in an objective science, especially when modeling something with countless variables and infinite complexity.
    What the above graphic proves isn't scientific evidence of warming, it proves to the 95% confidence level that there is an undeniable group think systemic bias in climate "science." 88 and 86 out of 90 IPCC computer models overstated estimated temperatures, some by as much as 0.8 degrees C. Those kinds of findings and models are what deserves ridicule, not those pointing out the obvious fact that this is junk science on a monumental scale.

    I can say this is junk science because I am very familiar with junk science, almost any analyst that has ever taken econometrics is. In order to create a good model you have to run certain tests to ensure your model is a "BLUE" model, best linear unbiased estimator. The other thing you are taught is how to cheat with statistics, and identify flaws and fraud in models and results. Financial analysts are very skilled in these statistical techniques, in fact that is how they could have caught Bernie Maydoff. In a normal science you establish a hypothesis, define a model, identify the variables, collect the data and then test the data. The key is, the hypothesis, model and variables are consistent with a unique and independently reached theory and specified in advance of testing. That isn't done in climate "science," the above graphic proves it. Climate science starts with a conclusion, CO2 causes warming, and then works backwards. It is science in reverse."

    http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...st-the-experts
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  23. #11523
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    " The above graphic demonstrates what would never, I repeat never, happen in an objective science, especially when modeling something with countless variables and infinite complexity.
    I wholeheartedly agree with your cut & paste statement, Marc. The above graphic (shown below) would never happen in objective science, because it is a complete and utter fabrication, as debunked here:

    HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception


    Dr Roy Spenser'sdeceptive fudge - move the graphs up or down to match the story you want to tell.


    Hint: Your argument is pretty flimsy when you need to depend on blogs that post nonsense that is so easily debunked...

    Want to know what the graph without the fudge would look like?

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  24. #11524
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The reason climate "scientists" rely on statistical nonsense and bully tactics like ridicule and insults is because the entire foundation of their "science" is garbage and they have to discourage people from looking behind the curtain. This entire "global warming" movement is a government manufactured effort to raise money through carbon related taxes. It is the ideal way to siphon money off "big oil, gas and coal." Voters won't vote for higher taxes, but they will vote to save the earth and polar bears. That is why the entire focus is on a relatively weak trace greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide.
    The problem the climate "scientists" have with pinning their entire theory on carbon dioxide is that atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation or IR by greenhouse gases is a logarithmic, not linear relationship. The greenhouse gas effect is like painting a window with black paint. The first coat blocks out a whole lot of light, but every coat afterwards blocks less and less light. Once CO2 reaches 100 parts per million or PPM it pretty much has saturated the atmosphere's absorption of the IR spectrum related to CO2. This following chart demonstrates the atmospheric absorption by CO2 at 100 PPM related to a blackbodies of different temperatures. The pocket of absorption at 15 nm or wave number 667 is the atmospheric absorption by CO2.

    I overlapped the identical graph with CO2 at 1,000 PPM and highlighted the difference in absorption in red.
    The difference is almost negligible for a 10x increase in atmospheric CO2. Currently atmospheric CO2 is 400 PPM. This following chart demonstrates the impact on atmospheric absorption by a 2.5x increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 PPM. Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 400 PPM to 1,000 PPM increases atmospheric absorption by about 1.76% tops, and that ignores that the widening of the CO2 absorption band expands into the areas absorbed by other green house gases.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  25. #11525
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The reason climate "scientists" rely on statistical nonsense and bully tactics like ridicule and insults is because the entire foundation of their "science" is garbage and they have to discourage people from looking behind the curtain.
    A random selection of courses for you. Can you point out the science courses that are based on your claim?

    Bachelor of Science in Climate Science - Domestic - Macquarie University

    Climate Science | UNSW Science

    Ocean and Climate Sciences - Major - Flinders University

    Masters Degree Program in Climate & Society | Earth and Environmental Sciences

    Study BSc Climate Science at the University of East Anglia (UEA) - UEA

    Master of Climate Change - ANU

    Atmospheric & Climatic Studies · OSU Geography

    Specialization in Climate Science, Adaptation and Mitigation | Yale’s Environment School

    The conspiracy theory you are peddling must run pretty deep, and those undergrads, grads, phd's etc are all sucked into the worldwide conspiracy...

    I have a bridge to sell at a bargain, and I think you're the just person to buy it:




    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  26. #11526
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    "While the Earth's atmosphere has seen higher levels of carbon dioxide than it does now, as well as higher temperatures and far greater sea levels, those instances were due to natural drivers of climate change, such as periodic variations in the planet's orbit and in solar energy output. Scientists have studied and ruled out natural climate drivers as the main cause of global warming since the preindustrial era."

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Is Now at Its Highest Point in Human Existence | Smart News | Smithsonian
    what a load of rubbish! Please explain how the globe didn't burn up with CO2 concentrations around 20 times what they are now & solar cycles of up to 25% in the differing of the suns output! makes the 5% that the sun has increased in output over the last 600 million years out to be a farcical drongo's argument. There is no escaping these facts! The brighter amongst us know the earth goes through an average of 50% change in solar absorption yearly which is well documented, which puts the 5% variation into perspective of being insignificant!
    regards inter

  27. #11527
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    A random selection of courses for you. Can you point out the science courses that are based on your claim?
    It took me a moment to work out what Marc was on about. He means the "science" courses where Monckton, Bast, Delingpole, Christy, Nova, et al got their qualifications.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  28. #11528
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what a load of rubbish! Please explain how the globe didn't burn up with CO2 concentrations around 20 times what they are now & solar cycles of up to 25% in the differing of the suns output!
    Easy peasy, it never coincided that way - when CO2 was up, solar radiation was down. And the laws of energy conservation held true then, just as they do today. Who wudda thort?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #11529
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Easy peasy, it never coincided that way - when CO2 was up, solar radiation was down. And the laws of energy conservation held true then, just as they do today. Who wudda thort?
    You have been asked before & nothing appeared! we need the proof backing up what you say? Is this time going to be different? I doubt it! Peasy maybe but not so easy!
    but hey how are you going to explain the CO2 levels being in the high thousands ppm for hundreds of millions of years, solar cycles of around 41,000 years & no catastrophic heating, oh dear! Einstein was right, stupidity is infinite! ( but then again his all knowing school teacher said he could "do better")
    regards inter

  30. #11530
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    You have been asked before & nothing appeared! we need the proof backing up what you say?
    You are asking for proof that the laws of energy conservation didn't hold in the past? Or now? BTW, the point "stupidity is infinite", it is implicit in your posts - no need to bring Einstein into it!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  31. #11531
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You are asking for proof that the laws of energy conservation didn't hold in the past? Or now? BTW, the point "stupidity is infinite", it is implicit in your posts - no need to bring Einstein into it!
    here we go again! The same run around! That's a question of a question & far from proof, now if those laws were actually indicative & associated to the climate directly, the globe would definitely have burnt to a crisp millions of years ago, alas no, it didn't happen & it's not going to happen for an immensely long time. But still no proof showing anything other than a quote & a belief it's going to happen! Surely there must be something obscure to parrot? Actually come to think of it, a talking parrot could recite a more detailed relevant rebuttal!
    Your report so far wouldn't read "could do better" it would more likely read "can't do better"
    regards inter

  32. #11532
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    ^^ Back to slandering and personal attacks. You sure know how to win an argument.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  33. #11533
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    ^^ Back to slandering and personal attacks. You sure know how to win an argument.
    Maybe your perception of how you & your proof is treated would change, if you actually had & presented some, in other words your boring us to Kingdom come & back, but not into submission!
    i ask again, where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago?
    regards inter

  34. #11534
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    In a nut-shell, as a consequence of Beer-Lambert's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law), the relationship between the concentration of CO2 and the warming effect increases in a diminishing logarithmic way, not linearly increasing as might be thought. The difference in temperature forcing between, say, 1000ppm and, say, 10,000 ppm is negligible. On the other hand, the forcing by a drop off of 5% in the radiation from the sun does cause a linear drop off in retained heat, an effect that is much more significant than the heat retention caused by 20 times CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels.

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  35. #11535
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    In a nut-shell, as a consequence of Beer-Lambert's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law), the relationship between the concentration of CO2 and the warming effect increases in a diminishing logarithmic way, not linearly increasing as might be thought. The difference in temperature forcing between, say, 1000ppm and, say, 10,000 ppm is negligible. On the other hand, the forcing by a drop off of 5% in the radiation from the sun does cause a linear drop off in retained heat, an effect that is much more significant than the heat retention caused by 20 times CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels.

    Thank goodness you have found something to parrot, now all you have to do is include the important parts of the question relative to the solar energy to answer the question!
    To the casual observer the graph you have provided has no reference to where it has come from, nor the critical input parameters, but does go to show that there will never be catastrophic heating of the atmosphere with the amount of CO2 humans could ever pump into the atmosphere, ( but we already know that from history! ) good work!
    regards inter

  36. #11536
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    More bluster and abuse to prove your point - who wudda thort?

    The limit of heat entrapment of CO2 is already built in to climate models and the heat imbalance is not only theoretical, but measured, so your claim about what the physics proves is just as silly as everything else you post.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  37. #11537
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    More bluster and abuse to prove your point - who wudda thort?

    The limit of heat entrapment of CO2 is already built in to climate models and the heat imbalance is not only theoretical, but measured, so your claim about what the physics proves is just as silly as everything else you post.
    In short you haven't even come close to answering the question, have another go!
    regards inter

  38. #11538
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    In short you haven't even come close to answering the question, have another go!
    Since you know with such certainty that the laws of Physics, the laws Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics are either entirely wrong, or being comprehensively misapplied by the hundreds of thousands of professionals in industry, academics in research and universities and other people in tens of thousands of institutions in countries all around the world, who have applied their minds to this problem over the past 150 years, what are you doing in this piddly little forum casting smutty innuendoes and throwing mud at other people?

    Why not save the world from itself from your very own armchair by publishing what you alone know? And we'll all be proud to have known you!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  39. #11539
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Since you know with such certainty that the laws of Physics, the laws Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics are either entirely wrong, or being comprehensively misapplied by the hundreds of thousands of professionals in industry, academics in research and universities and other people in tens of thousands of institutions in countries all around the world, who have applied their minds to this problem over the past 150 years, what are you doing in this piddly little forum casting smutty innuendoes and throwing mud at other
    Why not save the world from itself from your very own armchair by publishing what you alone know? And we'll all be proud to have known you!
    Anybody would think with all those quoted sources you could at least come up with some sort of data or proof to answer the question posed! I ask again, where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago? if you can't provide it just say so & move on so we all have a clear understanding of the facts & fiction on the subject.
    regards inter

  40. #11540
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    It may be incomprehensible to you, but it has been provided.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #11541
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    I'm struggling to understand the ongoing significance to Inter of the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2 600 million years ago. If it is because it doesn't seem to align with the geological/modelled record of likely air temperatures...so (it is modelled data after all)? That's hardly a surprise. The mix of gaseous components in the atmosphere at the time was almost certainly significantly different to that of today since it is a time that predates the widespread existence of land plants. So the physical response to the prevailing atmosphere to solar input was likely very very different.

    But in the end...there was no significant life anywhere on the planet at the time? Why the myopic fixation? The modern world and the life that developed in it over the last million years or so has never seen those CO2 levels and if they did then the various physical laws that we understand to be true ensure that because the atmosphere is a different gaseous mix and solar output is greater then the atmospheric response is going to be very different to what it was way back then...and that would hold true even 50-100 million years back...let alone 500 to 600 million.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  42. #11542
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    I'm struggling to understand the ongoing significance to Inter of the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2 600 million years ago...etc etc.
    Your reply is of very little value.
    650 millions years ago things may or may not have been like you say, (more like wild speculation)... however only 12000 years ago, CO2 was 430ppm and we where still in an ice age.
    The fact remains, CO2 let alone human produced CO2 has as much influence on climate as a butterfly's fart in the Kimberley has on the air freshness in SA.
    If in doubt ask John x 2
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  43. #11543
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    12000 years ago, CO2 was 430ppm and we where still in an ice age.
    The fact remains, CO2 let alone human produced CO2 has as much influence on climate as a butterfly's fart in the Kimberley has on the air freshness in SA.
    If in doubt ask John x 2
    Your reply has the same relevance as your favourite butterfly's fart. Today, CO2 is leading climate change, because CO2 is causing it. What drove the climate between past glacials and interglacials was astronomical. Whether the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels today mimics 12000 years ago is not relevant to the current discussion. 12,000 years ago the Laws of Entropy held true just as they do today. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of human activity is causing addition heat to accumulate on the surface of the planet, incontrovertibly - slander by innuendo notwithstanding.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  44. #11544
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Your reply is of very little value.
    650 millions years ago things may or may not have been like you say, (more like wild speculation)... however only 12000 years ago, CO2 was 430ppm and we where still in an ice age.
    The fact remains, CO2 let alone human produced CO2 has as much influence on climate as a butterfly's fart in the Kimberley has on the air freshness in SA.
    If in doubt ask John x 2
    Thank you for your esteemed consideration.

    As for your ice age reference...do you care to enlighten us as to why you think this was the case or is this information as irrelevant to you as a civil discussion with your peers?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  45. #11545
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It may be incomprehensible to you, but it has been provided.
    As this hasn't been provided, I suggest you read the question again! where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago?
    regards inter

  46. #11546
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    I'm struggling to understand the ongoing significance to Inter of the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2 600 million years ago. If it is because it doesn't seem to align with the geological/modelled record of likely air temperatures...so (it is modelled data after all)? That's hardly a surprise. The mix of gaseous components in the atmosphere at the time was almost certainly significantly different to that of today since it is a time that predates the widespread existence of land plants. So the physical response to the prevailing atmosphere to solar input was likely very very different.

    But in the end...there was no significant life anywhere on the planet at the time? Why the myopic fixation? The modern world and the life that developed in it over the last million years or so has never seen those CO2 levels and if they did then the various physical laws that we understand to be true ensure that because the atmosphere is a different gaseous mix and solar output is greater then the atmospheric response is going to be very different to what it was way back then...and that would hold true even 50-100 million years back...let alone 500 to 600 million.
    so you don't have the answer either!
    regards inter

  47. #11547
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so you don't have the answer either!
    regards inter
    Clearly I'm in good company...

    Still...why do I (or for that matter, you) need an answer to such an unimportant question?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  48. #11548
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Clearly I'm in good company...

    Still...why do I (or for that matter, you) need an answer to such an unimportant question?
    Who would own up to be associated to some champion question dodgers?
    It's only unimportant to you guys because it throws out the theory that CO2 in high concentrations will cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere!
    regards inter

  49. #11549
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Who would own up to be associated to some champion question dodgers?
    It's only unimportant to you guys because it throws out the theory that CO2 in high concentrations will cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere!
    regards inter
    You were included in that association.

    We are not talking about concentrations approaching anything like the numbers you are ranting about. Nor is anyone talking about warming that is catastrophic to life on this planet. Only warming that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living in the coming century...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  50. #11550
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Who would own up to be associated to some champion question dodgers?
    It's only unimportant to you guys because it throws out the theory that CO2 in high concentrations will cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere!
    The answer to your question should not depend on the slimy character innuendoes that are a part of almost every post of yours, and BTW does not throw out any theory, in any case.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

Page 231 of 377 FirstFirst ... 131 181 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 281 331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •