The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mirrors and Mazes: review > Comments

Mirrors and Mazes: review : Comments

By Cliff Ollier, published 14/4/2016

In the ice age that occurred 450 my ago the CO2 level was 10 to 15 time higher than today: the one 350 my ago had CO2 like that of today.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
Thanks, AJ.
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. As Carter has pointed out, it has not been possible to show the human contribution, because,despite a huge outlay of funds on research it has not been separated.from the total warming Knowing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%, against nature’s 97%, the human contribution is trivial, and not measurable. Not being measurable, there is no scientific basis upon which to assert its existence. When Combet was Minister for Labor Lies about sea levels, he lived in a waterfront house which he bought at Newcastle.
When he urinated in the ocean, near his house, he polluted the sea, but it was trivial, and not measurable, so there was no scientific basis to assert the pollution. The human effect on climate is identifiable locally,but, so far, not globally, and is not measurable, so there is no scientific basis to assert a human effect on global warming. For this reason the correct answer to my question is that there is no such science because the human effect on climate is local., has not been shown to be global,and is trivial and not measurable
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 8 May 2016 7:38:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Phillips,

Although Loopy is one of our 'less open to intelligent debate' members of the fringe anti-AGW lot I have been asked by others about variants of his 'human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%, against nature’s 97%' line.

I have found this video is quite a good answer. Anyone with half a brain seems to be able to grasp the concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ9hPl9dl98
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 8 May 2016 9:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo,

When I first read your response, I thought to myself, "Did he not check a single link I provided?"

Then I read this contradictory statement again, and it hit me.

<<Knowing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%, against nature’s 97%, the human contribution is trivial, and not measurable.>>

It's not that you don't think there's any way of measuring the human contribution to climate change, it's that you think that our contribution to CO2 (and, presumably, our impact on climate change) is insignificant. Okay. That’s very different from our contribution not being measurable.

I'm not sure what the exact percentage is. Finding one in the literature is understandably difficult. I suspect that's because stating an actual percentage would be oversimplifying things, like putting a number on someone’s IQ (your oversimplified claim, for example, fails to take into account the additional effects of deforestation - clearly you didn't check any of the links I provided). I've heard denialists cite figures anywhere between 3-10%.

But even if it were only 1%, it wouldn't matter. Nature maintains a cycle of adding and removing CO2 from the atmosphere that balances itself out. Human activity, on the other hand, adds CO2 without removing any, so there’s a gradual build up.

So your argument is invalid, as is your ‘urination’ analogy.

SteelRedux,

Thanks for the link. It goes into what I've touched on above to Leo in a lot more detail. I would recommend it to Leo if I thought it would make the slightest difference. But alas...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 8 May 2016 9:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo
We have NASA who have placed men on the moon and sent a capsule to Pluto and beyond who support the view of anthropogenic climate change. Quite heroic to dispute their science.

We have scientists able to differentiate the origin of isotopes of carbon.
We have the 11 year ARM that showed how IR and CO2 react.
The latest report indicates the interaction of IR with greenhouse gases, 2.974 Watts per square meter has been created, per:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

Computer modelling by scientists working for ExxonMobil were able to comprehensively show the future degree of sea ice breakdown in the Arctic Ocean through their modelling in the 1980s.

Oceans have been warming, temperature has been going up according to satellite measure.
Land based weather stations (from memory something like 10,000 of them) show temperature increasing.

The amount of melting in the Arctic is a huge worry.

By the way, there are now more jurisdictions which are investigating ExxonMobil for alleged criminal behaviour. The allegations stem from misleading financial markets by financing denier groups while their scientists were stating that man has an influence on climate.

Fossil fuels take millions of years to store carbon; we take a few moments to disperse it in a geological sense.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/05/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-deg-c/
Posted by ant, Sunday, 8 May 2016 10:20:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NASA might have put a man on the moon, flea, but it was never able to control the climate liar, Hansen.
“Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled”
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/james-hansen%E2%80%99s-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-%E2%80%98embarrassed-nasa%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98was-never-muzzled%E2%80%99-models-%E2%80%98useless%E2%80%99/
You still have no relevant science, flea.
An important part of the finding against the climate scientists you seem to have overlooked or concealed:"Commission may, at its own discretion, accept or reject the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation and that said recommendation has no legal effect unless expressly adopted by the Commission as its final order.
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={F3F2D025-2BA9-45F9-9F78-6AFAE4DD6345}&documentTitle=201512-116525-02
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 14 May 2016 9:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

NASA states very clearly that man has had involvement in creating climate change; yet, you ask us to believe you know better.

The Watts reference is nicely dressed up; but goes back to 2009 and is very meaningless in 2016. Hansen is one climate scientist among several thousands; yet, you insult him by calling him a liar. But then, anybody who does not agree with you is abused. Watts states that the Arctic isn't regressing, which is very very wrong.

Something of interest, the US Navy projected that there was a possibility that 2016 was a year when there could be open ocean in the Arctic. Currently, the level of sea ice is the lowest it has ever been since measuring began by satellite; the sea ice is in a very vulnerable state. A severe weather pattern has been forecast for the next week; yet, already the amount of sea ice being lost is extremely high. Already there have been multiple days of 100,000 square kilometer loss of sea ice per day.

The reference provided is much older than usually provided, it states there is a possibility of the Arctic being ice free this year. Presently, it appears that it could happen.

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/article_f0d1fc46-56dc-11e3-9766-001a4bcf6878.html
Posted by ant, Saturday, 14 May 2016 10:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy