The So-called Greenhouse Effect Has Long Been Known To Be Devoid Of Physical Reality — Temp Variations Cause Co2 Changes — Not The Reverse’, U.S. Navy Meteorologist Claims: Options

[Johnny Angel]

I was watcing the Weather Channel. IT was an hour show about the melting North Pole Ice, The Major shipping companys are now Using the Northern passage to get from the Atlatntic to the Pacific saving millions of dollars in fuel and time. During the summer only, but years ago it was impossible to pass.

Some Information sources can not see the Ice is disapearing ??
Are these the same informationists that told Us Iraq possessed WMD.??

A few months ago we had a record snowfall and record low temps. The Right Wingers were celebrating that Global warming was a Hoax. I asked them if we get record heat temperatures would they change thier beliefs. Well here in Pittsburgh PA, last month we had 4 record high temps in a 3 week period.?? Tonight is a frost warning.

Mankind in the past 150 years has burnt Coal & Oil reserves which took Nature over 300,000 years to collect.

[lunk]

I was watcing the Weather Channel. IT was an hour show about the melting North Pole Ice, The Major shipping companys are now Using the Northern passage to get from the Atlatntic to the Pacific saving millions of dollars in fuel and time. During the summer only, but years ago it was impossible to pass.

Some Information sources can not see the Ice is disapearing ??
Are these the same informationists that told Us Iraq possessed WMD.??

A few months ago we had a record snowfall and record low temps. The Right Wingers were celebrating that Global warming was a Hoax. I asked them if we get record heat temperatures would they change thier beliefs. Well here in Pittsburgh PA, last month we had 4 record high temps in a 3 week period.?? Tonight is a frost warning.

Mankind in the past 150 years has burnt Coal & Oil reserves which took Nature over 300,000 years to collect.

Reserves?

The Earth generates its own oil and gas.

All the CO2 that that has produced, is comparable to the amount of CO2 released from Mt St Helen's in the single 1980 eruption.

The oxygen that we breath, is "exhaled" by plants,
that "breath in" the carbon dioxide.

More CO2,
means more faster, better, greater plant growth,
and that means more food, for everything upon the Earth.

[Omega892R09]

Physics professor tells U.S. government PUT UP OR SHUT UP on Global Warming Claims

Quest old son.

Those of us who have given climate change and the paleoclimate aspect of it much thought already understand that CO2 levels have been elevated in the past. Indeed if you had been paying attention I have mentioned this myself, I have stated when this was and provided a reference. Such elevated levels of CO2 do provide valuable information and certainly those from about 65mya to the present. Records in this latter period tell us that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now rising faster than at any time in that period (ice and sediment cores are amongst the sources of data).

Science tells us that it is the anthropogenic fraction that is rising the fastest. Here is how.

Annual global fossil fuel consumption can be calculated from economic measures.

The upper atmosphere of the earth is naturally radioactive where Carbon-14 forms. Tree rings that have grown over recent decades show a fall off from the radioactivity levels of rings from the pre-industrial age. This tells us that the proportion of the atmosphere from low radiation sources is increasing. These sources are volcanoes, the ocean and fossil fuels.

The most abundant, at about 99%, of the three forms of carbon is Carbon-12 (light carbon) which is stable. Another stable form is Carbon-13, with six protons but seven neutrons. Photosynthesising plants preferentially incorporate CO2 molecules containing light Carbon-12. Fossil fuel sources are found to have a low ration of Carbon-13, i.e., high Carbon-12. In this way the fractional increase of Carbon-12 compared to Carbon-13 shows that it is fossil fuels burning that is increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

That coupled with the known quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involving black body radiation - need for earth to balance incoming with outgoing radiation of the so called greenhouse effect proves beyond doubt that it is fossil fuel burning that is causing the planet to heat up. The effects of which in ice melt and biosphere-response can not be disputed.

Howard Hayden is well known as a fossil fuel lobby sponsored speaker as his resume at SourceWatch makes clear where you see that Hayden is being disingenuous, given his background, when he states:

His Energy Advocate site states, "Perhaps there is global warming, and perhaps there is a human influence, and perhaps that is bad. But we are not on the global-warming bandwagon. ... There is no credible evidence that the temperature rise of the last century is anything out of the ordinary, and even less that a warmer earth would be less habitable than it is now.

That statement has so many flaws that the sun ain't going to make any difference to Hayden as he still has his head where it don't shine.

You should look at this article and especially starting at comment 341 by Ray and note the remarks of those responding to that.

Monckton's vision of the future: an IPCC boot stamping on a human face forever

Unlike the MM sites the comments at the likes of Deltoid, RealClimate, ClimateProgress, DeepClimate, OpenMind Tamino, DesmogBlog and Rabett Run tend to be educational – that includes posts from deniers such as yourself for they illicit numerous other illuminating posts from those who have truly studied the issue.

Equally mendacious then is this statement at the bottom of the Climate Realist page at:

Climate Realists (Hah!)

Climate Realists will actively promote the proposition that there is no such thing as Man Made Climate Change, until the World's Governments recognize that Climate Change and Man Made Pollution are two separate issues and not part of the same problem as currently promoted by Climate Change Journalists from the AGW Media. Government funded scientists who make up and exaggerate climate research for the sole purpose of obtaining large grants will undoubtedly come unstuck as the world becomes cooler and CO2 continues to rise.

More on Howard Hayden here:
Hayden and the Energy Advocate
Do you not yet appreciate that you have been suckered by the very forces that you were arguing against not that long ago.

And that Alex Jones at Prison Planet seems hell bent on denying APGW and Climate Change gives me reason to believe that he isn't the patriot that you folks think he is. Alternative energy is the future whether the US population want to be involved in it or not.

If you would rather have it that the population of the US continues to be poisoned by the mercury and other toxic compounds produced by increasing coal burning power plants - promoted by a corrupt and ethically bankrupt industry and their allies in railroads so be it. If you want more coastal based fisheries to be wiped out by oil spills so be it. I have trouble with such as you being behind the Palin 'drill baby drill' ethos. Doesn't match with your being on this forum in the first instance.

If you had a neighbour dumping his sewage on your land to avoid polluting his own water supply how would you feel? Think about it.

Trouble is CO2 is everybody's problem and those who produce the most don't shoulder a proportionate cost.

When are you going to wake the fuck up. and stop being a Fox news echo?

[tumetuestumefais...]

You are fudging charts and temperature trends whilst the earth's systems are telling us that warming is real and is continuing. Argue against that if you can.

I wont argue against apparent ad-hominem, I don't anymore debate with people who use this tactic of no objective arguments but challenge others to argue against it.

But just one math quiz:
If the results of three sets of instrumental data composites (I don't really know if you use in English the term "panels of measurements", maybe we just do in Czech, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding, I'm not English native) show temperature decline and one composite shows rise, what probability is there that the one is true and the other three are false?

(and that's not me who is "fudging" the WFT graphs, nor WFT, the graphs are based on the official GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS results, and are created using open source software - either you believe the official results are relatively credible, or whole your reasoning is, I'm sorry, baseless, because then there would be literally nothing you can base your assumption there is a global warming on)

[Omega892R09]

I was watcing the Weather Channel. IT was an hour show about the melting North Pole Ice, The Major shipping companys are now Using the Northern passage to get from the Atlatntic to the Pacific saving millions of dollars in fuel and time. During the summer only, but years ago it was impossible to pass.

Some Information sources can not see the Ice is disapearing ??
Are these the same informationists that told Us Iraq possessed WMD.??

A few months ago we had a record snowfall and record low temps. The Right Wingers were celebrating that Global warming was a Hoax. I asked them if we get record heat temperatures would they change thier beliefs. Well here in Pittsburgh PA, last month we had 4 record high temps in a 3 week period.?? Tonight is a frost warning.

Mankind in the past 150 years has burnt Coal & Oil reserves which took Nature over 300,000 years to collect.

Good points all Johnny.

Yes just listen to the Fox blowhards.

And on temperatures see this which I have brought forward from an earlier post, note that you can enter years and months of your choice:

State of the Climate

And don't forget to visit:

Deltoid at deltoid

RealClimate at RealClimate

ClimateProgress at ClimateProgress (new post there spot on your topic, 'Climate change indicators in the United States')

DeepClimate at deepclimate

OpenMind Tamino at OpenMind Tamino

DesmogBlog at DeSmogBlog

Rabett Run at Rabbet Run

Look up stuff on Wegman Report, Inhofe, Monckton, McIntyre, McKitrick and Motl. On that latter here is a start:

Rabbet's Motl roll

If you don't understand all keep at it it gets easier. What never gets easier is whacking these moles that keep popping up. But then remember the maxim, 'We don't do these things because they are easy but because they are hard'.

And yes I do recall who originated that.

[Omega892R09]

I wont argue against apparent ad-hominem, I don't anymore debate with people who use this tactic of no objective arguments but challenge others to argue against it.

But just one math quiz:
If the results of three sets of instrumental data composites (I don't really know if you use in English the term "panels of measurements", maybe we just do in Czech, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding, I'm not English native) show temperature decline and one composite shows rise, what probability is there that the one is true and the other three are false?

(and that's not me who is "fudging" the WFT graphs, nor WFT, the graphs are based on the official GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS results, and are created using open source software - either you believe the official results are relatively credible, or whole your reasoning is, I'm sorry, baseless, because then there would be literally nothing you can base your assumption there is a global warming on)

No ad-hominem intended. I just don't like it when people cherry pick start and end points to back up flawed arguments. You can do what you like but the recognised trend is still up, that is after all that heat has been used in melting ice eh!

Then when you consider all the heat energy required to vapourize water (540 times that to raise equivalent mass one degree celsius) which then condenses at higher altitude, releasing all that heat energy, to be distributed and fall elsewhere in torrential ran storms or blizzards of snow we get a picture of how much more heat energy is there to power these systems.

No objective argument hum - pot, kettle, black there old china.

OK Sorry but I was not taking the mick of your use of panel as I have long got that your are not a native English speaker and I am sure my Czech is worse (good machine gun the Bren though - from a Czech design, very accurate) - sounded funny that was all.

You still have not answered my question WRT the sources of temperature data and also what exactly was being measured - temperature of, or at, what?

Your flaw is with a concentration on temperature alone and not even anomalies at that.

[Quest]

Omega, is CO2 bad for plants?

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 28 2010, 12:55 PM

[Johnny Angel]

Reserves?

The Earth generates its own oil and gas.

All the CO2 that that has produced, is comparable to the amount of CO2 released from Mt St Helen's in the single 1980 eruption.

The Earth generates its own Oil & Gas..
So does that mean the Oil Companys & thier Political Puppets are Exploiting We the consumer.??

I live here in Pittsburgh, within a mile of my house is one of the original 19th Century Oil wells.
It pretty rusted, NO Tresspassing, but how can I tell if its filling back up..?? Free OIL.??

Volcanoes produce CO2.. Where did you get that..??
Volcanoes only produce CO2 from the wood and coal that is in its immediate area. Volcanoes emit Ash from Rocks which helps to cool the planet, temporary cool, until the dust settles.

[Johnny Angel]

Omega, is CO2 bad for plants?

Carl Sagan (R.I.P.) was asked what one person could do to save the planet..

Carl suggested that 1 person requires about a 10` X 10` plot of grass, or a large tree to equal our breathing oxygen to CO2 transfer.

I wonder how many plants or trees are required to absorb our total use of Carbon.
Driving, Electric, Intrastructure, WAR, etc etc etc

This post has been edited by Johnny Angel: Apr 28 2010, 02:50 PM

[tumetuestumefais...]

No ad-hominem intended. I just don't like it when people cherry pick start and end points to back up flawed arguments. You can do what you like but the recognised trend is still up, that is after all that heat has been used in melting ice eh!

But the argument there is no significant warming trend since 2001 is quite supported by all the datasets. My point was that it is consistent with the declining phase of the SC23, now we'll see if the trend will go up again or not and if yes then we must consider the sun being a major factor, and also that the apparent lack of warming trend since 1998 is due to strong El Nino that year. About the seasonal ice it shows recovery relatively to the minimum in 2007 link and exactly the ice of the non-arctic glaciers is the prime example of the flawed predictions of IPCC - as we remember the Glaciergate scandal. Also the OHC trend stagnates or is slightly declining since 2003 link

Then when you consider all the heat energy required to vapourize water (540 times that to raise equivalent mass one degree celsius) which then condenses at higher altitude, releasing all that heat energy, to be distributed and fall elsewhere in torrential ran storms or blizzards of snow we get a picture of how much more heat energy is there to power these systems.

You really think the increase of blizzards occurence - if there is any - is the direct proof of a global warming? Wouldn't be better to just measure the temperature to see if there is higher temperature than use the unreliable "storm proxies" in the age of space missions? Do you believe the basic physical principle that if there is more heat stored in the system the temperature of the system rises and that it is direct causality or you rely on the inconclusive indirect indices?

No objective argument hum - pot, kettle, black there old china.

But I brought the argument in the form of the graphs based on official results from 4 diferent agencies. If you contest the results of CRU, GISS, RSS and UAH you must bring more than the ad-hominem arguments against Christie and Spencer praising GISS (because there the slightly declining trend starts just one year later? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ).

OK Sorry but I was not taking the mick of your use of panel as I have long got that your are not a native English speaker and I am sure my Czech is worse (good machine gun the Bren though - from a Czech design, very accurate) - sounded funny that was all.

I didn't take this personally, it was probably my fault to use the word panel in English

You still have not answered my question WRT the sources of temperature data and also what exactly was being measured - temperature of, or at, what?

The sources are GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS - it's I think clearly written on the WFT site.

Your flaw is with a concentration on temperature alone and not even anomalies at that.

but the data ploted in the WFT graphs are temperature anomalies against the set baselines, that's also why they have quite different absolute values of the anomaly. Anyway, when we talk about a warming wouldn't it be good to concern on temperature? Temperature is objective absolute physical value

[Quest]

Carl Sagan (R.I.P.) was asked what one person could do to save the planet..

Carl suggested that 1 person requires about a 10` X 10` plot of grass, or a large tree to equal our breathing oxygen to CO2 transfer.

I wonder how many plants or trees are required to absorb our total use of Carbon.
Driving, Electric, Intrastructure, WAR, etc etc etc

You are aware that humans are responsible for only between 2 and 3% of the earth's CO2 production, I presume? Judging by the video I posted earlier, I would say that the extra CO2 would be greatly appreciated by the already existing plants.

CO2's Effect On Plant Growth (After all, it's food)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE...player_embedded

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 29 2010, 09:33 PM

[Quest]

The Earth generates its own Oil & Gas..
So does that mean the Oil Companys & thier Political Puppets are Exploiting We the consumer.??

I live here in Pittsburgh, within a mile of my house is one of the original 19th Century Oil wells.
It pretty rusted, NO Tresspassing, but how can I tell if its filling back up..?? Free OIL.??

Volcanoes produce CO2.. Where did you get that..??
Volcanoes only produce CO2 from the wood and coal that is in its immediate area. Volcanoes emit Ash from Rocks which helps to cool the planet, temporary cool, until the dust settles.

Volcanos and CO2
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

To your question, "are oil companies exploiting the consumer?", is a frog's ass watertight?

Abiotic oil
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan...il05mar05.shtml

Oil Is NOT A Fossil Fuel - It Is Abiotic
http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 29 2010, 09:17 PM

[lunk]

If you would rather have it that the population of the US continues to be poisoned by the mercury and other toxic compounds produced by increasing coal burning power plants - promoted by a corrupt and ethically bankrupt industry and their allies in railroads so be it. If you want more coastal based fisheries to be wiped out by oil spills so be it. I have trouble with such as you being behind the Palin 'drill baby drill' ethos. Doesn't match with your being on this forum in the first instance.

Omega, you are mixing apples with orangutans.
CO2 is NOT, mercury or oil spills.

These are real pollutants.
i'm all for stopping real pollution, there is no need.
But Carbon-dioxide is what life on Earth is made from,
and is not a siminoid.

[Timothy Osman]

Volcano's are not guilty, they emit mostly water vapour. It's us stinking human apes that's the problem, I'm suffocating here under the enormous pressure of the 0.039% of the atmosphere co2 comprises and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my planet by contributing their as yet unknown fraction to that horrendous percentage. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Quest]

Is there no depth to which the criminally insane elite won't stoop in which to tighten their control over the populace?

Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64827

Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....eland-volcanoes

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 29 2010, 09:34 PM

[Quest]

Imagine if we put our efforts into doing something worthwhile like actually cleaning our environment - like the residents in these towns.

Trash Bashers Clean Up the Streets of Holyoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C4LuoZx2-o

April 21st 2007 Vedder River Cleanup: Part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTbvJ_zV28Q...feature=related

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 29 2010, 02:02 PM

[Quest]

Talk about "inconvenient truth". (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

Clearly worried about CO2 emissions causing rising sea levels, Al Gore has bought an ocean view mansion with 9 bathrooms.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-buys-a...er-mansion.html

Al Gore Buys Another Mansion
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm...0,4103538.story
Al Gore, Tipper Gore snap up Montecito-area villa
The Italian-style home has an ocean view, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Lauren Beale, Los Angeles Times

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

[Sanders]

I restrain myself sometimes from posting in these "Global Warming" threads, 'cause Omega will just lamblast me and it's just too much trouble.

But its all a scam, and Al Gore should be behind bars instead of living the life of royalty.

Great and timely posts, Quest. You rock.

[Quest]

I restrain myself sometimes from posting in these "Global Warming" threads, 'cause Omega will just lamblast me and it's just too much trouble.

But its all a scam, and Al Gore should be behind bars instead of living the life of royalty.

Great and timely posts, Quest. You rock.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Johnny Angel]

Quest..
I read your link about Abiotic Oil. The Earth produces its own Oil Naturally. (very long read) Still confused.
I told you about that 19th century Oil well behind my house. I went down there today and tried to figure out a way to make some type of dipstick to see if its filling up.. Its so rusted and shaky, I better not mess with it.

I recall a program that some of these old wells have some oil that had leaked in from surrounding rocks, but it requires pumps or high pressure to force it out. Maybe the Rockafellas are waiting for the price to go it before they retrieve it. The Abiotic theory could take thousands of years to refill the voids.??

In the Early 1970`s I read a book by Victor Villocovski. I forget the name of the book and all the details. but he was a Russian Scientist, friend of Einstein and became creditable when space probes made it to venus and mars and he had previously predicted the correct temperatures and climates there.

Villocovski stated that the Earths Petroleum was not fossil fuel but was placed here by thousands of frozen Oil asteroids billions of years ago. Over millions of years it seeped into the Crust. ??

I have no answers to the mysterys of the Universe.. Only stupid questions and curiosity.