Civilization As We Know It Is Unsustainable., The wrecking of our life support system. Options

[Omega892R09]

Current species extinction rates are unprecedented in the fossil record.

Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”

Please take time to absorb all that is written there including many excellent comment.

and that is not all.

Heard of the North Pacific gyre and the plastic garbage patch?:

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Good Morning America

Message to lunk:

Avoiding the answering of my questions by locking a thread is not fair play as in:

Stephen Schneider thread

Insrtead you repeat stuff I have debunked backed with evidence and you provide a singular lack of support for your erroneous ideas as with this:

i have a little problem with the past predictions of oceans rising.
(since the '60's!)
They haven't.

The reason that you see lower tides in your local is because the land is rising as the Pacific plate subducts beneath, as I have repeatedly told you. But that is another well researched and sound scientifically known fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

Try explaining how the structure that is the European Alps formed by an expanding earth. Ask yourself why the top of the Matterhorn is a huge chunk of gneiss, albeit somewhat ground down by glaciers and then the carbon cycle working with rain, winds and gravity to further errode, that could only have come from the African continent.

Here are some clues, not that I have not supplied many more over time:

Waves in the bathtub Why sea level rise isn’t level at all

Scientists withdraw low-ball estimate of sea level rise — media are confused and anti-science crowd pounces

and as for:

If water evaporates quicker under lower atmospheric pressure,
then a rise in ocean levels would accelerate evaporation,
reducing that rise.

Is atmospheric pressure overall falling? Who is telling you that?

You should study this:

The sky IS falling

On the other hand, what is causing a rise in atmospheric moisture levels is rising temperature. The energy stored is put into an accelerated hydrological cycle as people in Pakistan have discovered. Tropical storms over parts of the US have also intensified whilst other parts continue to desicate:

Masters: “Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records”

Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse

Lunk, it would make a change if you tried to grasp these topics rather than evading and repeating unsupported nonsense dressed up as verse.

[Omega892R09]

OK Lunk, and others, lets have a look at some of the tactics that the unscrupulous use to baffle you with bullshit. Your responses are all too clearly based on ill-informed prejudice.

Case in point is straw men arguments and as an illustration we have the one that suggests that climate scientists claim that CO2 increase has always led temperature:

.
When you have watched that have a look at the originating site and note the latest item 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers.

[lunk]

OK Lunk, and others, lets have a look at some of the tactics that the unscrupulous use to baffle you with bullshit. Your responses are all too clearly based on ill-informed prejudice.

Case in point is straw men arguments and as an illustration we have the one that suggests that climate scientists claim that CO2 increase has always led temperature:

.
When you have watched that have a look at the originating site and note the latest item 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers.

Excellent photo, refractive indexes.
Fascinating stuff. Different transparent materials can slow the speed of light, differently.
Causing the light to "appear" to bend, when on an angle between transparent substances.

Even non-transparent materials, like gold, have a refractive index, that can be calculated by the amount they bend the light when they are dissolved in glass.
Red stain glass is caused by dissolved gold in the glass.

Pure water is invisible as steam, water and ice. Each has a different refractive index, meaning, to us, that the speed of light is different in each.
Obviously different gasses, such as methane, CO2 and Nitrogen will have different refractive indexes, and that refractive index will probably increase with pressure, even though those gasses should remain transparent.

Of course there is very little pressure in the upper atmosphere and the refractive indexes of all these gasses should be about the same closer to the vacuum, where the speed of light is the fastest.

Oblate-ness, does sound better than a squished ball.

(edit) added, oh, that was a video.

i really don't like the use of the word "denier." It's so "psycho-linguistic" and weighted with very negative connotations that have absolutely nothing to do with the weather. Even "straw man"
is becoming a loaded expression, to many, meaning much more than a flawed method of argument.

i do think we are seeing a climate change, and possibly the start of another ice age.
They can come on rather suddenly, They are still finding woolly mammoths frozen in ice and they appear to have been grazing on spring flowers, at the time.

It starts to snow,
and there's no place to go,
and the next thing we know,
is it's covered in glacier.

i sure hope it is 20,000 years in the future, not now.
As that would be an catastrophic miscalculation.

In 1974 there was a terrible flood in Queensland Australia.
Hydrological engineers figured out a plan of dams and dikes to mitigate it ever happening again.
But climate change experts dissuaded the locals from following through with that plan, and instead of dams to direct the water away, it was thought that the money would be better spent on desalinization plants.

Brisbane then re-flooded, with its' now mothballed desalinization plant.

The recent flooding of Brisbane was completely the fault of global warming enthusiast.


BTW, to get mile thick ice sheets, it first must precipitate a lot.

[Omega892R09]

Of course there is very little pressure in the upper atmosphere and the refractive indexes of all these gasses should be about the same closer to the vacuum, where the speed of light is the fastest.

Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight. It also gets squashed inappearance as it approaches the horizon due to light from the lower part being refracted more through the thicker atmosphere nearer the ground. As the content of GHGs increases this
effect also increases. Its due to physics.

Here is an idea Lunk. There is a new The Feynman Lectures on Physics, boxed set: The New Millennium Edition recently published. Could be worth a look. I have a copy and I can see that it will fill in many of your gaps.

(edit) added, oh, that was a video.

My turn for LOL, in fact (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) !

i really don't like the use of the word "denier." It's so "psycho-linguistic" and weighted with very negative connotations that have absolutely nothing to do with the weather.

Ah! But! There you see you mention weather when here we are discussing climate change. The two, although conected are different.

You, by thinking up all manner of reasons for polar warming are trying to argue that climate change is nothing to do with the activities of humans if I am not mistaken. Thus you are denying that humans have input a big signature into global warming and resultant climatic changes. If you don't like it then study the non-pseudo-science.

Even "straw man" is becoming a loaded expression, to many, meaning much more than a flawed method of argument.

Well simple, do not use such arguments.

i do think we are seeing a climate change, and possibly the start of another ice age.

On what basis?

BTW, to get mile thick ice sheets, it first must precipitate a lot.

That depends much on where it snows alot.
More later.

[Tamborine man]

Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight.

Omega, there exist few people like you, that to such extent spend his whole life quoting other sources,
thereby trying to appear knowledgeable, but are in fact, in this way, simply trying to hide the fact that he is
unable to think for himself. (It's a politicians way, and you do the same)!
What you quote above is silly and immature, which you would have found out if you had spend some small
time thinking about it!
I urge you to do this, and you'll hopefully see the stupidity of it all.

You, by thinking up all manner of reasons for polar warming are trying to argue that climate change is nothing to do with the activities of humans if I am not mistaken. Thus you are denying that humans have input a big signature into global warming and resultant climatic changes. If you don't like it then study the non-pseudo-science.

Humans have only an 'indirect' influence on the climate. (This for another time)!
All man made so-called co2 emissions, such that comes from power plants, coal fire stations, factories, exhausts,
fires etc. etc., has no influence on the climate. All these emissions simply revert back to their origin within a rather
short span of time.
The same apply to emissions from volcanic eruptions.

All these emissions are totally harmless, as they have lost their "vitality". They are no longer active or polarized.

Actually, 'active' co2 is very good for humankind.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 26 2011, 06:46 AM

[Omega892R09]

Omega, there exist few people like you, that to such extent spend his whole life quoting other sources,
thereby trying to appear knowledgeable, but are in fact, in this way, simply trying to hide the fact that he is
unable to think for himself. (It's a politicians way, and you do the same)!

Your education system has failed you. I would ask for a refund if I were you.

The trouble with people like you is that you know so little that you haven't a clue as to how little you know.

What you quote above is silly and immature,

Pot meet kettle!

Humans have only an 'indirect' influence on the climate.

Well yes but via the accumulations of GHGs through agricultural and industrial process and the resultant consumerism.

All man made so-called co2 emissions, such that comes from power plants, coal fire stations, factories, exhausts,
fires etc. etc., has no influence on the climate. All these emissions simply revert back to their origin within a rather
short span of time.

Read the chapters of David Archer's book 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' available at:

Sample Chapters

All these emissions are totally harmless, as they have lost their "vitality". They are no longer active or polarized.

Vitality, active and polarized being used without a clue as to what they mean.

Are you familiar with the concept of molecules and how some are arranged such that they can respond to specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Time for you to study some real science so until you have done that quit the ad hominum attacks!

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 26 2011, 10:56 AM

[Tamborine man]

Your education system has failed you. I would ask for a refund if I were you.

In my days, and probably still, education was/is free in my home country.

Pot meet kettle!

Our eyes do not care for distance nor the speed of radiations. They simply 'see' what they see.
The radiations from the Sun are continues. Thus it becomes completely meaningless to talk about
the time of 8 minutes it takes for certain particles from the Sun to reach the Earth, at least in the
case we are talking about.

This would only have some bearing if a persons 'vision' did not extent further than the nose, but
this, fortunately enough, does not apply to the vast majority of humankind.

Vitality, active and polarized being used without a clue as to what they mean.

Here you're tempting me to use strong sarcasm - but as i have a well developed willpower, i'll
simply put water in my mouth.

Time for you to study some real science so until you have done that quit the ad hominum attacks!

To tell the Truth, as i did, and which you further confirm in your responses in your following post,
can never be called "ad hominum"!

The Truth has its origin in the Light, and its function and purpose is therefore to do good, to enlighten
and to create evolving progress.

Some people fear the Truth more than anything. Other people have learned to love it.

"The Truth" is therefore a simple matter of choice. Some goes for it - and that would be my advise to
you ....to do as well. For this too, is harmless.

[Omega892R09]

In my days, and probably still, education was/is free in my home country.

So it didn't cost you anything but somebody paid for it and further, if you are paying taxes you have been contributing to the education of the generations that came after you.

Our eyes do not care for distance nor the speed of radiations.

Huh! Our vision has the capacity to estimate distances. HTF do you think pilots of aircraft manage to land planes and cricketers to hit or catch balls - well in the case of England's Ashes winning team anyway.

They simply 'see' what they see.
The radiations from the Sun are continues.

Strewth! Trying to parse your use of language and incoherent thinking is quite a thing.

It so happens that different wavelengths of light carry photons with different energy levels which has a an effect on the electrons in the receptor elements, rods and cones, in the eye depending on the energy level of specific photons. The cones are grouped mainly in a small area called the fovea which is what we use for detailed and colour vision. Most of the retina is composed of rods which can have their sensitivity adjusted according to the light levels. Cones need bright light to function which is why at night, and very low light levels in general, our eyes become dark adapted with time elapsed with the resultant vision being monochrome. That it is the outer areas of the retina are used for night vision contributes to the fact that stars and other dim sky objects are easier to spot if one does not look directly at them.

Richard Feynman has provided an excellent overview of our vision system, and that of other organisms, in volume one of his 'The Feynman Lectures on Physics'. Try and find a copy.

Feynman had the rare ability to consider that sciences other than physics were important and that there should be no compartmentalisation between them. Biology relies upon chemistry which relies for its processes on the physics of particles. Feynman even explains how the forces that cause molecules to form can cause the kinking in strands of protein made from amino acids. These are the forces that go to produce the invagination required during the development of an embryo for example.

The evolution of eyes makes a wonderful study and eyes are known to have evolved independently at least forty times.

We know that our eyes have evolved and are not the result of an intelligent designer because of their construction and connection of muscle systems that control important functions.

With respect to the structure, a designer would not have placed the 'electrical' connections on the surface through which the incoming light has to pass and as a result create a blind spot where the nerves join up to link up with the rest of the brain. The retina can be classed as an extension of the brain and has some processing function as such. The other odd thing that a designer would not have done is to have separated the muscle control of the iris to two different nervous systems with the sphincter muscle being directly controlled and the dilator muscle being controlled by a nerve path that descends from the brain centre down through the spinal column to the thorax and then out and up again via thoracic ganglion and then out via the long ciliary nerve to the dilator pupillae. Such a strange state of affairs is probably due to the movement of hox genes over evolutionary time.

Richard Dawkins is an excellent source for information on the evolution of vision in 'Climbing Mount Improbable', 'Unweaving the Rainbow' (for an exposition on how we register movement in our visual field) and 'The Ancestors Tale'. More on evolutionary 'bad design' can be found in Jerry Coynes, 'Why Evolution is True'.

Thus it becomes completely meaningless to talk about
the time of 8 minutes it takes for certain particles from the Sun to reach the Earth, at least in the
case we are talking about.

This would only have some bearing if a persons 'vision' did not extent further than the nose, but
this, fortunately enough, does not apply to the vast majority of humankind.

Sorry but I haven't a clue what you are on about here, in either statement the latter of which makes no sense. What is, 'the case we are talking about'?

To tell the Truth, as i did, and which you further confirm in your responses in your following post,
can never be called "ad hominum"!

Oh! Really! So what is this:

What you quote above is silly and immature, which you would have found out if you had spend some small
time thinking about it!
I urge you to do this, and you'll hopefully see the stupidity of it all.

Finally. Please try to be coherent, making sense of your torrents of abuse is tedious and non-productive.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 3 2011, 02:10 PM

[Tamborine man]

Huh! Our vision has the capacity to estimate distances. HTF do you think pilots of aircraft manage to land planes and cricketers to hit or catch balls - well in the case of England's Ashes winning team anyway.

It's not your eyes that estimate distances. This is done by your mind. Your eyes are simply "tools"
which convey information to your brain which again is passed on to your mind.

Sorry but I haven't a clue what you are on about here, in either statement the latter of which makes no sense. What is, 'the case we are talking about'?

I was referring to your comment quoted here:

"Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight."

Oh! Really! So what is this:

I was obviously referring to the authors of the above statement, as the one's being 'silly and immature'.
That's why i urged you to think more deeply about it; meaning of course, that not all you read should be
taken as gospel truth!

Finally. Please try to be coherent, making sense of your torrents of abuse is tedious and non-productive.

"Some people fear the Truth more than anything. Other people have learned to love it."

Some people get very abusive when they are told the Truth. They are convinced "the Truth" exist for the
sole purpose of 'hurting' them. They find it impossible to 'see' it any other way. Thus they shun away from
it, pretending there exist no such thing, even if it stares them right in the face.

'Richard Dawkins' f. ex., is one of those people who, when it comes to "the Truth", has a long long long way
to go yet!

[Omega892R09]

'Richard Dawkins' f. ex., is one of those people who, when it comes to "the Truth", has a long long long way
to go yet!

Have you read Dawkins' books, and with understanding?

Have you read any Feynman?

Have you every engaged in any scientific experiments and specificaly here any with light? Know about refraction do you? Hint, that is why we can still see the sun after it has dipped below the horizon. Refraction isn't some unproven concept - spear fishermen compensate for it to survive.

What is 'The Truth' to you?

What do you mean by 'active carbon'?

[Tamborine man]

Know about refraction do you? Hint, that is why we can still see the sun after it has dipped below the horizon.

When sunset draws near, fix your gaze on the Sun; go up in a plane, fly west, and while you keep the Sun in sight,
see if you can spot, or catch up with, the other sun that according to you supposedly has dipped below the horizon!

What is 'The Truth' to you?

'The Truth' to me is naturally the same as it would be to everyone else who are interested in that.

What do you mean by 'active carbon'?

I take it that you mean 'inactive carbon', as this is what the talk is about?

The emissions from the combustion of all kinds of fuel, would be what i consider no longer active, (becoming inactive).
Or in other words, these spend gases would not anymore be able to be re-used for any good productive purposes.
These gases simply dissolve and revert back to their component parts and then again into the elements from which
they evolved, and from then on will again be absorbed into the ground and into the atmospheric layers.
Thus, some of these now inactive molecules, those who made up the carbon dioxide in the fuel, will never be able to
add to the existing weight of the active natural carbon dioxide either in the ground or in the atmosphere.

Therefore, the claim that fuel burning are adding large amounts of CO2 and other gases to the existing natural mix,
is false and should be uprooted the sooner the better.

[Omega892R09]

When sunset draws near, fix your gaze on the Sun; go up in a plane, fly west, and while you keep the Sun in sight,
see if you can spot, or catch up with, the other sun that according to you supposedly has dipped below the horizon!

No! I do not indicate that there are two suns, read my statements again and think!

I take it that you mean 'inactive carbon', as this is what the talk is about?

The emissions from the combustion of all kinds of fuel, would be what i consider no longer active, (becoming inactive).
Or in other words, these spend gases would not anymore be able to be re-used for any good productive purposes.
These gases simply dissolve and revert back to their component parts and then again into the elements from which
they evolved, and from then on will again be absorbed into the ground and into the atmospheric layers.
Thus, some of these now inactive molecules, those who made up the carbon dioxide in the fuel, will never be able to
add to the existing weight of the active natural carbon dioxide either in the ground or in the atmosphere.

Therefore, the claim that fuel burning are adding large amounts of CO2 and other gases to the existing natural mix,
is false and should be uprooted the sooner the better.

It was you who mentioned 'active carbon'.

However, you are totaly missing several concepts.

Firstly. The carbon that we are adding to the carbon cycle over a couple of hundred years is that which was locked away over millions of years, at various times in Earth's history. We are putting it back into the atmosphere and oceans faster than it can be converted into sedimentary rock.

The CO2 that is the product of fossil fuel burning does react with certain wavelengths of light (quantum mechanics - see Archer links in posts up-thread) and this raises the temperature of the Earth. This is demonstrated by the fact that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling (satellite measurements once the errors of Christy and Spencer had been weeded out). Of course a warmer world increases the dynamics of the hydrological cycle and more water vapour has an effect on the lapse rate - causing further warming. Only when the GHGs return to lower levels, which takes centuries of rock weathering from the more acidic rain (carbonic acid) to carry the sediment out into the oceans probably at some point millions of years ahead to be subsumed at some Wadati-Benioff zone.

That will have to do for now - fingers bleeding.

[Tamborine man]

No! I do not indicate that there are two suns, read my statements again and think!

You said:
"Know about refraction do you? Hint, that is why we can still see the sun after it has dipped below the horizon."

Obviously you're here talking about the "material Sun" dipping below the horizon, while a 'refraction' of
the same "material Sun" is still fully visible above the horizon.

I asked you to fix your eyes on the fully visible so-called 'refraction' Sun while flying west to see if you could
ever catch up to the "material Sun", the one you claimed had dipped below the horizon.

My contention of course is, that you will never be able to do this for the simple reason, that the Sun you see
on the horizon is at all times the same "material Sun" you continually have kept in your sight.
Therefore there's no 'hocus-pocus' going on, as you're trying to imply with the silly remark quoted above!

However, you are totaly missing several concepts.

Firstly. The carbon that we are adding to the carbon cycle over a couple of hundred years is that which was locked away over millions of years, at various times in Earth's history. We are putting it back into the atmosphere and oceans faster than it can be converted into sedimentary rock.

The CO2 that is the product of fossil fuel burning does react with certain wavelengths of light (quantum mechanics - see Archer links in posts up-thread) and this raises the temperature of the Earth. This is demonstrated by the fact that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling (satellite measurements once the errors of Christy and Spencer had been weeded out). Of course a warmer world increases the dynamics of the hydrological cycle and more water vapour has an effect on the lapse rate - causing further warming. Only when the GHGs return to lower levels, which takes centuries of rock weathering from the more acidic rain (carbonic acid) to carry the sediment out into the oceans probably at some point millions of years ahead to be subsumed at some Wadati-Benioff zone.

That will have to do for now - fingers bleeding.

I can only repeat what i've already tried to tell you:

CO2 gases resulting from fuel burning can be termed nothing else but "waste products",
and which will undergo the same process as any other organic waste product from any
other kind of 'food' chain.

A good test would be for you to collect and contain some of these waste gases, and see
if it would be possible to re-use the carbon dioxide to again produce f. ex. dry ice or again
to utilize it in the production of soda water or the like, etc. etc..
I personally wouldn't think so, but you are very welcome to try, of course!

Organic waste products in the form of "food", are naturally processed and consumed every
day across the globe, but this has to happen before the 'food products' become susceptible
to attack from decay-producing bacteria. After that, the 'food' will suffer same fate as what
will happen to the carbon dioxide.

Another way by which one can re-utilize a waste product is by grafting. A branch or a twig
cut off from a plant or tree can be re-grafted, but only if this happens within the first 20
minutes or so from the time of cut off. New growth or new shoots will then later on be able
to take place on the re-grafted branch, twig or stem.
After the time of 20 minutes, it will become impossible to perform this process, as by then
the "Life-energy" before present in the branch would have left for good.
This same "Life-energy" would also have left the carbon dioxide, rendering also this 'death'
and useless. (Except as potential fuel or firewood, of course)!

Omega, you're obviously totally bedazzled by the language of the so-called 'scientists', but
never forget that this is the same people who told you the Earth is flat, and that the emperor's
clothes was spun from the finest of silk thereby making the cloth invisible to the fools!

Nobody has ever gone astray be using critical thinking, and, omega, neither will you!

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 6 2011, 11:08 PM

[Omega892R09]

I asked you to fix your eyes on the fully visible so-called 'refraction' Sun while flying west to see if you could
ever catch up to the "material Sun", the one you claimed had dipped below the horizon.

Well you can, if you fly fast enough, keep up with and even overtake the sun. That is why Peter Twiss called his book 'Faster Than the Sun'.

The speeds at which you would have to travel to catch up with or overhaul the sun will depend on your latitude.

My statements regarding refraction of the sun were to do with an observer standing in one spot and watching the sun set. You change the argument. Perhaps you perpetrated a bait and switch on yourself?

I can only repeat what i've already tried to tell you:

CO2 gases resulting from fuel burning can be termed nothing else but "waste products",
and which will undergo the same process as any other organic waste product from any
other kind of 'food' chain.

A good test would be for you to collect and contain some of these waste gases, and see
if it would be possible to re-use the carbon dioxide to again produce f. ex. dry ice or again
to utilize it in the production of soda water or the like, etc. etc..
I personally wouldn't think so, but you are very welcome to try, of course!

Repetition of nonsense does not improve its veracity.

Organic waste products in the form of "food", are naturally processed and consumed every
day across the globe, but this has to happen before the 'food products' become susceptible
to attack from decay-producing bacteria. After that, the 'food' will suffer same fate as what
will happen to the carbon dioxide.

But CO2 is being pushed into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can sequester it and so it bui9lds up year on year as I pointed out like the compound interest on a loan. You are not correctly differentiating processes.

But then food waste is another growing problem and this in itself will produce increased bacterial activity, exacerbated by temperature rise, some of the waste products being other GHGs.

Another way by which one can re-utilize a waste product is by grafting.

That is quite a different concept, the plant part that is grafted contains the essential components for producing regrowth and thus cannot be considered a waste product. Have you ever pondered why some cut stems when such are placed in ground develop roots and then shoots whilst others just strand there until they rot. I have examples of both in my garden. I place some deadwood in the ground deliberately to encourage invertebrates and the birds that feed on them - good for my photography. I am into close up work of small organisms and have my own macro techniques.

Which of course you acknowledge yourself here:

A branch or a twig
cut off from a plant or tree can be re-grafted, but only if this happens within the first 20
minutes or so from the time of cut off. New growth or new shoots will then later on be able
to take place on the re-grafted branch, twig or stem.

After the time of 20 minutes, it will become impossible to perform this process, as by then
the "Life-energy" before present in the branch would have left for good.
This same "Life-energy" would also have left the carbon dioxide,

But with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere we are not talking about life processes but how the CO2 molecule reacts to stimulation by certain wavelengths of light.

Please study some of the citations in other posts up-thread.

Omega, you're obviously totally bedazzled by the language of the so-called 'scientists', but
never forget that this is the same people who told you the Earth is flat, and that the emperor's
clothes was spun from the finest of silk thereby making the cloth invisible to the fools!

The irony, it burns! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Nobody has ever gone astray be using critical thinking, and, omega, neither will you!

Ah! Critical thinking, you are quite the master are you not! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Tamborine man]

My statements regarding refraction of the sun were to do with an observer standing in one spot and watching the sun set. You change the argument. Perhaps you perpetrated a bait and switch on yourself?

I had you standing on a spot gazing at the Sun before i asked you to go up in the plane.
Looks like i should have repeated this to you 3 - 4 times it seems!

Repetition of nonsense does not improve its veracity.

To call something you can't understand nor comprehend for "nonsense", is a rather bad move mate. Especially since you offer no explanation as to why!
Would have preferred you telling me you love to sing in falsetto, but struggle vainly to hit the right notes, which again is cause to a nasty bad relationship
with your neighbours.
At least this would have told me that perhaps you're human!

But CO2 is being pushed into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can sequester it ....

False. And i have given you the reason already.

But with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere we are not talking about life processes but how the CO2 molecule reacts to stimulation by certain wavelengths of light.

Yes we are, or rather i am. And also that inactive or depolarized CO2 cannot be stimulated by any wavelength of light.