OT - Propaganda Games

On 12/24/2015 3:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

Not at all. IIRC the elNino effect is aggravated by global warming.



And swarms of plankton have no effect on our marine life in the bays and
estuaries? (happy Duck?)

They probably will be very happy.

8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

I presume you are referring to sea level rise. See
http://tinyurl.com/qbc7b5y or it's parent
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Sea_Level.png
Sea levels have been rising for up to 20,000 years with the rate of
rise being between 1.5mm/yr and 3mm/yr for the last several thousand
years. There is no evidence that this rate of rise has measurably
changed over the last few years.

Logical conclusion?

The case is far from closed.


Didn't know that kiwis had the same habits as ostriches. (Here is where
you are wrong about question marks, Duck.) ;-)

Sadly by the time some folks finally agree the case really is closed, it
may be too late.

Thank you for so finely illustrating my original point.

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.



--
PeterN

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:08:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/24/2015 3:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

Did you notice from all of this that sea ice has not been diminishing
for several years but has in fact been recovering?

2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

Did you notice temperatures are still as warm as they were in ancient
historical times (say 5000 years ago)?


3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.

Agreed, but it shows where I stand.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

You don't mean this one, do you?
http://tinyurl.com/ksxqxzo

You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

Not at all. IIRC the elNino effect is aggravated by global warming.

It's on top of whatever global warming there may be, but it's been
going on for centuries. That's where the names El Nino and La Nina
came from, the effect of the cycle on Spanish treasure ships sailing
down the west coast of South America in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The last I read of it, the cause was the vast, slow sloshing of cooler
and denser water from one side to the other in the depths of the
Pacific ocean. Right now it's in the west and the warmer surface water
is in the east. In a year or so the cooler water will be in east and
the warmer water will be in our side of the Pacific. See
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...71_634x385.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/gp772sg



And swarms of plankton have no effect on our marine life in the bays and
estuaries? (happy Duck?)

They probably will be very happy.

8 warming causes a decrease in our livable land mass.

I presume you are referring to sea level rise. See
http://tinyurl.com/qbc7b5y or it's parent
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Sea_Level.png
Sea levels have been rising for up to 20,000 years with the rate of
rise being between 1.5mm/yr and 3mm/yr for the last several thousand
years. There is no evidence that this rate of rise has measurably
changed over the last few years.

Logical conclusion?

The case is far from closed.


Didn't know that kiwis had the same habits as ostriches. (Here is where
you are wrong about question marks, Duck.) ;-)

Sadly by the time some folks finally agree the case really is closed, it
may be too late.

Thank you for so finely illustrating my original point.

The current theory which seems to best explain the recent temperature
history ties it to volcanic sulphate aerosols with the impact of
chloronated hydrocarbons on the ozone layer explaining both the post
WW2 temperature rise and the later hiatus. It will be interesting to
see how well it is accepted.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/25/2015 2:47 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:08:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/24/2015 3:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

Did you notice from all of this that sea ice has not been diminishing
for several years but has in fact been recovering?


Do the polar bears know that?



2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

Did you notice temperatures are still as warm as they were in ancient
historical times (say 5000 years ago)?





3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.

Agreed, but it shows where I stand.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

You don't mean this one, do you?
http://tinyurl.com/ksxqxzo


Was I wrong when I thought you to be a rational person?
Are you trying to deny that there is a squid known as the giant squid?

http://ocean.si.edu/giant-squid

But then you knew that!


You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

Not at all. IIRC the elNino effect is aggravated by global warming.

It's on top of whatever global warming there may be, but it's been
going on for centuries. That's where the names El Nino and La Nina
came from, the effect of the cycle on Spanish treasure ships sailing
down the west coast of South America in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The last I read of it, the cause was the vast, slow sloshing of cooler
and denser water from one side to the other in the depths of the
Pacific ocean. Right now it's in the west and the warmer surface water
is in the east. In a year or so the cooler water will be in east and
the warmer water will be in our side of the Pacific. See
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...71_634x385.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/gp772sg

And!

Too many deniers are failing to see that climatic changes do not occur
in a straight line. ("We had a major cold snap last winter, how can
there be global warming.") Must be junk science.

In any event, surly cleaning up our atmosphere cannot hurt. And it may
even improve the quality of our life.



--
PeterN

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 07:32:33 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/25/2015 2:47 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:08:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/24/2015 3:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

Did you notice from all of this that sea ice has not been diminishing
for several years but has in fact been recovering?


Do the polar bears know that?

Seeing their numbers have increased by 42% over the last 11 years,
they probably do. See http://tinyurl.com/paqqk7j
It's the not shooting them that really helps.



2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port. See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

Did you notice temperatures are still as warm as they were in ancient
historical times (say 5000 years ago)?

I meant did you notice temperatures are still *not* as warm as they
were in ancient historical time.




3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers - see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.

Agreed, but it shows where I stand.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now, and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off the
coast of CA.

You don't mean this one, do you?
http://tinyurl.com/ksxqxzo


Was I wrong when I thought you to be a rational person?
Are you trying to deny that there is a squid known as the giant squid?

A giant squid in your local waters will be a rarity and no more danger
to the local fish populations than an occasional whale. They may be
attracted to warmer waters but only if they 2,500 to 5,000 feet deep.
I doubt if they are a threat any normally caught local fish.

http://ocean.si.edu/giant-squid

But then you knew that!

In any case, we have them locally and I would hardly try to deny their
existence. See
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2694.jpg


You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

Not at all. IIRC the elNino effect is aggravated by global warming.

It's on top of whatever global warming there may be, but it's been
going on for centuries. That's where the names El Nino and La Nina
came from, the effect of the cycle on Spanish treasure ships sailing
down the west coast of South America in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The last I read of it, the cause was the vast, slow sloshing of cooler
and denser water from one side to the other in the depths of the
Pacific ocean. Right now it's in the west and the warmer surface water
is in the east. In a year or so the cooler water will be in east and
the warmer water will be in our side of the Pacific. See
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...71_634x385.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/gp772sg

And!

Too many deniers are failing to see that climatic changes do not occur
in a straight line. ("We had a major cold snap last winter, how can
there be global warming.") Must be junk science.

If I am a denier (and I may be), all I am deny is the validity, and in
some cases the veracity, of much of the publicised science behind the
news media releases.

In any event, surly cleaning up our atmosphere cannot hurt. And it may
even improve the quality of our life.

I couldn't agree more. But it's not just CO2 that needs to be
controlled. It's particular (i.e. particles) emissions, aerosols,
oxides of nitrogen, gaseous forms of halogens etc. Above all we need
to control the two-legged biofilm which is coating this planet.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Just a small question, are you posting from the Tonga or Phoenix islands? Your
timestamp says:

Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:40:55 +1300

Which suggests you are there. I just had this idea that you were posting from
the states.

I made an update to my news client and added the function of seeing the time a
poster posted in my timezone and in the posters timezone, and your post said:

today 9:40 pm (tomorrow 9:40 am)

Which was a bit weird.

--
Sandman

On 2015-12-25 22:33:36 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Just a small question, are you posting from the Tonga or Phoenix islands? Your
timestamp says:

Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:40:55 +1300

Which suggests you are there. I just had this idea that you were posting from
the states.

I made an update to my news client and added the function of seeing the time a
poster posted in my timezone and in the posters timezone, and your post said:

today 9:40 pm (tomorrow 9:40 am)

Which was a bit weird.

Consider that it is Summer in New Zealand.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 25 Dec 2015 22:33:36 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Just a small question, are you posting from the Tonga or Phoenix islands? Your
timestamp says:

Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:40:55 +1300

Which suggests you are there. I just had this idea that you were posting from
the states.

That time and date is quite correct. New Zealand is just inside the
International date line.
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/dateln.gif

The time was 9:40 am on the day after Christmas, with the time being
exactly 1200 ahead of UTC plus 1 more hour for daylight saving =
+1300.

I made an update to my news client and added the function of seeing the time a
poster posted in my timezone and in the posters timezone, and your post said:

today 9:40 pm (tomorrow 9:40 am)

Which was a bit weird.

There are always exceptions which catch out the first try at a simple
program.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
snip

Just a small question, are you posting from the Tonga or Phoenix
islands? Your timestamp says:

Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:40:55 +1300

Which suggests you are there. I just had this idea that you were
posting from the states.

That time and date is quite correct. New Zealand is just inside the
International date line.
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/dateln.gif

The time was 9:40 am on the day after Christmas, with the time being
exactly 1200 ahead of UTC plus 1 more hour for daylight saving
+1300.

Ah, it was the daylight saving that got me.

--
Sandman

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 12/25/2015 2:47 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:08:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/24/2015 3:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN

wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with
lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

Did you notice from all of this that sea ice has not been diminishing
for several years but has in fact been recovering?


Do the polar bears know that?



2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years
ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of
ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port.
See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas
of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from
shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

Did you notice temperatures are still as warm as they were in ancient
historical times (say 5000 years ago)?





3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper
place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the
atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers -
see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if
they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with
small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.

Agreed, but it shows where I stand.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too
complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of
about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should
be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now,
and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the
deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a
reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to
plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We
will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating
local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off
the
coast of CA.

You don't mean this one, do you?
http://tinyurl.com/ksxqxzo


Was I wrong when I thought you to be a rational person?
Are you trying to deny that there is a squid known as the giant squid?

http://ocean.si.edu/giant-squid

But then you knew that!


You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

Not at all. IIRC the elNino effect is aggravated by global warming.

It's on top of whatever global warming there may be, but it's been
going on for centuries. That's where the names El Nino and La Nina
came from, the effect of the cycle on Spanish treasure ships sailing
down the west coast of South America in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The last I read of it, the cause was the vast, slow sloshing of
cooler
and denser water from one side to the other in the depths of the
Pacific ocean. Right now it's in the west and the warmer surface
water
is in the east. In a year or so the cooler water will be in east and
the warmer water will be in our side of the Pacific. See
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...71_634x385.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/gp772sg

And!

Too many deniers are failing to see that climatic changes do not occur
in a straight line. ("We had a major cold snap last winter, how can
there be global warming.") Must be junk science.

In any event, surly cleaning up our atmosphere cannot hurt. And it may
even improve the quality of our life.

Being good stewards of the planet we have is certainly a good practice.
We should be as ecologically sound as possible. But to think that
man-made global warming is a fact...

The earth ha been going through cooling and warming cycles, it's a
natural occurrence. The sky isn't falling, except in the minds of those
who can politicize the mistaken notion of man-made global warming and
those who have and will make millions of dollars selling this idea like
a medicine show sells magical healing elixirs.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:39:29 -0500, "PAS"
wrote:

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 12/25/2015 2:47 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:08:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/24/2015 3:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:31:27 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2015 4:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:48:56 -0500, PeterN

wrote:

You don't have to be a climatologist to figure things out.
1. The polar icecaps are shrinking.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=05&sy=2012
or http://tinyurl.com/gt3klqz

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/ with
lots of
links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...seen_in_1980s/
or http://tinyurl.com/ocmqevx

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-pa...rs-ninth-year/

Did you notice from all of this that sea ice has not been diminishing
for several years but has in fact been recovering?


Do the polar bears know that?

Their numbers are up. They are getting grossly fat. In any case, Polar
bears need dry(ish) land upon which to breed and ice-free water in
which to fish. It's a mistake to think ice floes are of any real
benefit to them.



2. Earth is undergoing a warming trend.

Yes, a sustained warming from a period, only a few hundred years
ago,
when even the English Channel was blocked by ice and crews of
ships
locked in ice died of cold and starvation in sight of their port.
See
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...s-Frost-Fairs/
"During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas
of
southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from
shore"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Variations.png

But it seems to have stopped for the time being. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/...lobal-warming/

Did you notice temperatures are still as warm as they were in ancient
historical times (say 5000 years ago)?





3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

Agreed, and so too is a lot of other rubbish which has no proper
place
there. I disaprove all these things being dumped into the
atmosphere
in bulk.

4. Man made emissions of CO2 are increasing

Yep. China is building coal fired power plants in large numbers -
see
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f So too is India
http://tinyurl.com/npto98f
I have seen estimates of 'thousands' over the next ten or twenty
years. They would be cleaner if the burned oil. Even cleaner if
they
burned gas. However, before then China is likely to come in with
small
Thorium reactors.

That does not negate my point.

Agreed, but it shows where I stand.


5. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

But not in the sense as it is commonly presented. It's too
complicated
to deal with in detail but the effect has been very greatly
exagerated.

In what manner?

The climate models used by the IPCC use a reinforcing factor of
about
6 while comparison with real world temperatures suggests it should
be
no more than 2. Further at low concentrations the CO2 greenhouse
effect reaches a plateau which is not allowed for by most models.


6. We have only one planet to live on.

That may not always be the case.

"May," is the key word, as opposed to present reality.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It certainly i s the case for now,
and at
least the next two generations. I am very concerned that the
deniers
will cause us to kill ourselves before that could become a
reality.



7. Warming causes a disruption in our food supply.

Depends where you are trying to grow food. One thing is certain,
increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and the benefits to
plant
growth of the current high CO2 level have been determined. We
will
have less food with less CO2.


And the giant squid, with few natural enemies, is not devastating
local
fish populations, as they migrate to the newly warmer waters off
the
coast of CA.

You don't mean this one, do you?
http://tinyurl.com/ksxqxzo


Was I wrong when I thought you to be a rational person?
Are you trying to deny that there is a squid known as the giant squid?

http://ocean.si.edu/giant-squid

But then you knew that!


You are changing the subject. In any case that is a local effect
caused by the current particularly strong el Nino.

Not at all. IIRC the elNino effect is aggravated by global warming.

It's on top of whatever global warming there may be, but it's been
going on for centuries. That's where the names El Nino and La Nina
came from, the effect of the cycle on Spanish treasure ships sailing
down the west coast of South America in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The last I read of it, the cause was the vast, slow sloshing of
cooler
and denser water from one side to the other in the depths of the
Pacific ocean. Right now it's in the west and the warmer surface
water
is in the east. In a year or so the cooler water will be in east and
the warmer water will be in our side of the Pacific. See
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...71_634x385.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/gp772sg

And!

Too many deniers are failing to see that climatic changes do not occur
in a straight line. ("We had a major cold snap last winter, how can
there be global warming.") Must be junk science.

In any event, surly cleaning up our atmosphere cannot hurt. And it may
even improve the quality of our life.

Being good stewards of the planet we have is certainly a good practice.
We should be as ecologically sound as possible. But to think that
man-made global warming is a fact...

The earth ha been going through cooling and warming cycles, it's a
natural occurrence. The sky isn't falling, except in the minds of those
who can politicize the mistaken notion of man-made global warming and
those who have and will make millions of dollars selling this idea like
a medicine show sells magical healing elixirs.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens