Global warming 'not slowing down,' say researchers

Once again there are no Conservative Denialists here.

What's up boys? Did the results of this latest bit of science cause you once again soil your diapers in protest, and you aren't here because you need a changing?

Did you losers finally find yourselves real work rather than staying at home posting Denialist nonsense responses to news reports like this one for 40 cents a pop?

Have the Koch brothers, Exxon and National Fuels stopped paying you?

Finally got yourself a girlfriend that isn't attached to the end of your arm?

Curious minds want to know.

No-one denies that climate changes, the point under debate is the degree to which climate change is due to the impact of mankind. Over the last few million years, before Homo Sapiens even existed, the Earth's temperature has fluctated to a degree that would threaten our civilization today.

A more controversial question is whether statistics are being quoted out of context in order to (a) create an artifical market for monetizing carbon dioxide, (b) further the commercial interests of "green" manufacturers, (c) give developing countries another reason to ask for money from wealthier nations.

Not worth a glance, they used three surface temperature data sets that have already been "adjusted" by the institutions and then "factored out variability" (removed cooling from satellite data) and claimed excellent agreement.

So reformed - could you square your statement "No-one denies the climate changes" with Razors claim "Not worth a glance.?" Razor is saying the data has been doctored, and therefore is not worth a second glance. You are saying that no one denies the climate changes. But Razor seems to be doing just that. You suggest that data is being taken out of context to further commercial interests of "green" manufacturers. Do you have any evidence for this nonsense? Surely the oil and gas industry that has vastly more cash - would be much more able to manipulate the evil scientists. Unfortunately Vendi is very wrong - there is no limit to the denialists ability to ignore reality.

Yes, they clearly doctored the data because they are totally allowed to. There is one guy, sitting in a room monitoring ALL of the climate data,and HE wants us to think that it is warming. His friend, who also wants to dupe all of us works in the Satelite imaging office, also by himself, retouching photos to make it "appear" that sea ice and glacial retreat are a global issue. There is no peer review process and the scientists are stupider than you Razor, they thought they could sneak this one past you but you got em!
In all seriousness, viewing climate as an equation, it is flawed to remove data to obtain a "desired" outcome. However, in order to prove the planet is cooling, the only data that could be removed from that equation is us. The point they are making is that the planet didn't cool when an abundant # of elements of natural variation say that it should have.

What is the mean temperature of the earth?

I think it's pretty mean when we get 11 days in a row with high's above 30 degrees celcius and a 90 plus humidex...that's down right nasty!

What is the mean temperature of the earth?
I would even accept the median temperature.

What is the mean temperature of the earth?

Is there a point to the question rygg? Do u want someone to gather millions of data points for a year, and average them all, and divide by 365 or something?

11 days in a row with high's above 30 degrees celcius and a 90 plus humidex!!!

We laugh at your puny 11 days in a row above 30. Oklahoma City had 63 days above 38 degrees c this past summer. :-) http://www.srh.no...heatwave

here:

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

What is the mean temperature of the earth?
I would even accept the median temperature.

According to Wikipedia, the mean surface temperature of the Earth is 14C, but that hasn't been updated in several years now.

What is the mean temperature of the earth?
I would even accept the median temperature.

According to Wikipedia, the mean surface temperature of the Earth is 14C, but that hasn't been updated in several years now.

Is that number the mean over 4 billion years?
The point is what is the reference for up/down?

Hmmm. VendiTard stated elsewhere on the site that BEST indicated a rise in temperatures at a rate of 0.14 degree per decade as of this last decade.

This study implies that it really is 0.16... (0.17, if we round up due to the actual numbers to the right of the decimal point).

So, according to BEST it would take just over 7 decades to give us a 1 degree increase, at the current rate, while this study implicates just under 6 decades to do the same.

And, 2009 being the second hottest year of the decade? Is this the result of playing the numbers to stack the deck in favor of warming in spite of the actual raw and other data showing that it wasn't? This could be some fun exploration. :)

Temperature rise? Compared to what? We're cooler now than 80-90% of the last 10,000 years. None of that previous time displayed the runaway global warming predicted by the IPCC. The increse in CO2 is good for Earth's plant and thus animal life. Long term temperature history alone is enough to sink the warmunists' tale.

68 days above 38???? That's so far beyond mean that'it's abusive! Can anyone tell me the abusive temperature of the earth?

Skepticus, taking the conservative estimate still gives us a 10 degree rise over a 700 year period, this would really suck for the earth and still displays an unprecedented rise.

@ numerical digits. The increase in CO2 during normal interglacials follows the melt, ocean cirulation speeds up and more CO2 winds up in the atmoshere. The reason this CO2 is bad is that we have jacked it up this high preceding the big melt. The ice pack and glacial loss we are seeing right now is happening too fast to be part of any "natural" cycle. If the earth is supposed to be in a natural warming cycle right now, the 380PPM of CO2 wasn't supposed to happen until all of the ice was already gone, and technically shouldn't have reached that # anyways as it hasn't during an interglacial for half a million years. Long term history is why most climatologists are ringing the alarm bells dude.

still gives us a 10 degree rise over a 700 year period,

Is your model/equation valid for 700 years?

This study implies that it really is 0.16... (0.17, if we round up due to the actual numbers to the right of the decimal point).

So, according to BEST it would take just over 7 decades to give us a 1 degree increase, at the current rate, while this study implicates just under 6 decades to do the same.

Going by this Data RYGG. Got any more ultra general questions like; What color are birds? What is the shape of an asteroid?

The point is what is the reference for up/down? So are you aware Rygg that we only have any kind of real time temperature data for the last 150 yrs. Everything back beyond that is reconstructed (proxy data). So as long as you are clear about your baseline (GISS using 1951 - 1980) http://data.giss..../graphs/ you now have a baseline to determine up and down. The current trend is clearly up - do you have any data to contradict this understanding? It would be nice if we had satelites, and surface temperature stations a billion years ago. The scientists could have a lot more certainty in their work. We did not - so we use the best data available. Do you not understand that concept?

Long term temperature history alone is enough to sink the warmunists' tale. Meaning what 343. Can you show me a scientific report that claims the temperature was not warmer in the past? Where does your understanding of the long term temperature record come from? I would guess the same research that is currently warning us of the potential dangers of the current warming trend. Are you not cherry picking data if you are willing to use these reports to support your position that there is nothing to worry about - but ignore the very conclusions of these reports?

The best way, how to avoid the global warming without serious harm of industry and economy is the fast introduction of cold fusion as a fossil fuel replacement.

Anyway, I don't consider the greenhouse gases as the main reason of global warming. In my theory the origin of GW is geothermal and it follows from acceleration of radioactive elements inside of oceans and Earth mantle with cloud of neutrinos, which are passing through solar system.

If I'm right, then the deepest wave of geothermal global warming is already over - it corresponded the period of low solar activity, when the neutrinos shifted the center of mass of solar system beneath the surface of Sun. It disabled the plasma circulation temporarily, which had lead to silencing of solar cycle.

They delete all the cooling trends and declare a warming trend. Why not just delete the warming trends and declare a cooling trend?

Because the cost of the adoption of human civilization to short-time changes is higher, than the cost of adoption to less dramatic changes. We are living in gradient driven reality. It doesn't matter, whether the cooling or warming actually occurs - just the climate change itself brings the problems, additional expenses and geopolitical instability.

They delete all the cooling trends and declare a warming trend. Why not just delete the warming trends and declare a cooling trend?

Ok, you are a liar.

The reality is they actually adjust the temepratures downward to take out biases from the urban heat island effect.

What they are talking about in this article was that they wanted to see how fast the ice WOULD HAVE MELTED if not for the volcanism offsetting some of the warming.

neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record-lower-still.html

On this data, you will notice a "rebound" on each year following a large volcano, particularly 1992, because it took another 5 years before the ice permanently fell to a volume at or below 1991 minimums, which had been on a down trend the 5 years prior.

This means that Pinatubo, 10 times larger eruption than Mt. St. Helens, effectively "reset" some aspects of global warming for a mere 5 years.

1) The fact that the article starts off with an image of heavy white smoke from a factory smokestack is proof that this piece is designed to push a pro-global warming ideology by not so subtly saying that here is an example of the pollution and so we know that global warming is real. Despite the FACT that American based business are NOT allowed to let anything escapes from factories but hydrogen, millions still believe the white smoke they see which is always from a picture taken during very cold periods (because heated vapors produce heavy white smoke) is proof of pollutants escaping into the atmosphere.

2) It is the ongoing practice of geo-engineering (aka chemtrails) by the government that has resulted in the change in our weather. Before you try and say conspiracy theory you need to know that the White House Science Czar John P Holdren finally admitted that they have been testing the manipulation of the Earths atmosphere with barium salts, aluminum dioxide and other compound

"Global warming is showing no signs of slowing down and that further increases are to be expected in the next few decades."

The sky is falling!!!

We came out of the "Little Ice Age" starting around 1720 or something. Things starting getting a bit warmer in the 1830-1840 period.

For those of you who believe in man-made global warming, please tell all of us here at PhysOrg just how the temperature starting going up in 1720, or in 1830? If you don't have an explanation, then you would appear to be fairly ignorant about these kinds of things. So why should anyone pay you any attention at all?

@YSL
I don't know if John P. Holdren has admitted to any kind of geo-engineering, but I have gone outdoors on my property where I have a biggggg expanse of sky and I have sat for hours on a lounge chair getting some rays, and I have noticed the chem-trails crisscrossing each other in the sky above me. My neighbors have all noticed the same thing when they go outdoors. And the chemtrails stay up there for a very long time. A trail made by a passenger plane or a military plane flying over my property dissipates pretty quickly especially on windy days. But these chemtrails are something different. Their tube shape maintains far too long for them to not be chemical in nature.

Some days the sky is all blue and normal. . .other days the sky has all these crisscrossing plumes or tubes of white something. I've seen aircraft far up, maybe 30 - 35,000 feet with these chemtrails coming out of their back ends. I have no idea why they are doing that and obliterating the blue sky, but I don't like it. And by the time all those planes are gone, the sky is cloudy with that stuff. Anyone have any ideas on this?

They are "contrails" not chemtrails.

Depending on atmospheric conditions, contrails may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for many hours which may affect climate.[2]

Contrails tend to last longer if there is higher moisture in the atmosphere and associated higher level clouds such as cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus already present before the plane flies through.

Chemtrails are a conspiracy.

http://en.wikiped...y_theory

The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials. This theory is not accepted by the scientific community, which states that they are just normal contrails, and that there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory.

Couple of issues here.
1) Why do we use the modeled and adjusted GISS temps (where they guesstimate the entire actic due to zero monitoring stations and ASSUME CAGW as part of their adjustment process) and not JUST use the satellite data?
2) Whats the value of averages, if the data is bad, the averages will be bad? Im not saying it is or isnt, but it doesnt seem to add much value. We should just use the satellite data now that its avaialble.
3) How can they confidently claim to know everything thats going on in order to completely remove 'short term trends'? This is a key epistemiological critique of climate post-normal science, they claim to know all possible climate phenomena to a degree of accuracy to enable them to unequivocably claim a 0.7 rise over 30 years can have no other possible explaination than CO2. This is a ridiculous assertion, there is no way they can possibly account for unknown unknowns, such as Svensmark/CERN theories. Just more junk science begging for a buck.

You say tomahto, I say tomayto. . .you say potahto, I say potayto. . .you say it your way, I say it my way. . . .la la la la la la la
LOL

Star. . .AGW is a conspiracy theory in reverse. . .and they won't even factor in the warming and radioactive effects of thermal, U-235 in the soil and rocks (natural decay), undersea and underground volcanism. and natural heat sinks and heat from deserts, plus natural CO2 and heat from the decaying of vegetable matter. . . and the heat retained and then given off by dark materials in the environment. . . .and the heat given off by seals and walruses lounging around on ice floes. All that blubber is natural insulation and gives off heat. :)

The planet is heating up because of ALL these things. . .not only car exhaust. MULTIPLE reasons, not just man-made. Next thing, they'll be wanting to extract the CO2 from dead bodies and sequester THAT too.

"After removing these known short-term fluctuations [...] Research, showed that the global temperature has increased by 0.5°C"
This sounds like a serous research so I had to re-read what those fluctuations are. My favorite one is the "variations in the Sun's brightness".

This really made my day. I suggest they should continue removing those inconvenient variations. To a degree of course. After all we don't want to eliminate the Milankovic cycles or we could find ourselves in a permanent ice age. On the other hand, if you eliminate them "properly" we may have a neverending interglacial period.
I suggest changing the title of the article to: "Despite mounting evidence researches say Global warming 'not slowing down,'".

My favorite progressive, Joseph Stalin, used to say: "
"The facts are against us?
The worse for the facts."

He is dead but his philosophy lives on

sorry, duplicate post

Is this article a response to Climategate II? The CRU ruined "climate science". Nobody trusts it any more.

Yawn

"removed cooling from satellite data" - RazorTard

There is no cooling in the satellite data.

Why do you feel a need to lie about it?

http://tamino.fil...re01.jpg

RSS and UHA are primarily satellite data.

Here is the data with ElNino, Sulphates and Volcanoes and the Sun removed. IE. Natural sources removed.

http://tamino.fil...re05.jpg

"The CRU ruined "climate science"." - RobPaul

RobPaul is trying to hide the decline in the acceptance of the vapid pronouncements of Warming Denialists.

Trust in Global warming science is on the increase, and will continue to increase as the globe continues to warm.

"This sounds like a serous research so I had to re-read what those fluctuations are. My favorite one is the "variations in the Sun's brightness". This really made my day." - VJman

Why is that Tard Boy? Changes in the output of the sun have long been part of the attribution of the observed Warming of the Globe.

If you didn't know that then you are very ignorant. And if you did then you have nothing to be bemused about.

The AGW story promoted by Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, and world leaders claims man caused global climate change because the Sun is a stable heat source, "in equilibrium" [1].

In fact, the Sun is violently unstable [2].

Five billion years ago the Sun exploded and ejected the material that now orbits the Sun [3].

Earth's climate changes and life evolves because the Sun itself has evolved from a pulsar into an ordinary looking star surrounded by waste products (91% H and 9% He) [4].

1. "Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)"
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. The Sun Kings: The unexpected tragedy of Richard Carrington and the tale of how modern astronomy began, (Princeton University Press, 2007)

www.amazon.com/Su...91126607

3. "Neutron repulsion,"
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

4. http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

"The planet is heating up because of ALL these things. . .not only car exhaust." - Spirochete

Sorry Tard boy, but science says otherwise.

Maybe it's just not heating on your home planet of Libertaria, where up is down and black is white.

In fact here is a nice graphic to relieve you of your ignorance.

http://tamino.fil...re08.jpg

Because for various reasons satellites don't provide accurate measurements of temperatures over the arctic.

You know.. things like satellites not flying over the arctic, etc...

"1) Why do we use the modeled and adjusted GISS temps (where they guesstimate the entire actic due to zero monitoring stations and ASSUME CAGW as part of their adjustment process) and not JUST use the satellite data?" - StarTard

Well, you see... Unlike you... They know what they are climate experts who have been doing climate science for decades and know what they are doing...

You on the other hand can't even manage to figure out why there is no satellite record of temperatures over the arctic or even figure out how satellites infer temperatures at altitude.

"3) How can they confidently claim to know everything thats going on in order to completely remove 'short term trends'?" - StarTard

"I have no idea why they are doing that and obliterating the blue sky, but I don't like it." - Spirochete

Well.. That's capitalism for you. Your desire is worthless unless you have the dollars to make them important enough to do something about.

"All that blubber is natural insulation and gives off heat." - Spirochete

Sorry Tard Boy, but insulation doesn't give off heat, it simply limits the rate of heat transfer.

That is basic grade 9 science. And you have just shown how utterly clueless you are.

No. That is just the sound of American Style Capitalism crashing to the ground and burning.

You need to get your hearing tested Tard Boy.

"The sky is falling!!!" - CapitalismFails

Oh... It's simple... They didn't.

"For those of you who believe in man-made global warming, please tell all of us here at PhysOrg just how the temperature starting going up in 1720, or in 1830?" - Wino235

"So why should anyone pay you any attention at all?" You are correct Lino - people should not pay any mind to my opinion on Global Warming. I am not a climate scientist - spending my life studying the climate. We should probably not care about your opinion either - or are you a climate scientist? Let's listen to the people who are spending their life studying the climate - just like I go to a Dr. when I am sick - and I don't ask you for a prescription. The problem is that every report put out by the people who are studying the climate - is followed by the peanut gallery of people - who you and I agree - are not experts on the subject. So why don't you just let the experts do their work - and let us know to the best of their ability what is going on. Oh right - it is a global conspiracy of evil scientists - who want to take over the world...

djr. . . .I agree that the climate scientists should be left to do their work. . .no argument on that. However, MY argument is with the U.N. who wants the airlines to pay mo' money each time we fly into another country's airport and the airlines have to charge us a higher price because of it. Kyoto was a flop anyway and the whole thing was just a big corrupt money grab.

"MY argument is with the U.N. who wants the airlines to pay mo' money each time we fly into another country's airport" - Spirochete

I see, so your argument is that 30 percent of the species on earth can go extinct because you want to prevent an increase in airfares.

What is your address Tard Boy? I'd like to give you a little moral education.

However, MY argument is with the U.N. who wants the airlines to pay mo' money each time we fly into another country's airport and the airlines have to charge us a higher price because of it. Kyoto was a flop anyway and the whole thing was just a big corrupt money grab.

Typical "conservative" attitude - Do anything you like so long as it doesn't cost me anything. :rolleyes:

There's a solution to that - don't use anything that you didn't personally pay full freight for. :lol:

I love reading the denialist posts. They're just throwing out random cow patties of thought....then Oliver throws the cherry on top of big bulls**t sunday they all got together and made.

"djr. . . .I agree that the climate scientists should be left to do their work." Glad we agree Pirouette. So what should we do if the scientists say - we have quiet a high confidence that the warming climate poses a major threat to our world - and that it would be very smart to understand this problem better, and to take immediate action (precautionary principle makes a lot of sense to me) to try to limit the damage? I am very willing to spend an extra $10 on an airline ticket, and/or higher gas and energy prices. One very interesting thing is that solar panel and wind prices are currently falling to the point where they will soon be the cheapest energy sources. So with some initial investment, the markets can kick in, and we can all have cheaper, cleaner lives.

I am very willing to spend an extra $10 on an airline ticket,

And you don't care who collects the tax or care what is done with your money?

climate scientists should be left to do their work

They HAVE been left to do their 'work' and we see the results, lies and distortions. Why should climate 'scientists' not be subjected to the same intense scrutiny every scientist should be subjected to? What do they have to hide? ALL their data AND the codes to process that data should be released with every report and every claim they make.

"And you don't care who collects the tax or care what is done with your money?" I do care - very much. It makes me sick that so much of my money goes to build tanks and bombs. Have you thought about what the world would look like if we had taken the $1 trillion it cost to invade Iraq, and spent it on renewable energy? How much oil would we now not have to import. How many jobs would be created here in the U.S.? How much money would now be stimulating our economy - rather than that of the Saudis. But that is the system - I don't get to make those decisions. But yes - I am willing to pay a carbon tax - to make renewables more competitive, and give them the market edge they need to get launched faster. Here is a really cool article on solar panels - they will be hitting grid parity in a couple of years. http://techon.nik.../202257/ Here is another article on a battery start up - they moved to China - becuz the Chinese gvt is hungry for innovation

http://www.techno...3/?p1=A2 Sorry - but I see paranoid, regressive, obstructionist views like yours as the primary problem leading to the demise of the U.S. You have no evidence that the scientists are engaging in this great conspiracy to hide data, and fool the world. You don't understand science. The data is available - feel free to analyze it - and contest the research. Oh that's right - your job is to spam the internet with nonsense - sadly it seems your strategy is working - it is a virtual requirement to become the Republican nominee that you deny global warming, declare evolution a myth, and accept Jezus as your savior...

I am willing to pay a carbon tax - to make renewables more competitive,

How do you know your tax is funding that?

How do you know ANY 'sin' tax is funding what the govt claimed it was funding?
Obama wants to cut payroll taxes that are claimed by the govt to fund a trust fund that is in a lock box the govt can't rob.
BTW, the trust fund will run out of funds, but the current regime wants to defund it?

"How do you know your tax is funding that?" Well - our taxes go into the big gvt pot - and then they get spent. We Know what our taxes get spent on - we have both gvt and private groups that track all that stuff. Were u not aware of that? How do u know the trust fund will run out of funds? Probly becuz you are aware of the mechanisms in place to track our tax revenues and expenditures. It is interesting how every time someone makes the great conspiracy accusation - someone else calls them on their paranoia, and points out that there is no evidence to support this nonsense - and they immediately go quiet, or change the subject. I sure wish you would give it a rest...

You have no evidence that the scientists are engaging in this great conspiracy to hide data, and fool the world. You don't understand science.

Can you explain, how the mainstream physics managed to ignore cold fusion findings for twenty years? Or J.F. Prins or Podkletnov's research? Or the dense aether theory of Oliver Lodge? It's the stuff of the same category. It's not an organized conspiracy, but an intersubjective ignorance.

How do u know the trust fund will run out of funds

Because there is NO trust fund.

You have no evidence that the scientists are engaging in this great conspiracy to hide data,

Yes there is. Mann has refused to release data and so has Nature.

"Mann has refused to release data and so has Nature." Which proves a grand conspiracy of many thousands of climate scientists in every country in the world. What a stupid conclusion. Let me give you one quote from a wikipedia article on the hockey stick - "More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph" http://en.wikiped...roversy. But you select one scientist - and use that for proof of a global conspiracy - it is just pathetic.

'Thousands' of climate scientists? Really? That many?
One major critique made by the National Academy of Science is the incestuous nature of climate science peer review because there are so few climate scientists.

Not to mention the incestuous nature of those in denial because there so few are climate scientists; or, seemingly, have even a basic grasp of Physics.

"One major critique made by the National Academy of Science is the incestuous nature of climate science peer review because there are so few climate scientists." Do you have a source for this assertion? I wont hold my breath.

What lame goofy point are you trying to make R2? That there are not "thousands" of climate scientists? I here on physorg posting about climate as a scientists. Include me as one. I also read "Nature" and "Science". Bozo.

So reformed - could you square your statement "No-one denies the climate changes" with Razors claim "Not worth a glance.?" Razor is saying the data has been doctored, and therefore is not worth a second glance. You are saying that no one denies the climate changes. But Razor seems to be doing just that.

Climate does change - there is no dispute. There were periods in history when there were ice ages. The point I was making was that "warmists" tend to accuse "denialists" of denying that global temperatures change - when the sceptics are really stating that we don't know exactly why global temperatures change and degree to which human activities affect them

What lame goofy point are you trying to make R2? That there are not "thousands" of climate scientists? I here on physorg posting about climate as a scientists. Include me as one. I also read "Nature" and "Science". Bozo.

Cite a list of your publications.

"The NAS also included this polite rebuke of Manns uncooperative attitude toward scientists who wished to review his data and methods:

The committee recognizes that access to research data is a complicated, discipline-dependent issue, and that access to computer models and methods is especially challenging because intellectual property rights must be considered. Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community.
http://thegwpf.or...iar.html

OK R2, I'll site my publications; NOAA, LBNL LLBL. The scientist there have seemed to come to a strong consensus view that extreme drought will be common across the whole mid-west and mid-south sections of the US extending up into Canada and down towards the Mid-sections of Mexico. 19 computer models tested. That give you a pretty high level of confidence that the scientific community has a real and believable basis for concern.

In fact R2, I would say the concern the "We" the scientific community is showing towards this issue, should be enough to concern you that we think this real. My question to you is why you don't?

Howhot, I know I've been linking it a lot lately, but "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is indispensable for understanding people like Marjon.

http://karws.gso....yle.html

As early as 1_65-66 a conspiracy was entered into between the __ ___ of Europe and America.For nearly thirty years these conspirators have kept the people quarreling over less important matters while they have pursued with unrelenting zeal their one central purpose.Every device of treachery, every resource of statecraft, and every artifice known to the secret cabals of the international ___ ___ are being used to deal a blow to the prosperity of the people and the financial and commercial independence of the country.

That was written in 1895. All I did was redact the 8 in 1865, "gold gamblers" and "gold ring". With those redacted it looks exactly like something Marjon could have posted this very day.

"'Thousands' of climate scientists? Really? That many?" Just taking a wild ass guess - I would think it was in the 10's of thousands. I don't like make posts without being willing to support what I say - here is a quick ref. showing that the American Geological Society has around 20,000 members in the climate science areas. http://rabett.blo...ere.html I would think that would be sufficient to validate the suggestion that there are thousands of climate scientists in the world. I guess it is a good job that I did not hold my breath waiting for a reference regarding the NAS claim that there are "so few climate scientists".

Just in case anyone reading lacks an imagination, read the following and honestly tell me you wouldn't have assumed Marjon wrote it with no other information provided.

As early as 1965-66 a conspiracy was entered into between the climatologists of Europe and America.For nearly thirty years these conspirators have kept the people quarreling over less important matters while they have pursued with unrelenting zeal their one central purpose.Every device of treachery, every resource of statecraft, and every artifice known to the secret cabals of the IPCC are being used to deal a blow to the prosperity of the people and the financial and commercial independence of the country.

It is a notorious fact that the Communists of Europe and Al Gore are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and religious institutions. We have the best reasons for believing that corruption has found its way into our Executive Chamber, and that our Executive head is tainted with the infectious venom of Communism.

Here's another. I changed "Monarchs" to "Communists" and the "Pope of Rome" to "Al Gore". Also "Catholicism" to "Communism".

This is from 1855. Three phrases are all that stand between the current paranoid conspiracy theorist and that of 150 years ago. They all do the same crap. Recognize it. Repudiate it. Move on.

Your right FH. I'm probably writing back to a computer. Something probably no more than a sophisticated version of "Eliza". These people all have the same talking points and we have ever newer counter points to trip them up. Sooner or later these nut cases will either get it, or isolate themselves into the corner of mediocrity. But your observation about the same old rehash conspiracy is a good observation.

It is a notorious fact that the Conservative of Elbonia and Dick Cheney are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and scientific institutions. We have the best reasons for believing that corruption has found its way into our Banking system, and that our industrial leaders are tainted with the infectious venom of Liberalism.

Humm.. I'll need to make up a new Phyorg alias to post that one and its off spring. Buhahaha.

Climate does change - there is no dispute. There were periods in history when there were ice ages. The point I was making was that "warmists" tend to accuse "denialists" of denying that global temperatures change - when the sceptics are really stating that we don't know exactly why global temperatures change and degree to which human activities affect them

There are many here who continue to deny warming itself.

The balance simply reject out of hand any evidence that finds mankind's activities to be of any effect in such regard.

Virtually all such share the common trait of letting their opinions be formed by their personal policy positions.

It is a notorious fact that the Romulan Empire and the Tea Party are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and scientific institutions. We have the best reasons for believing that corruption has found its way into our Banking system, and that our industrial leaders are tainted with the infectious venom of Romulan Imperialism.

Heh you were right this is fun.

my publications; NOAA, LBNL LLBL.

the concern the "We" the scientific community is showing towards this issue, should be enough to concern you that we think this real. My question to you is why you don't?

Politicians control and manipulate the flow of tax funds to agencies promoting AGW.

In a special report for 21st Century Science & Technology in 2007 - two years before emails confirmed that AGW was based on manipulated temperature data, Marjorie Mazel Hecht concluded AGW was a "Hoax" born in a 1975 'Endangered Atmosphere' Conference.

www.21stcenturysc...Born.pdf

Four months ago, I concluded independently that AGW came from secret 1971 agreements to save the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation by ending the space and arms races and uniting nations against a common enemy - global climate change.

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

O. K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

"Politicians control and manipulate the flow of tax funds to agencies promoting AGW." As they do the flow of tax funds to the oil and gas industry. What evidence do you have that the much superior funding surrounding the oil and gas industry is not tainting the political environment more significantly? You are just feeding your own political bias to believe that one group has all this power - despite the fact that they have significantly less funding, lobbyists etc.

We can be sure, the human contribute to global warming, the global droughts in particular. It even affects the whether at the short period level.

http://www.scienc...ys.shtml

But I'm not so sure, if the human civilization accounts to the main portion of global warming. IMO the main source of global warming is of geothermal origin and it comes from decay of radioactive elements in the oceans and Earth mantle, which is accelerated with dense clouds of neutrinos passing through solar system by now.

OK R2, I'll site my publications;

I don't find 'Howhot' on any author list.
Here is an example of what I am asking for:
http://www-eaps.m...RSL.html

Oh you want Howhot's personal information?

Kinda like:

John A. Swenson
50 Mill Rd
Chelmsford MA 01824
(978)256-9078

*ELECTED* member of the Agricultural Commission (Ironic, huh?)

http://www.manta....-swenson

Swenson Farms in Chelmsford, MA is a private company which is listed under farms. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $1 to 2.5 million and employs a staff of 5 to 9.

$1 - $2.5 million in annual revenue and you can only afford 9 employees? HAHA what 'job crater'.

I warned Skeptic Heritic to be more sketpical. You should be too Frankie, unless you are SH?
Still waiting for Hottie to back up the assertion of being a climate scientist.

Amazingly predictable the GW zealots are the first to post under these types of articles. Nevermind they dont even wait before posting derogatory comments about anyone that might not agree with the article. THAT defines what is so sadly seen often on such forums. GW trolls.

http://www.infowa...-summit/

LOL. . . .mo money, mo money, and mo money!!

"djr. . . .I agree that the climate scientists should be left to do their work." Glad we agree Pirouette. So what should we do if the scientists say - we have quiet a high confidence that the warming climate poses a major threat to our world - and that it would be very smart to understand this problem better, and to take immediate action (precautionary principle makes a lot of sense to me) to try to limit the damage? I am very willing to spend an extra $10 on an airline ticket, and/or higher gas and energy prices. One very interesting thing is that solar panel and wind prices are currently falling to the point where they will soon be the cheapest energy sources. So with some initial investment, the markets can kick in, and we can all have cheaper, cleaner lives.

@djr. . . .so you think that to avoid climate warming, installing windmills and solar power is enough, eh? So you don't mind paying an extra 10 dollars to fly on a plane and land in a foreign country and. . . . .

and each fly-into country gets their cut from the airlines? Well, what about all the aircraft fuel that is used to fly you to your destination? What about all the gasoline or diesel that you use to get from point A to B? What about all the oil, gas or electricity you use to heat your home or apartment, huh? Maybe you don't really need to fly on an aircraft or use your vehicle. . .since all these things only contribute to climate warming and CO2 emissions. YOU'RE helping to pollute
the Earth, no matter how high the prices of gas, oil, coal that you're willing to pay.

It's strange that people don't seem to understand the concept of usage = pollution.
The fact that no matter how much you're paying for it or TALKING about the problem . . .and no matter HOW MANY computer models and "scientific" research is done on climate change, it is that ACTUAL USAGE of energy that is the cause of pollution. If you and others were will to give up all your modern conveniences and comforts, then MAYBE pollution of the Earth would diminish. BUT, you and everyone else is STILL using these fossil fuels. . .and there is NOTHING to stop you from it. So, it's a load of crap. . .all the talk but no action. . .and I think it's stupid and pretentious to talk about saving the Earth when you're not willing to be uncomfortable and forego your comforts.

Human activity cannot be causing climate change?
Certainly we can deposit billions of tons of hydrocarbon contaminated air into the stratosphere each year (aircraft) and it has no significant effect?
It must be nice to be so smart that one can know it has next to no effect on our weather.

djr says:

"Politicians control and manipulate the flow of tax funds to agencies promoting AGW." As they do the flow of tax funds to the oil and gas industry. What evidence do you have that the much superior funding surrounding the oil and gas industry is not tainting the political environment more significantly? You are just feeding your own political bias to believe that one group has all this power - despite the fact that they have significantly less funding, lobbyists etc.

And YOU are FEEDING the oil and gas industry by buying their products. It is hypocritical of you and the AGWites to continue the blame game when YOU and everyone else who talk and talk about global warming and computer models and how these so-called climate "scientists" are trying soooo hard to warn the human race about the dangerous global warming. HAHAHA. STOP BUYING GASOLINE, OIL AND GAS. SHOW that you are serious and want to do something to prevent climate change. But you people WON'T stop.

because you can't. . . .you just want to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, and then go back to your USAGE of fossil fuels and. . .la de da de da. . . .you THINK you've done YOUR part and done a good deed by praising the "scientists" and decrying all others because they don't believe in your crap. But you still go back to feeding the oil and coal and gas industry because YOU need THEM and YOU NEED their products.
Sheeesh. . .what a bunch of phoney baloney plastic bananas in the "climate change" garbage dump

pres68y says;

Human activity cannot be causing climate change?
Certainly we can deposit billions of tons of hydrocarbon contaminated air into the stratosphere each year (aircraft) and it has no significant effect?
It must be nice to be so smart that one can know it has next to no effect on our weather.

That's just my point. . . . .Billions of tons of hydrocarbons go into the air we breathe. . .but do these phoney baloney AGWite people stop cold turkey their usage of fossil fuels and stop flying in airplanes and stop driving cars?? NOOOOOOO. .. of course not. They're all a bunch of phuking hyprocrites, is why. Case closed.

Not to mention you phoney baloney denialist hypocrites who will do anything to avoid being inconvenienced.

The solution for this is cold fusion. There is just as much legitimate research supporting that.

Why do you feel a need to lie about it?

http://tamino.fil...re01.jpg

Why do you think we should accept these lies? I'm a statistician, not a "climate scientist." But I have also been around for quite a few years, and as it happens, I have a good memory for figures. 1980 was warmer than any year in the 1970s--I could go into why, but that is a detail here. 1981 was colder than any year in the 1970s, so said the climate scientists in 1982. (Yes, it took months for the fine ash from Mt. St. Helens to reach the stratosphere, and almost as important to reach the tropics.)

At the time I was helping a scientist on a paper about the long term effects of eruptions which inserted ash into the stratosphere. He was having trouble making sense of the data, and I showed him how to correctly it. Basically, if the long term trend is no change, and you are pulling changes in one direction out, you have to assume a long-term warming trend.

You only need to look at the Global Warming Cultists on this site, trotting out their nonexistent scientific credentials, and proceeding straight to prepubescent name calling, to know what people in the scientific community have to deal with.

You only need to look at the Global Warming Cultists on this site, trotting out their nonexistent scientific credentials, and proceeding straight to prepubescent name calling, to know what people in the scientific community have to deal with.

Odd that you should ignore the behavior of the other side.

Just why is that?

"Odd that you should ignore the behavior of the other side."

You mean like speaking sensibly and civilly. How dare they!

"Human activity cannot be causing climate change?"

It couldn't possibly be the giant orb of fusing hydrogen in the middle of our solar system. No, that's just crazy talk.

To make it very, very, clear. Intermediate term (dozens to several hundred years) look like a constant warming trend interrupted by large volcanic eruptions that reach the stratosphere. The two cancel out over a long term, or the planet would be boiling over (or freezing) by now.

Having said that, look at the records for two 19th century volcanic eruptions, Tambora and Krakatoa. These were not once in a century eruptions, Tambora in 1815 in particular was a once a millenium eruption. just as the climate was getting back to normal, Krakatoa exploded in 1883.

Has the climate "recovered" from Tambora and Krakatoa? Wrong way to look at it. The climate is constantly warming, to a greater or lesser extent, except when there is a major eruption, usually near the equator. The most explosive eruptions are the ones that count, lookup VEI for details. (The recent eruption in Iceland probably did have a climate impact, but a minor one, as the ash was not all that fine...)

deepsand says:

Not to mention you phoney baloney denialist hypocrites who will do anything to avoid being inconvenienced.

You're calling ME a denialist. . .don't you understand yet that if "global warming" is real, then ALL of us will be affected. . .believer and denier alike. . .and don't you also understand that if TOO MUCH CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, then the trees and plants will start to die from CO2 deprivation? There is a fine line between too much and too little and either one will affect us and all life on Earth, including plants and trees.
So far, you AGWites are only concerned with removing as much CO2 and other gases from the atmosphere, but nobody is giving the figures on exactly HOW MUCH CO2 to remove before the CO2 starvation of plants and trees begins. You're only concerned with your own pitiful lives, and not the Earth as a whole. "Denialists" are concerned with everything on Earth, not just humans. You haven't even considered that possibility.

Ask your climate "scientists" exactly how much CO2 has to be removed before the collapse begins. Ask them why even THEY are still USING fossil fuels while spouting the evils of oil, coal and gas. If they are so intent on warning everyone, then why are they still driving cars and other vehicles that emit CO2 from exhaust pipes? Surely you are smart enough to see the hypocrisy and lack of their commitment to their cause. Where are their solar panels and windmills? I'm sure they are quite comfortable in their laboratories and faculty lounges where it's nice and warm in winter, and cool in the summer.

deepsand. . . .why don't you go to some university where the climate "scientists" are doing their "work" and turn off all the electricity? Then go out to the parking lot and remove all the gasoline/petrol from their gas tanks and remove the oil from the crankcase. If you know where they live, go to their homes and cut them off from the grid. That's the moment of truth, pal. See if they don't start screaming bloody murder at having to sweat in a hot lab and have to walk home. . . .LOL
Go and have some fun with that. . . .at least until you get arrested.

bunch of idiots arguing on the way to cremation chamber: "How hot it would be? would it melt my gold teeth?" "my friend of a friend tells me the temp won't rise much more than it is now." "I bribed the cremators to turn down the heat, or at least reported so." "Nah, the flame is an illusion, my science advisors told me so."

Oh, and if they ask you why you took their fossil fuels and cut them off from their electricity, you can always say that you were only saving the Earth from man-caused global warming (climate change). . . . .as you're led away in a strait-jacket.
:)

What brilliant idea is Pirouette going to come up with next?

Only liberals pay taxes because they support them!

MAKES SENSE! DUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRR GET R DONE!

You really do have a tough time putting together a well reasoned, logically consistent and cogent position, Potty Mouth.

You should be arrested for abusing the English language.

Politicians control and manipulate the flow of tax funds to agencies promoting AGW.

1. In a special report for 21st Century Science & Technology in 2007 - two years before emails confirmed that AGW was based on manipulated temperature data, Marjorie Mazel Hecht concluded AGW was a "Hoax" born in a 1975 'Endangered Atmosphere' Conference.

www.21stcenturysc...Born.pdf

2. Four months ago, I concluded independently that AGW came from secret 1971 agreements to save the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation by ending the space and arms races and uniting nations against a common enemy - global climate change.

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

O. K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Either way [1,2] Climategate:

http://joannenova...imeline/

Exposed a totalitarian world government:

www.online-litera...ll/1984/

bunch of idiots arguing on the way to cremation chamber: "How hot it would be? would it melt my gold teeth?" "my friend of a friend tells me the temp won't rise much more than it is now." "I bribed the cremators to turn down the heat, or at least reported so." "Nah, the flame is an illusion, my science advisors told me so."

Hahhahah.. awesome.

deepsand says:

You really do have a tough time putting together a well reasoned, logically consistent and cogent position, Potty Mouth.

You should be arrested for abusing the English language.

ROFLOL. . . .that's all you've got? Not even worth reading and certainly not worth any further discussion. You are also not worth my time, deepsand.

"Odd that you should ignore the behavior of the other side."

John Moser says: You mean like speaking sensibly and civilly. How dare they!

LOL. . . .damned if you do and damned if you don't. When I'm cussing, they don't like it; and when I'm speaking in a civil manner, they don't like it. You just can't please some people, so don't even try, I always say. :)

"It couldn't possibly be the giant orb of fusing hydrogen in the middle of our solar system." - Veronica Moser

Correct, it couldn't possibly be. Solar output has been constantly monitored for decades and there has been no substantive change.

Current estimates attribute .006'C change to changes in the output of the sun.

The earth has warmed by more than 100 times that amount.

@ Potty Mouth

If you haven't got "well reasoned, logically consistent and cogent," you've got nothing.

"You mean like speaking sensibly and civilly. How dare they!" - Veronica Moser

Yes.. How dare we. And how dare we tell the truth to denialist Liars.

"The solution for this is cold fusion." - Veronica Moser

Or an act of God, Genie, Alien technology... Insert whatever KookTard excuse you want as long as it prevents real action from being taken.

"why don't you go to some university where the climate "scientists" are doing their "work" and turn off all the electricity?" - Spirochete

Because, unlike you, we aren't morons.

Have you been a moron all your life?

"why don't you go to some university where the climate "scientists" are doing their "work" and turn off all the electricity?" - Spirochete

Yours straw man argument is even more ludicrous than your Conservative political ideology. No one except fear mongering denialists such as yourself have suggested that electricity must be abandoned.

The push toward a sustainable energy economy is largely about the switch from burning coal and oil to wind, wave, and PV solar.

Are you so self deluded that you aren't even aware enough to realize that?

"TOO MUCH CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, then the trees and plants will start to die from CO2 deprivation?" - Spirochete

Well, lets see. The actions of man have so far increased the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere by 45%. Since plants weren't dying of CO2 starvation prior to that increase which started in earnest about 100 years ago, I think we can safely return to that level.

Morons might think differently.

"There is a fine line between too much and too little and either one will affect us and all life on Earth, including plants and trees." - Spirochete

Really? That fine line seems to be at least 45% wide. And since no biologist is predicting the extinguishing of plant life at a 100% increase in CO2, I think we can be pretty safe at least up to that point in terms of plant life.

Morons probably hold a different view.

Ocean life is a different matter. of course.

"If they are so intent on warning everyone, then why are they still driving cars and other vehicles that emit CO2 from exhaust pipes?" - Spirochete

Oh, probably because they find themselves trapped in a culture where no practical choice is offered.

The Coal and Oil dependent society that you are protecting and promoting is doomed, and we have no intention to sit idle and watch low life morons like yourself flush humanity and most of the biosphere down the toilet with it.

You are being dragged toward necessary change and there is nothing you can do about it. Go dig yourself a hole. Climb inside and continue with your virtual life on planet Conservadopia. I understand the climate there is perfect, and everyone is absolutely free as long as they remain corporate slaves.

"When I'm cussing, they don't like it; and when I'm speaking in a civil manner, they don't like it" - Spirochete

We don't like liars or low grade morons.

You have proven yourself to be both.

"but do these phoney baloney AGWite people stop cold turkey their usage of fossil fuels and stop flying in airplanes and stop driving cars??" - Spirochete

I don't travel in aircraft. I don't drive a car. I am largely vegetarian, and consume less than 1/4 the amount of energy of the average American, and my energy consumption trajectory continues downward.

I have personally pretty much reached the Kyoto target.

How about you?

"What about all the gasoline or diesel that you use to get from point A to B? What about all the oil, gas or electricity you use to heat your home or apartment, huh?" - Spirochete

Overall nature will compel you to reduce your CO2 emissions to somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of their current values.

She doesn't care how you do it, and is quite willing to snuff you and your deluded followers if you fail to comply with her dictates.

Physical scientific reality remains reality no matter how much you Tard Boy Denialists whine and crap your diapers in protest.

"Why do you think we should accept these lies? I'm a statistician, not a "climate scientist."" - eachus

Then you are incompetent as well as a fool.

"Basically, if the long term trend is no change, and you are pulling changes in one direction out, you have to assume a long-term warming trend." - eachus

Regression doesn't assume a long term trend. Regression computes the trend.

Multiple regression was the method used here. It provided the scale coefficients and lags in an equation that contains terms for MEI, AOD, TSI, and CO2.

Once those coefficients and lags are known, then removing MEI, ADO, and TSI from the resulting equation provides an equation that generates the effects of CO2 alone.

Your claim that the method requires an assumption about a long term trend is of course a lie.

And if you are a statistician then you are incompetent.

Then you are incompetent as well as a fool.

"Basically, if the long term trend is no change, and you are pulling changes in one direction out, you have to assume a long-term warming trend." - eachus

Regression doesn't assume a long term trend. Regression computes the trend...

Your claim that the method requires an assumption about a long term trend is of course a lie.

And if you are a statistician then you are incompetent.

Sigh! Was the temperature a billion years ago the same as today, cooler, or hotter? Let's say this takes us back to an iceball earth, so it was twenty degrees cooler. Twenty divided by one billion gives you a long-term warming trend of 0.00000002 degrees/year. (Effectively zero.) Now subtract out millions of events where volcanoes caused several degrees cooling per year? What is left?

So if you subtract out the cooling effect of volcanoes you are left with a corresponding long-term warming trend equal in magnitude. That wasn't so difficult was it?

Except for the fact that the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions are transient and of unknown magnitudes.

And, why begin with ice-ball Earth? One can pick any arbitrary point in time, and arrive a different results.

Trends are neither necessarily constant nor persistent.

Past is not prologue.

"The solution for this is cold fusion." Or an act of God, Genie, Alien technology.

The cold fusion is much more reliable than that. The main argument is, nobody of mainstream physics attempted to replicate the twenty years old Piantelli/Focardi experiments yet. This simple but important criterion enables to distinguish untested from impossible, ignorance from healthy skepticism. We should give the cold fusion research at least as much chance (and money), like the search of Higgs boson or gravitational waves, for example. If we don't do it, we cannot expect results in real time and we will extinct from nuclear oil wars at the planet full of free energy. Which I personally consider a somewhat silly end of human civilization, which survived one million years already.

nobody of mainstream physics attempted to replicate the twenty years old Piantelli/Focardi experiments yet

How many times is this falsehood going to be repeated?

"Was the temperature a billion years ago the same as today, cooler, or hotter?" - Incompetent Eachus

Translation, you can't have cancer today because you didn't have cancer when you were born.

"Twenty divided by one billion gives you a long-term warming trend of 0.00000002 degrees/year." = Incompetent Eachus

Wow, you is one expert statistician. Ahahahahahahahah.

"Now subtract out millions of events where volcanoes caused several degrees cooling per year? What is left?" - Incompetent Eachus

Just your own proof of your your stupidity.

Now getting back to your claim that the analysis required an assumption of a long positive linear trend.

As I have indicated multi-regression analysis was used.

So why did you feel a need to lie about it?

Clearly from your latest post you don't even know what it is. And yet you have claimed to be a statistician.

So are you incompetent as well or have you now been caught in two lies?

"How many times is this falsehood going to be repeated?" - Deepsand

"Nobody expected that thew would use aircraft as missiles." - George W. Bush

"Nobody expected the levees to fail." - George W. Bush.

I thought eating bankers would solve things, but the worst thing than a banker is an enabler, lets start eating denialists.

They probably taste as bad as their thinking.

As I have indicated multi-regression analysis was used.

So why did you feel a need to lie about it?

Clearly from your latest post you don't even know what it is. And yet you have claimed to be a statistician.

I know how to do both simple and multiple linear regression, and have even done it by hand, or with a statistics calculator. But, for the record, it is the wrong tool for this job. Box-Jenkins time series analysis would be better, but I would start by doing a Fourier transform to get a feel for the data. (When you do that with climate data BTW, the 11 year sunspot cycle pops right up.) Box-Jenkins is better at characterizing volcanoes.

What I am trying to make clear here--and I originally did this analysis in the 80s--is that when you subtract out the effects of volcanoes, you are left with a warming trend that balances the contribution of the volcanoes exactly. The math--and reality--can't work any other way if the Earth is not a cinder or at Pluto temperatures.

@eachus
Your data analysis doesn't support the paradigm that humans are in control and can control the planet and must be ignored.

Translation: If you must control a thing and don't control a thing it is folly to try to control a thing.

Libertarian Tard logic at it's best.

"Your data analysis doesn't support the paradigm that humans are in control" - RyggTard

Except for the fact that the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions are transient and of unknown magnitudes.

The best model is as an (negative) impulse of short duration, with effects that evolve over time. (That's why you do time series analysis. Duh!) The point of building the model was to be able to predict medium term climate (on the order of months) from the data on a blast like Mount Saint Helens or Mount Pinatubo. Using a function of the VEI (volcano explosive index) as a proxy worked better than using estimates of volumes of lava.

And, why begin with ice-ball Earth? One can pick any arbitrary point in time, and arrive a different results.

My point was that choosing any point within the last few billion years gives the same result. Long term, volcanic explosions exactly cancel out a long term warming trend. On any scale the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa in the 19th century were huge--and they will eventually do it again.

Long term, volcanic explosions exactly cancel out a long term warming trend.

That's a naked assertion.

... when you subtract out the effects of volcanoes, you are left with a warming trend that balances the contribution of the volcanoes exactly. The math--and reality--can't work any other way if the Earth is not a cinder or at Pluto temperatures

To repeat, you've started at an arbitrary initial condition.

Furthermore, since the Earth is a PASSIVE radiator, its intrinsic trend must be one of cooling. Only by way of radiative forcing can its equilibrium temperature rise.

Long term, volcanic explosions exactly cancel out a long term warming trend.

That's a naked assertion.

Let's try this then. Why is the Earth different from Venus? About the same size and the same distance from the sun, so why is the surface of Venus hotter than Mercury? It turns out that there hasn't been a volcano on Venus in over 500 million years. (There may have been a time when Venus had an atmosphere not much thicker than Earth's. But the high temperatures have baked the sulphate rocks into oxides, and the SO3 combined with the water vapor to make sulfuric acid.)

The point is that when you look at ANY period on Earth, you see a warming trend punctuated by volcanic eruptions, so why should we be surprised to see that today? Your argument may be that the trend today is steeper than 400 or 4000 years ago, but say that...

By the way, I think that we need to control CO2 levels so people can breathe, and we are already at the point where some people can't.

'Same distance from the sun'?
The solar constant on Venus is twice that of Earth's.
Control CO2 for breathing? Didn't know CO2 levels were so high people couldn't breathe.

To repeat, the Earth is a PASSIVE RADIATOR. Therefore, its INTRINSIC TREND must be one of COOLING. Only by way of radiative forcing can its equilibrium temperature rise.

That's not 100% accurate. The earth generates heat from natural radioactive decay, and maybe a bit from the magnetic fields generated from the earth's mantle motion.

"The point is that when you look at ANY period on Earth, you see a warming trend punctuated by volcanic eruptions" - Eachus

Claptrap...

http://www.global..._Rev_png

http://stevengodd...mp;h=335

http://westcoastw...ange.jpg

That's not 100% accurate. The earth generates heat from natural radioactive decay, and maybe a bit from the magnetic fields generated from the earth's mantle motion.

Miniscule to the point of being materially irrelevant to the subject at hand.

That's not 100% accurate. The earth generates heat from natural radioactive decay, and maybe a bit from the magnetic fields generated from the earth's mantle motion.

Miniscule to the point of being materially irrelevant to the subject at hand.

It keeps the continents moving, blows all sorts of crap into the atm when a volcano blows, and who knows how many geothermal vents are there on the bottom of the ocean spewing out superheated water. And don't forget about the magnetic field that traps high energy particles.

It keeps the continents moving, blows all sorts of crap into the atm when a volcano blows, and who knows how many geothermal vents are there on the bottom of the ocean spewing out superheated water.

Take away the decay of radioisotopes, etal., and movement of tectonic plates continues unabated.

And don't forget about the magnetic field that traps high energy particles.

A flea on an elephant's rump.

PS: The mantle does not generate a magnetic field; and, magnetic fields themselves produce no energy.

Control CO2 for breathing? Didn't know CO2 levels were so high people couldn't breathe.

We could argue all day about the effect of CO2 levels on unborn children, due to the lack of data. But asthma rates have been increasing along with CO2 levels. To quote from Wikipedia: "The prevalence of asthma has increased significantly since the 1970s. As of 2010, 300 million people were affected worldwide. In 2009 asthma caused 250,000 deaths globally."

One explanation of the increase in asthma levels is of reduced exposure to viruses and other infectious agents. But in my experience, global exposures to different agents has increased, even if the total volume has not.

Anyway, "sick building syndrome" caused by poor air circulation in "efficient" office buildings caused asthma attacks. Were these due to increased pollen, etc., in the air or the high CO2 levels? Confounding factors, and an experiment that won't be repeated.

Now go to Florida and see the elderly with O2 tanks...

Hmm. The above was shortened by the 1000 character limit.

Whether or not CO2 levels can cause asthma, it is almost axiomatic that they can trigger asthma attacks. The body's regulation of breathing rate uses the level of CO2 in the blood, not oxygen levels. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels, whether local or global cause higher blood CO2 levels. One of the signs of an asthma attack is increased breathing rates. QED. But does this trigger an asthma attack? If there are allergens in the local air, increased breathing rates increase the exposure of the bronchial tubes to the allergen. Which can cause the bronchial tubes to inflame. If one tube does that, it reduces the flow through that tube, which is a regulatory feedback. But if all or most of the tubes are inflamed, the exposure is greater, not smaller, and you have an asthma attack.

magnetic fields themselves produce no energy.

"A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature"
http://pielkeclim...ta-2011/
"The Earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday"
http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2009/02/earths-magnetic-field-and-climate.html

Just read the actual paper, rygg. Looks interesting. I am not sure about the magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn, but I actually can see potential mechanisms for influence of those two planets on our own planet.

One hypothetical mechanism may be the partial blockage of some cosmic radiation by these planets' magnetic fields in certain orbital positions relative to Earth and the Sun from a source to which we might normally be exposed otherwise.

Another hypothetical mechanism may have little to do with the magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn but rather with the ways in which they tug on the Sun relative to the position of Earth via gravitational interaction and accelerated solar radiation.

Who knows which, if any of these, is correct? Or, could it be both? Time will tell but the thesis of that paper might still hold up to scrutiny, which means that the above article may yet have some serious wrenches thrown into it aside from potential data manipulation via biased algorithm. :)

Eachus, you have to have a whole lot of ambient CO2 present to cause onset of more rapid breathing, as in more than 5,000 ppmv in an enclosed space. There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do it at present, and even if we double it we still won't.

You can, however, induce more rapid breathing by increasing your own CO2 levels in your blood via exercise. However, anecdotally speaking, my home regularly has between 4,000 and 5,000 ppmv CO2 in it every winter and there is no increase of breathing rate here. If anything, I have noticed that my breathing rate at home is slower and deeper than when I sit at a desk elsewhere.

In addition, the documentation I have from Argus Control Systems states that human breath has about 40,000 ppmv of CO2, which, of course, dissipates into the atmosphere.

CO2 is an interesting gas, to be sure. :)

magnetic fields themselves produce no energy.

"A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature"
http://pielkeclim...ta-2011/
"The Earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday"
http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2009/02/earths-magnetic-field-and-climate.html

There is a distinction between effecting energy and affecting it.

Eachus, you have to have a whole lot of ambient CO2 present to cause onset of more rapid breathing, as in more than 5,000 ppmv in an enclosed space.

From real experience with Fresh Air kids, moved for the Summer from inner cities to the country, I can tell you that the effect of CO2 levels on breathing is evidenced at levels far below what you here claim.

With their breathing rates in the country well below those in the city, some kids had panic attacks, and needed to be stabilized by way of inhaling canistered CO2.

You know a good test for this would be athletic performance and see if it correlates to CO2 levels. You would expect to see a decrease in performance levels with higher CO2. I would look at the top performers in a high endurance even. Marathoners, mountain climbers, triathlons, ...etc.

deepsand,

Sounds more like children dealing with anxiety caused by lack of the stressors of their 'normal' city life while in 'the country' rather than being caused by CO2 itself. Both CO2 (in large concentrations for short periods of time) and CO (in small amounts over longer periods of time) administered to people have been shown to have a calming effect.

It is also possible that these particular children were sensitive to lack of CO that they had become used to via living in the city. Lack of CO for some who have become accustomed to it also can trigger anxiety as children move into differing environments, even if for a short period.

So, of course, administering CO2 generally will produce a calming effect in a person having an anxiety attack. But, given that you have such stuff in canisters on-hand, tells me that you very likely are a believer in the claims of websites like the following:

http://www.aetherin.com/

Sounds like science mixed with pseudoscience to me. :)

But, given that you have such stuff in canisters on-hand, tells me that you very likely are a believer in the claims of websites like the following:

You can take that bit of tripe, along with the rest of your post, up with the doctors who treated the kids.

Just tell them that you more more about it than they do; no doubt they'll be suitably impressed and deferential.

In all seriousness, there are those who claim the title of doctor but have no right to it, who make all sorts of claims. There are those who claim things and who do have right to the title, but who have been misled because of ignorance on one or more matters.

So, I guess I'll take up your challenge. Give me (via PM or otherwise) the names of the doctors. I would surely be pleased to speak with them to get further details as to why they think it best to carry canisters of CO2 around with them for treatment of patients. :)

Who said anything about doctors stocking CO2 canisters?

The children were hospitalized, where they were placed in so-called oxygen tents fed with CO2.

In the country, with lower CO2 levels than they were accustomed to in the cities, which where then much more polluted than they are today, their breathing rates were substantially lower to the point that the kids thought that they were suffocating, with the result that they began hyperventilating.

OK, so you say there are no canisters. Fine. You still have not provided the names of the doctors requested so that they can be contacted and asked as to why they used CO2 to treat their patients. So, names of doctors and name of hospital, please. I am still waiting. :)

(By the way, there is no HIPAA violation to reveal the doctors' and hospital's names--so long as you do not reveal the names of the patients without their consent, that is--so there is no excuse whatsoever for not providing that information).

P.S.: And, if the children were experiencing the symptoms of hyperventilation as you claim, why in hell did you even have to transfer them to the hospital at all for treatment? That does not add up. All you had to do was to hand them a paper or plastic sack to cover their mouths and noses and have them breathe. You've got some pretty ignorant medical personnel in your program and I think I will need to inform the Health Department about lack of safety conditions in that program.

And you've got a pretty ignorant attitude, as evidenced by all of the unwarranted assumptions that you make, all of which amount to no more than ad hominem attacks on people that you know absolutely nothing about, in a situation that you know nothing about.

The kids were individually placed on farms, living with farmers, not trained paramedics, in area where the nearest doctor may be 10 or more miles away, in the next valley on the other side of 3 mountains.

The kids were taken, by their sponsoring families, to the only hospital in the county, one that had not existed for at least 3 decades now, long before HIPPA existed.

Removing them from the CO2 tents resulted in their returning to hyperventilating, whereupon they were sent back to the city. (So much for your paper bag prescription.)

The fact remains that, contrary to earlier claim, extremely high CO2 levels are not required for having a substantial affect on respiration rates.

Well, then, where are the farms located to which the children were taken? Can you name and give the location for even one of them? And, still no doctors' or hospital name?

There is another reason why your story does not add up. I am currently looking at CO2 levels in a major city and comparing those to CO2 levels up in the mountains, far away from any city.

Unfortunately, before I could gather the data and run the numbers from the mountain data the entire network in the mountains went down so I cannot process the information. As soon as the network is back up I will have a little more to say about this. Until then... :)

The who and where are irrelevant to the issue re. the effects of CO2 on respiration rates.

And, good luck trying to find data re. 50 years ago.

They are quite relevant. Often it is caused by large changes in altitude in too short a time. Some people are very sensitive to such things as changes in altitude. Treatment for hyperventilation will help but if treatment is stopped the symptoms return until the cause of the condition is corrected.

In yet other cases, it simply is caused by anxiety. Of course, in such a scenario treatment for hyperventilation again will work but as soon as treatment is stopped the condition returns.

Neither of these scenarios is the result of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels, which are relatively small in most cases--too small to cause rapid changes in breathing patterns.

And, 50 years ago is not too much of a problem for me. So, just provide the names of the hospital and the doctors already and stop making excuses. Incidentally, if this was 50 years ago, as you now claim, medical science was infantile compared to medicine today, making me right anyway. :)

Still waiting for names and locations...

Eyes rolling in the back of his head. Are you guys serious???
The earth is going to crap and yoz guyzs are so lalala.

Neither of these scenarios is the result of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels

The only one talking about either altitude or anxiety is you.

Incidentally, if this was 50 years ago, as you now claim, medical science was infantile compared to medicine today, making me right anyway.

In your dreams. :rolleyes:

We were conducting IR spectrometer measurements in our lab, in winter, and needed a precise measure of CO2. Levels were over 600 ppm.

I suspect winter CO2 levels in well populated buildings is 2-3 times ambient.

"Properly ventilated buildings should have carbon dioxide levels between 600ppm and 1,000 ppm, with a floor or building average of 800 ppm or less. "
http://www.idph.s...e_fs.htm

Hmmm...Still no hospital or doctors' names. Come on, this cannot be too hard. And, why don't you leave it up to me as to whether I can locate decades old data? I think you would be surprised as to what I can locate with just names combined with a little patience and legwork--especially in country hospitals and courthouses. I have found hard-copy documents dating all the way back to the 1800s or earlier in courthouses.

Country hospitals are very similar, especially if they have large basements or have a history of moving their very old records to other locations to make room for other records before the advent of computerization.

So, I ask again, what are the names of the hospital, the doctors and at least the location of one of the farms where the hyperventilating child had been before presenting symptoms? Also helpful would be when the symptoms started after the child arrived at the host location. You act like you remember full details of events over 50 years ago so should be easy.

Network's back up. :)

There is a difference of 20.845 ppm (that is a decimal point, in case you were wondering) between a major city and a wilderness preserve on the other side of the Rockies and away from civilization. That is not enough of a difference to cause any sort either of hyperventilation or of hypoventilation in a child.

Your story does not add up, deepsand. By the way, did you ever consider airborne allergens? Many things, including severe dehydration, can cause hyperventilation. Yet, you somehow and apparently mystically know for a fact that the child's hyperventilation was caused by major differences in CO2 levels between where the child was hosted as opposed to where the child at the time lived.

But, I am still waiting for names and locations so I can go back and check into CO2 records for the regions in question. Fresh Air Children is a New York-based charity for kids in New York City so I already have my baseline for further study.

Just waiting for the names... :)

Continues to evade the point re. CO2 affecting respiration rate.

No surprise there.

BTW, that Fresh Air is based in NYC is immaterial to where the kids were from. Stop making assumptions.

Perhaps this will explain some things...

http://www.youtub...nman3610

This by deepsand, who evades the point by failing to provide the names of the doctors, the hospital where treatment occurred, and the location of the farm that hosted the child.

Fresh Air, unless things changed recently, specifically targeted low-income New York City children to give them the opportunity to get out into the country and away from the city, to enjoy the experience of being outside of the city when they otherwise would not be afforded that opportunity.

So, it has been about 7-plus hours and you still have provided no names or locations. Not surprised. That is why I think your story is a cock-and-bull story and you don't want to be busted. The difference between levels of CO2 inside and outside New York City is not enough to be responsible for what you claim for it.

You easily can lend credibility to your story by providing a few names for doctors, hospital, and a location of the farm that hosted the child with the hyperventilation problem. I doubt you will do it.... :)

Not only are you still making unwarranted assumptions, but now descending into ad hominem, all so as to evade the subject matter.

When Mr, Peabody gets back with the Wayback Machine, I'll ask if he can accommodate your being taken back 50 years.

Until then, bugger off.

Just to make it clear, SR, it's your red herring, and yours to chase.

Still no names and locations. Figures... All you have to do is to provide the names of the doctors, the name of the hospital, and the location of the farm that hosted the child in question. And, since you are hinting around that the baseline may not be New York City, it is a simple matter to provide the name of the city whence the child came.

It is so simple, really. Not providing the information for this case shows the truth about your story, a cock and bull story at best because it is unverifiable, especially when CO2 levels do not have enough variance between city and suburb when it comes to New York City and/or other cities across the nation, to be the cause of what you claim.

All you need to do is produce the doctor's names, the hospital name, the location that hosted the child, and the home city of the child. The doctors' names might be less easy but the hospital, host location, and city name of the child aren't.

It is no Red Herring because it goes to the heart of your claim.

It's a red herring because the matter under discussion that you seek to evade is independent of the tale, believed or not.

Nope, it goes to credibility of your account of events--or, rather I should say, lack thereof.

It is part and parcel of verifying your anecdotal claim. If I were trying to evade I would not be asking you for the details for the event. You, on the other hand, are trying to evade by refusing to provide the details that either will substantiate or will destroy the credibility of your claim, which is that CO2 levels drop drastically between city and country, and that a child hyperventilated because of it.

You made the claim. Back it up. The truth, however, is that your claim is not verifiable, is anecdotal, and is unscientific as it stands. Feel free to provide the information to show it is otherwise. Bet you can't and won't. :)

You seem to be having great problems understanding plain spoken words.

Repeat slowly as needed:

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

The matter under discussion that Skepticus_Rex seeks to evade is independent of the tale related by deepsand.

Names, and locations, please. You made the claim. You need to back it up. It is a relatively simple matter. It has everything to do with the subject we are discussing since you made the claim in conjunction with the subject. By the way, thank you for admitting that your story is a tale. Now, can we have some facts?

"It keeps the continents moving" - RyggTard

The continents float on the magma below. Their motion requires no globally substantial commitment of energy.

You are an Idiot.

"blows all sorts of crap into the atm when a volcano blows" - RyggTard

Producing a transient cooling effect.

You are an Idiot.

"who knows how many geothermal vents are there on the bottom of the ocean spewing out superheated water." - RyggTard

Virtually none. Hot spots are associated with plate boundaries which are very well defined, so location isn't an issue. There are a small number of off boundary volcanoes such as the Hawaiian island chain, but they are uncommon and are also well localized due to the characteristic pattern that the undersea cones produce.

You are an Idiot.

As to the volume of heated water it is essentially zero when taken on a global scale. The deep ocean is very cold and any heating would be absorbed into that cold, and never reach the surface.

You are an Idiot.

Well, since you still won't provide details that can be used to verify your tale, why not provide even one scientific paper that demonstrates that a change in levels of CO2 by a dropping atmospheric level of 20-21 ppm between city and wilderness can result in uncontrollable hyperventilation? Can you do even that?

It's either that or names and locations. Thing is, I know you cannot provide names and locations because the tale was made up. It has zero scientific basis in fact or reality.

But, names and locations could well substantiate your claim in some, bizarre twist of reality. So, why not provide them? It is not that hard. It would be easier to do than looking for a scientific paper substantiating your claim, I think.

Waiting for more blustering instead of names and locations... :)

"And don't forget about the magnetic field that traps high energy particles." - RyggTard

The total energy liberated by an Aurora is somewhere around 1x10**18 joules. This is roughly equal to the Sunlight that falls on 92 square kilometers of the earth's upper atmosphere, or roughly .0007 percent of the light that falls on the earth over a day.

It is minuscule.... And as always RyggTard... You are an Idiot.

By the way, thank you for admitting that your story is a tale.

Definition of TALE (Merriam-Webster)

2 a : a series of events or FACTS told or presented

Glad to see that you finally accept the facts. :lol:

Too bad there are no facts given to accept. LOMAOFOF! :)

Ready to provide those facts instead of your unscientifically-based anecdote? Thought not....

You're a slow learner, aren't you.

Still no facts... Not surprising, considering that you made up the tale. All you have to do to substantiate the tale is to provide doctor's names, hospital name, and locations of host farm and originating city. In lieu of that I'll take a scientific paper that demonstrates that a drop of a mere 20-21 ppm atmospheric CO2 can cause hyperventilation in children. Best get cracking! (But you won't and can't). :)

Yep; definitely a very slow learner.

Yep... deepsand definitely is a teller of tall tales with no basis in scientific fact. The fact that he can't provide the simple information requested is proof enough of the concept. What he has claimed is a scientific impossibility. One cannot go into hyperventilation because the atmosphere dropped CO2 levels of between 20-21 ppm. If it were true, there would be a whole lot more people doing that simply by walking outside of their homes where the differences are at least double of outside ambient air, if not more!

Deepsand's tale is a cock and bull story at best and outright deception at worst. It cannot be substantiated with facts with any basis in reality. Repeatedly he has proven it and likely will continue to do so as well as obfuscate until comments close in this article thread.

Well, there's another waste of perfectly good photons.

The solar constant on Venus is twice that of Earth's.

All other things being equal, the average temperature on Venus would be about 52 degrees Celsius higher than on Earth. (If you want to do the math, heat radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature in degrees Kelvin (or Rankine).

Of course, other things are not equal, and the temperature on Venus is around 460 degrees C (860 degrees F). The greenhouse effect keeps it that way, but how did it get that way in the first place? Plate tectonics seems to have stopped about 500 million years ago, and never restarted. (Thus the whole surface of Venus is about the same age.) There were a lot of volcanoes between 300 and 400 million years ago, which were probably due to the planet warming.

Earth ending up like Venus is not a good idea. Lying about the science is not the way to get Earth's CO2 level under control.

Eachus,

Earth never will end up like Venus with the aid of mankind burning fossil fuels. It is physically impossible. The atmosphere of Venus is 965000 ppm CO2 of its own atmosphere but it also is over 90 times denser than Earth's atmosphere. Venus also has added heating from adiabatic compression of its high-mass atmosphere.

Earth, on the other hand, has a current, paltry 390.31 ppm average level of CO2. Even if we burnt everything organic on the planet all at once we never could get levels as high as that of the atmosphere of Venus.

Oh, and, deepsand? Still waiting for names and locations, or even one scientific paper that proves that a change in ambient CO2 by 20-21 ppm can trigger uncontrollable hyperventilation in a child....

"The state and federal guideline for CO2 levels in schools is based upon a recommendation from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). It sets the maximum CO2 limit for classrooms at no more than 700 ppm above the current carbon dioxide level of outside air. Because outdoor CO2 levels are usually in the 300-400 range, CO2 levels inside a school are generally considered elevated if they exceed 1100 ppm."
"Too much carbon dioxide isn't the only issue schools are battling in their fight against poor indoor air quality.

State reports show nearly half of schools inspected by ISDH also had elevated levels of bacteria or fungus. At some, inspectors found visible mold. All are triggers for asthma and other health problems for students and teachers."
http://www.wthr.c...rintable

Sandy's Fresh Air kids story makes no sense.

US Navy has 5000 ppm as continuous exposure guidelines.
http://www.nap.ed...;page=60

That is true, ryg. Do you know of any Navy men who begin hyperventilating on stepping out of the subs and experiencing lower CO2 levels while on shore leave? I know of none.

That is yet another reason why deepsand's cock and bull story is nothing more than a tall tale with no scientific basis in reality.

Oh, and deepsand? Still waiting for those names and locations, or even a scientific paper that proves that children can hyperventilate when there is a drop in ambient atmospheric CO2 levels by 20-21 ppm....

Earth never will end up like Venus with the aid of mankind burning fossil fuels. It is physically impossible. The atmosphere of Venus is 965000 ppm CO2 of its own atmosphere but it also is over 90 times denser than Earth's atmosphere.

I don't expect Earth to get that way from mankind burning fossil fuels. In fact, I expect that we are close to peak CO2 levels now. (This is why the global warming alarmists are just that.) CO2 levels won't go down--or slow down--because we stop using fossil fuels. They will go down because fracking is making natural gas a better fuel for generating electricity than coal. Very rough numbers, natural gas generates half the amount of CO2 per quad of power generated. The actual ratio depends on how the gas is used (combined cycle turbine?) and on its chemical composition.

Of course, the Chinese are putting a new coal burning plant into operation about every week right now. It will be a few years before they switch to natural gas...

SR, given the great difficulty you have at comprehending plain words, and your resulting compulsion to endlessly repeat the inane in hopes of a different outcome - a classic clinical symptom of insanity - you may want to see the Chaplain about getting your TS card punched.

I don't know why deepsand bothers to comment when his credibility is in the toilet. All deepsand had to do was to provide facts to substantiate his cock and bull story. He can't, and, therefore, won't. In any case, deepsand's concocted, tall tale has zero scientific basis and deepsand knows it. That is why deepsand will not produce the information. Deepsand would be in deep doodoo, and deepsand knows it. Carry on... :)

Eachus,

I am glad that you see it that way. I was not sure what you were thinking when you wrote what you did about "Earth ending up like Venus is not a good idea." I understand now what you meant. Thank you for clarifying.

Still endlessly repeating the same inanities in hopes of a different outcome - a classic clinical symptom of insanity.

SR = Silly Rabbit

Nope, I have given up hope of receiving any supportable facts from you for your cock and bull story. Your credibility is already in the toilet. Everyone here already knows you cannot back up your tall tale to save your life, and that your made up claim is unscientific in the extreme. No need to provide anything that you cannot provide anyway. Liars are as liars do, I guess. :)

Do you make up your cock and bull?

Or, does someone else script it for you?

Actually Skepticus, I find your "skepticism" a bit over board, but if you really want to test the hypothesis, I suggest you take a brown paper bag, put it over your head and hyperventilate while monitoring your CO2 levels in the huge hot bag of wind you've created.

The toxicity levels of CO2 are well know in the LD50 stats. You should know that. Lower level CO2 concentrations certainly would have an effect on humans. I mean, if plants grow bigger in a CO2 environment, and smaller in a O2 environment, it only makes sense that higher CO2 will adversely effect the mamallian respiratory system. To me, Deep has a good argument.

Howhot,

Totally other than what it is that we are discussing here. Go back up, re-read the discussion and see deepsand make up a story that deepsand then does not substantiate with facts because it is so unbelievable from a scientific basis. The difference between city and a mountain reserve many miles outside the city are around 20-21 ppm difference. Deepsand's claim is that small difference triggered uncontrollable hyperventilation in a child that then needed to be hospitalized and sent back to the city.

Why, then does this child not hyperventilate just from stepping outside of his home, where the difference between inside and outside ambient CO2 levels averages hundreds of ppm greater than the difference between inside and outside city?

Deepsand is making up unscientifically based tales. The trouble deepsand is that people who know something about CO2 know that it is nothing more than a tall tale. You think he makes a good argument? Try to think in English rather than French. :)

Well, then, Dr. Rex, why don't you go find yourself a time machine and prove it a lie.

Personally, I'm beginning to wonder if your existence might not be a lie, that you are a simply a construct of someone's imagination.

You call someone a liar; and, then, expect their co-operation? And, then, expect that others will accept your data re. an event that happened 5 decades ago at your word alone?

You really have lost it. :rolleyes:

Well Skepticus, Deep is right in that HIPPA could make raw research data restricted, it depends on the type data, and the IRB. I've seen that many times. I understand your frustration thought.

If Deep is falsifying his claims, then he is ethically wrong, and his claims would be actionable in the scientific per review. It happens. However, if this is work in progress, how can you judge the hypothesis to be wrong? The only tool is Logic.

Like you, I seriously doubt 20-21 ppm of CO2 makes a difference given the millions of years of genetic development its taken for human lungs to develop functionally. But you can't deny that plants (also genetically developed) aren't sensitive to CO2 levels. So.. logically we need to make a test.

Try to think in English rather than French.

- SR

That statement is whole different subject. Do we verbalise thoughts into language or is language a vehicle for thought and if so, does your native language define your thinking ability?

Should I keep away from plants at night? Does having a plant inside at night affect human respiratory function? Would sleeping in a greenhouse be dangerous?

Would you be sleeping there while it's light or dark? ;)

Is the impact of plant respiration in the dark significant to the local CO2 content in the local air? Is it risky to fall asleep in the dense jungle on a windless night due to the silent and deadly killer - CO2? Aside of course from the deadliest (to and excl. humans) animal on earth - the mosquitoes.

Skept asks,
"Why, then does this child not hyperventilate just from stepping outside of his home, where the difference between inside and outside ambient CO2 levels averages hundreds of ppm greater than the difference between inside and outside city?"

I'm not an MD. I couldn't tell you. You have made a good point.