On Feb 17, 9:37 am, Bob Brown . wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 00:11:26 -0800, "Roger Coppock"
wrote:



Greenhouse gases hit new high
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent, Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:16pm
ET,

OSLO (Reuters) - Greenhouse gases widely blamed for causing global
warming have jumped to record highs in the atmosphere, apparently
stoked by rising emissions from Asian industry, a researcher said on
Friday.

"Levels are at a new high," said Kim Holmen, research director of the
Norwegian Polar Institute which oversees the Zeppelin measuring
station on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard about 1,200 km (750
miles) from the North Pole.

He told Reuters that concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main
greenhouse gas emitted largely by burning fossil fuels in power
plants, factories and cars, had risen to 390 parts per million (ppm)
from 388 a year ago.

Levels have hit peaks almost every year in recent decades, bolstering
theories of warming, and are far above 270 ppm before the Industrial
Revolution of the 18th century. [ . . . ]

New high? What was the amount 4 or 5 Billion years ago compared to
now?

Why does everyone cherry pick data?
1801-1811
1833-1901
1920-1992
1999-2000
2001-2007
All these "dates" seem choosen to fit the idea of increasing
greenhouse gases.


Or because 1900 is when CO2 started increaing.

Try using a 5 Billion year model, see how those numbers work.
Might see a graph with a solid line going horizontal, but this
wouldn't be what people are wanting to see.

People tend to think data is wrong when it's something they didn't
want or expect to see.

5 Billion years, get crackin

Well, there wasn't human civilization 5 billion years ago, so why
bring it up?

On Feb 17, 11:17 am, "Bawana" wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:11 am, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

Greenhouse gases hit new high
... had risen to 390 parts per million (ppm) from 388 a year ago.
From an incredibly insignificant amount

to an incredibly insignificant amount.


You waited until the end of the week, but this puts you in running for
"Idiot of the Week."

----------------
Another bamboozled chump.

Doomsday grifters have run their scam a long time and they've never
lacked for chumps to bamboozle.
----------------------------------------------http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html
--------------------------------------------------
Kary Mullis, Nobel, Chemistry:

"The global warmers ... predict that global warming is coming, and
our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our
role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not
pay their salaries. It's that simple."
-----------------------------------------------


His Nobel was for PCR, wasn't it? Not climate science.

"The continued rapid cooling if the earth since World War II is
also in accord with increased global air pollution associated with
industrialism, urbanization, and exploding population..."

- Reid Bryson, longtime eco-deep-thinker, 1971.

Well, that's sure a qualification for scientific work. And only 36
years out of date!


"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have
begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food production - with serious political
implications for just about ever nation on earth."

- Peter Gynne, Newsweek, 1975

"The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research
into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must
now stand alongside nuclear war as the likely source of wholesale
death
and misery for mankind"

Newsweek is a scientific pub?


- Nigel Calder, former editor of the New Scientist, 1975.

And only 32 years out of date. In another century, you might catch up
with the rest of us!

On Feb 17, 2:57 pm, "Lloyd" wrote:

--------------------------------------------------
Kary Mullis, Nobel, Chemistry:

"The global warmers ... predict that global warming is coming, and
our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our
role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not
pay their salaries. It's that simple."
-----------------------------------------------

His Nobel was for PCR, wasn't it? Not climate science.

No way he's as smart or as svelt as you are, Tturd Packer.

They give Nobels to any ol' idiot - right?

How many Nobels do you have, lardass?

As many as Co2ppuke?

Roger Dewhurst wrote:


"Me" wrote in message

o.uk...
The oxygen is depleted as C+O2CO2 and there is
no mechanism for replenishment.

Plants bozo.

R

Any sources of information on the change in
concentration of O2 or N2 in the atmosphere
relating to increases or decreases in CO2?

"geez the leave the room for five minutes and the **** fights happen
when your out!"

can I have that in thousands of feet please, I know we're all metric
SI UNits.

things move so quick round here its hard to keep up!
So where can I buy the sieve that can separate the "green house gases"
from the "non green house gases"?

On Feb 17, 2:11 am, "Roger Coppock" wrote:
Greenhouse gases hit new high
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent, Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:16pm
ET,

OSLO (Reuters) - Greenhouse gases widely blamed for causing global
warming have jumped to record highs in the atmosphere, apparently
stoked by rising emissions from Asian industry, a researcher said on
Friday.

"Levels are at a new high," said Kim Holmen, research director of the
Norwegian Polar Institute which oversees the Zeppelin measuring
station on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard about 1,200 km (750
miles) from the North Pole.

l He told Reuters that concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main
l greenhouse gas emitted largely by burning fossil fuels in power
l plants, factories and cars, had risen to 390 parts per million
(ppm)
l from 388 a year ago.

Dishonesty is a real thing here, Roger. Your own references
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
____________________
In Gtc = 3.67 gigatonnes

Fossil fuel burning, cement production 5.5 (5.0-6.0)
Changes in tropical land use 1.6 (0.6-2.6)
_______________________

This shows 1/3 of all CO2 emissions is just from the burning of
tropical jungles for agriculture.
It does not give the indepedent values for fossil fuels and cement.

Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forest have been burned or
cut down. Every 15 minutes, 860 acres, or the size of central park in
NYC of tropical jungle, is burned down.

This loss of vegetation has a cumulative effect on the recycling of
CO2 and must be considered in the 38% figure you put on increased
concentration since industrialization.

This figure is questioned by the arbitrary recalibration by 80 yrs of
the Mauna Loa CO2 records to ice cores.

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
""""This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was
328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming
hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was
measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years
after the ice was deposited at Siple."""""""


If you are not willing to give an accurate or full accounting of your
subject of CO2 concentration rises, you are guilty at this point of
deliberate fraud and intent to commit fraud. To only give partial data
and cultured for your desired effect and to only mention our use of
energy and your need to control our use of energy as the primary cause
of emissions, is a deliberate, direct and criminal perpetration of a
very serious fraud and associated crimes.

Deatherage


Levels have hit peaks almost every year in recent decades, bolstering
theories of warming, and are far above 270 ppm before the Industrial
Revolution of the 18th century. [ . . . ]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News&storyID=2...

On 17 Feb 2007 11:54:19 -0800, "Lloyd" wrote:

Why does everyone cherry pick data?
1801-1811
1833-1901
1920-1992
1999-2000
2001-2007
All these "dates" seem choosen to fit the idea of increasing
greenhouse gases.

Or because 1900 is when CO2 started increaing.

Liar. CO2 was up substantially by this time.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat

Curiously it failed to produce any measurable warming until about
1920.

Retief

On 17 Feb 2007 11:57:40 -0800, "Lloyd" wrote:

Kary Mullis, Nobel, Chemistry:

"The global warmers ... predict that global warming is coming, and
our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our
role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not
pay their salaries. It's that simple."

His Nobel was for PCR, wasn't it? Not climate science.

And where are your climate science publications? Or your Nobel prize?

Oh, that's right, Parker has no publications...

Retief