"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being
who gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution,
nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility
points for you.


You interrupted at "if there were, then".
How many brownie points does that earn you?

Your first sentence, which you had already posted previously, discredited
everything else you said. A second time.

Ok, let's try this.
What on Earth is this?
51° 2'16.63"N
0°41'53.21"E

Feel free to use Google Earth and type in "Time Team".


When you altered the follow-ups it showed you are also a coward.

Snipping shows you are a miserable **** and a moron.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth
reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more
questions?

They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past
warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.

You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.

You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2
(=390 - 280 ppmv)


Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.

You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.

Q


--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

On May 8, 3:44*pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
. ..
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth
reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
*A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
*an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
*but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof. Any more
questions?

They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past
warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved. *

You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of
global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not
even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates
that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other
things.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.

You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2
(=390 - 280 ppmv)


So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many
natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is
significant in causing global warming.


Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.

You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.


What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human
prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every
change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that
time.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being
who gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of
global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have
that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed
by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be
possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?

They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in
past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.

Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting
fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into
the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial
evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened
before.

Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened
before.

Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as
irrational as well as junk science.

To elaborate, the ice core data proves that:
1) There have been past warming and cooling periods.
2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle.

Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say
their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their
debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non-
warming doesn't explain past warming either.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.

Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm

Appeal to authority fallacy is noted.

What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it
wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse
gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man
made "greenhouse gasses".

Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the
atmosphere.
See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/
carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from
vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%.

Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle.

Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.

A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your
argument very hard to support.

If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it.

You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a
disaster for humans.



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:44:02 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being
who gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of
global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have
that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed
by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be
possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?

They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in
past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.

You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

Yes. At best, 0.07 degrees C, down in the noise level. See, for example,
Khilyuk and Chilingar, "Are we confusing cause and effect?" 2003.

The problem is that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, and it absorbs in 3 IR bands, and H2O absorbs in two of those
bands. The additional "greenhouse" effect of the CO2 is like wearing
sunglasses under your welder's goggles.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.

You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2
(=390 - 280 ppmv)

So, your rebuttal again is a mindless argumentum ad hominem fallacy, and
circular logic fallacy: we caused the increase because of the increase.

Am I supposed to respect that pile of fallacies as an argument? There is
no way I'd fall for it.

Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.

You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.

Your inability to make a rational reply is noted.




--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth
reading. A few insults and - run awaay!
Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more
questions?
They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past
warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of
global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not
even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates
that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other
things.

CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the
atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few
glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which
is going to hit us in the future.


2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.
You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2
(=390 - 280 ppmv)


So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many
natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is
significant in causing global warming.

Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we
stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes
warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific
rumble you should directly ignore.


Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.
You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.


What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human
prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every
change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that
time.

The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now,
it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get
to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:44:02 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being
who gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of
global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have
that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed
by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be
possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in
past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

Yes. At best, 0.07 degrees C, down in the noise level. See, for example,
Khilyuk and Chilingar, "Are we confusing cause and effect?" 2003.

A lie, since 1880 we got about +1C.


The problem is that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, and it absorbs in 3 IR bands, and H2O absorbs in two of those
bands. The additional "greenhouse" effect of the CO2 is like wearing
sunglasses under your welder's goggles.

Non-sense. CO2 is a very effective GHG and it mixes well in the
atmosphere. Water vapor does not mix too well and is short lived. CO2 on
the other hand can stay several hundred years in the atmosphere.


2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.
You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2
(=390 - 280 ppmv)

So, your rebuttal again is a mindless argumentum ad hominem fallacy, and
circular logic fallacy: we caused the increase because of the increase.

Am I supposed to respect that pile of fallacies as an argument? There is
no way I'd fall for it.

Why don't you google for it?


Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.
You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.

Your inability to make a rational reply is noted.

Your AGW denier fantasies are COMPLETELY unscientific, no government in
the world listens to your nonsense.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same
thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets
the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!
Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of
global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to
have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed
by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be
possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in
past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of
global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not
even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates
that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other
things.

CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the
atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few
glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which
is going to hit us in the future.


2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.
You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra
CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv)


So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many
natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is
significant in causing global warming.

Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we
stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes
warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific
rumble you should directly ignore.


Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms",
since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity,
this, too, would be hard to prove.
You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.


What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human
prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every
change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that
time.

The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now,
it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get
to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning.

Proof by allegation. No one can argue with that.

On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth
reading. A few insults and - run awaay!
Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more
questions?
They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past
warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming.

The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of
global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not
even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates
that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other
things.

CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the
atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few
glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which
is going to hit us in the future.


2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.
You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2
(=390 - 280 ppmv)


So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many
natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is
significant in causing global warming.

Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we
stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes
warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific
rumble you should directly ignore.


Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.
You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet
and we will have to pay to price.


What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human
prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every
change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that
time.

The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now,
it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get
to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning.

Q

No scientist says anything so silly, economics and oil
shortages will cause the development of technology to use
less fossil fuel and there is a chance the CO2 concentrations
will never go above 400 PPMV.

AGW nuts voicing alarmism can only destroy any possible
wide acceptance of the need to develop alternate energy for
the right reasons.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being
who gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of
global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have
that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed
by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be
possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in
past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting
fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into
the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial
evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened
before.

Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened
before.

Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as
irrational as well as junk science.

To elaborate, the ice core data proves that:
1) There have been past warming and cooling periods.
2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle.

Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say
their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their
debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non-
warming doesn't explain past warming either.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.
Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm

Appeal to authority fallacy is noted.

In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added
very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its
going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position
to know.

What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it
wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse
gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man
made "greenhouse gasses".

Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the
atmosphere.
See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/
carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from
vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%.

Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle.

Obvious fallacy. Human CO2 emissions result from the addition of carbon
which was previously interred in the ground and not previously a part of
the carbon cycle.

Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.
A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your
argument very hard to support.

If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it.

You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a
disaster for humans.

The issue, as you stated it, was "is it bad if the earth warms". The
issue is not related to the medieval warm period, a regional phenomena
and not a global one. I'm not going to chase around showing you all
the indications and predictions of harm since you've provided nothing
other than a couple of totally unsupported assertions.