Merry Xmas - I'm off down the pub for the real low down on globular worming.
On 23 Dec, 12:51, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I seem to remember there was a lot more CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere > once, and isn't the oxygen only there in sufficient quantities for us > because of very long-term build-up? It is, of course, because of the > ppm scale that the system may be at some threshold. We piss-ants, as > Lovelock reminds us, are unlikely to screw the planet, only our place > on it. I think it's likely the system is more complex than any of the > models and these are not adequate. We haven't examined the IPCC > reports, which are easily available, found what is being said about > the saturation argument and tested our understandings (not much) and > now have someone aboard who has thrown in an old Dilbert joke on > expansion into the fray. > If you ain't careful Chaz, you'll sound like one of those dreadful ex- > commies who write 'Darkness at Noon' whilst raping friends' wives, or > the child who has just realised Santa Claus is an abuser. I know just > what you mean though - pretty much everything put in front of us to > believe in turns to rat shit, yet we seem to queue up for more. > The IPCC should have opened the case up for world-wide public scrutiny > and put together some decent opportunities for pro and sceptic to get > their arguments out so we didn't end up with loads of old wives' tales > and Newsnight ninnies getting in the way of what was really being > said. It has failed completely, which I say with complete certainty > having only scanned most of the documentation! But it has - it hasn't > made the arguments plain, open and understandable. Nuclear, of > course, is little to put up with in comparison with a frying planet if > the small increases in ppm are actually so dangerous. Of course, if > the IPCC is right there are very traditional ways to sort it out. A > cull would work 'nicely'. > > On 22 Dec, 21:10, garshagu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > what about philosophising on the ozone layer perforations, in terms of > > holding responsible the great wobbling of the earth thus sometimes > > making the poles assume relative positions that resemble the imaginary > > equator thus making the poles to get hotter. What are the comparative > > temperatures of the poles at any point in time? Have they > > simulteneously gone hotter? Has the realtive ratio remained constant? > > Now, the earth, as other planetary bodies, have been spinning for > > millions of years and generating heat of some sort (or the entire > > atmospheric thing cascadding earth for instance), i stand to ber > > corrected: don't this cummulative effect make the pannets grow or > > expand and in expanding wont gases respectively contained there-in > > increase in quantity thus lending claim to the so called CO2 increase? > > After all physicists still believe in the big bang theory - which > > implies that things are getting bigger or larger or more volumnous. We > > need more experiments to prove or disprove that earth's size, or even > > sun's size, for instance is still what it was half a million years > > ago. > > Atovigba. > > > On Dec 20, 2:44 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant > > > greenhouse gas. > > > According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought the > > > the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last 100 > > > years. > > > Unless Carbon has some magical properties is seems unlikely that such > > > tiny concentrations should cause any significant increase in > > > temperature, even-though it is a greenhouse gas. > > > Can any one help me find the scientific evidence? > > > I don't want to the political answer, nor the circumstantial answer, > > > nor any sceptic/denier/doubter information as I have heard it all. > > > What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests that > > > a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree > > > increase in temperature. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
