Coss

Meanwhile in Huntly NZ, nothing happened...

http://stablelodge.com a short stagger down Soi 8

nice pool

one of my favourites - has been known to accept travelling circus at 3 in the morning

"But you did! You brought up the permafrost reductions as the cause for CO2 increase."

I brought up that, as an example of the Egg and Chicken argument. Which one causes the other? I don't know the answer, I just propose an alternate explanation to the perceived status quo.

​And my saying that "CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels" it does.' is not the same as saying "permafrost reductions are the cause for CO2 increase".

One is about fossil fuels - the other is about Permafrost.

Here are some

---

Obama’s Top Science Advisor Warned In 1971 that a New Ice Age Was an Imminent Threat …

"John Holdren is now not only the “Science Czar†for the United States, but he’s also one of the original leaders of the “alarmist†wing of the Global Warming debate — and he now promotes the notion that the current climate data points to a looming planetary overheating catastrophe of unimaginable dimensions. (He helped make the charts and graphs for Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, for example.)"

---

An older one 1958

How a rising of the ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future — and why it will be followed by the growth of a vast glacier which may eventually cover much of Europe and North America.

---

Newsweek 1975 scan of the page at the link

---

A letter to Nixon - In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following

"Dear Mr. President:

Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.

The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.

The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.

Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace...................."

---

On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled “Another Ice Age?†which stated:

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere …

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

---

Science News wrote an article in 1975 called “Chilling Possibilitiesâ€warning of a new ice age.

---

A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:

Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.

---

And so on...

This one shows CO2 and warming events, not as linear as most would believe.

I like this one -

One more - Temperature vs Time

And another - Continental Flooding, Temperature and CO2

Here's an interesting graph, CO2 vs Temperature

Your argument doesn't stand, because it doesn't fit the temperature data. It also doesn't stand because scientists can differentiate between CO2 from fossil fuels and CO2 from burning or permafrost reductions.

 

https://www.skeptica...ncentration.htm

I've already said - 'I don't argue against "CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels" it does.' I just don't buy into the assertion that the world will end because of human influence.

Show me the data that supports your assertion,

where the temperature has been much higher than it is today, but the the CO2 levels were lower.

You can find the graphs for the past 400,000 years here,

http://www.geocraft....t_400k_yrs.html

It's difficult to find this data exactly, which should be no surprise given the media's slavish 'believer' stance. But this graph demonstrates the assertion. Quite a famous one it seems.

"Taylor Dome is a local ice-accumulation area that is part of the East Antarctic ice sheet. It is a ridge about 20 by 80 km just inland of the Transantarctic Mountains and provides ice to outlet glaciers entering Taylor Valley and McMurdo Sound.

Deep drilling at Taylor Dome successfully reached bedrock at a depth of 554 meters during the 1993-1994 austral summer season at latitude 77°47'47'' S, longitude 158°43'26'' E, elevation 2365 m above sea level.

The Taylor Dome ice core is only the second core (after Vostok) to provide a stratigraphically undisturbed record through the entire last glacial cycle (that is, the last 130,000 years or more) It has the advantage over many other Antarctic cores in being relatively shallow (554 meters), meaning that gas bubbles trapped in the ice have not reached pressures sufficient to cause significant clathrate formation, even for ice that is pre-Holocene (greater than ~11,000 years) in age. This has enabled researchers to obtain what are likely the best CO2 and delta 13C of CO2 measurements ever made of the ancient atmosphere." http://www.ncdc.noaa...lor/taylor.html

and http://nsidc.org/dat..._ahn/index.html

Not to worry. I remember that when Skylab was coming down, Thai shops were having sales on motorcycle helmets.

55555 now that sums up 'Thainess'

We will be hit by a meteor that will wipe us long before so called climate change would ever become a worry, humankind would have adapted in the meanwhile in anycase. There are hundreds on the way right now, and only a matter of time before one hits us ....

I don't know the odds on a meteor hitting us soon, but it would make a mess, that's for sure.

You've hit on good point, humans would adapt, but I think what's at stake here is Al Gore's sliced white bread lifestyle.

If one smacks into the ocean, it would make one hell of a tsunami.

I just watched a movie 'Deep Impact' where just such an event happened, but it's OK, despite some considerable damage, Morgan Freeman led 'merica and the land of the free survived. Actually a reasonable good portrayal of what would happen. The space hijinx were bit far fetched though.

Oddly enough, I don't remember any either. Maybe my mind was on something else.

I'll try and dig out some articles, I don't intend to mislead, I'll report back.

the real face and motivation of isis

 

http://dcgazette.com...4/11/image6.jpg

One assumes this is a 'marriage' a wedding photo - -terrible

Thanks Bust, not often I get to see a 'real' article on these matters

One or two might have good personalities, but what's with the eye widening? If it's surgical, they'll look terrible in another 15 years. Specifically number 41.

... and that is the problem! You completely ignore the studies that correlate CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels. You don't need citations to back your belief. You just know.

I don't argue against "CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels" it does. I argue that the amount measured, should not make us culpably responsible for any significant amount of warming or cooling, or more change or less. There have been times in the recent (geological time frames) past, where the temperature has been much higher than it is today, but the the CO2 levels were lower, so my argument stands, the egg and chicken aspect of warming (remember we don't call it warming any more because we're not seeing too much of it) and CO2 levels, is worth examining.

​Note that I am arguing, I am presenting an opposing opinion, I don't claim the truth, I suggest the current narrative is flawed.

Oh and in the spirit of entertaining debate, my lack (sometimes) of citations, could easily be countered by citations from yourself.

I have a good memory and am happy to admit I'm wrong where I am shown to be so. I'd happily admit defeat in this argument if you could provide citations showing my assertions to be wrong, factually wrong.

The problem is that a lot of what the media present as fact, is merely projection based belief - AlGore and the Hockey Stick graph is a prime example. citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Anyone factor in the reduction in the jungles and forests that "eat" CO2???

 

Plant life needs CO2 to survive and people/animals need the plants to eat the CO2 and give us O2.

Quite right, forests are large carbon sinks and "based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effective as grasslands at storing carbon on a hectare per hectare basis."

citation: http://www.chiefscie...sts-or-grasses/

Libel (defamation by written or printed word) or Liable (Likely too)

likely to

You'll have to tell us what a 2LT is - 2nd Lieutenant?

A point well made.

For a real long time, the world has been pouring money into these places, people like President Goodluck Jonathan, scramble to the top of the pile and take all the money, then the West is asked to give more help. The Elite of the African nations are known as the WaBenzi (how the name Wabenzi came: to snub the political and connected business honchos who had an insatiable love for Mercedes Benz and other excesses) for good reason.

If President Goodluck Jonathan wanted to fix this problem, he could, but he'd have to spend, what he regards as his money, on the army to make them suitable for purpose.

Netanyahu: Israel will welcome European Jews with open arms

Israeli PM issues invitation to French and other European Jews who want to emigrate to Israel in wake of Paris attacks

http://www.theguardi...-jews-open-arms

Est-ce mauvais goût? Googlies - Is this bad taste?

Also on CO2 level records that go back 800,000 years (analyzing ice cores)! Is 800,000 years a small amount of time?

The more I think about the 800,000 years, you are quite right, what they show is significant variation of levels, with admittedly, some higher levels recently.

But

"The argument I have is not whether or not the planet is warming or cooling, getting more changeable or less.

The argument I have is whether or not Al Gore, all the Politicians and Marketing Geniuses are correct in promulgating that man is solely and culpably responsible for any significant amount of warming or cooling, or more change or less."

Don't need no citation, logic should do it. All the permafrost in the northern climes, if or as, it melts, releases huge amounts of CO2. Now is it the CO2 being released that's driving more Melting? Or is to the Melting that's driving the CO2 release?

Map of Russia permafrost

http://www.emergingm...rost_russia.jpg

Map of China permafrost, just a little one, but you can see the extent

http://nsidc.org/fgd...ssification.gif

yes

<<A long time ago, on this board, in numerous posts, he accused me of involvement in the underaged, enforced and trafficked, sex industry, because of my trip reports that talked about adult P4P in Cambodia. No-one, according to him, could pay an adult woman for sex in Cambodia, without actually being up to the eyeballs in underaged, enforced and trafficked children for sex.>>

 

Fair enough, I can see Nick saying that, your reply is reasonable given I know you as well as I know Nick

 

He does have good friends on both sides of the fence the problem is the nut jobs in yellow robes who hate him.

I'm sure he's lovely, and if he were talking about the Cambo sex industry in the abstract, I wouldn't have had a problem, the issue I had, was that he accused me.