A
a a
Guest
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
a a
Guest
>
Yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa post.
Yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa post.
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
> Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
J
John S
Guest
On 7/19/2023 11:06 AM, Michael Terrell wrote:
Let\'s start with a a.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
Let\'s start with a a.
D
Don Y
Guest
On 7/19/2023 9:06 AM, Michael Terrell wrote:
That should be relatively easy!
Water Department guy at neighbors to troubleshoot \"High Water
pressure\". Screws a gauge on hose bib located as first fixture
after the meter:
\"You\'ve got 88psi.\"
and, in the next breath:
\"I can stop the flow with my finger\" (presumably *easily*)
(really? a half-inch line at 88 psi? AND, you\'re claiming
they\'re only getting 1GPM /with no backpressure/? Want me to
bring over a 1G bucket and show you that it fills in 12-15 seconds??)
He blames this on a PRV somehow *hidden* between the meter and
the house water inlet. (*buried* in the yard?? really?)
I\'ve lived here 30+ years and I can tell you *who* installed PRVs
and who hasn\'t (and NONE of the houses were built with them
in place as the high pressure is a result of recent systemic
changes; not the case 30+ years ago! Do you see an expansion tank
installed in the house? Or, do you think it, too, is buried??
But, he\'s the \"authority\".
Angrily trying to prove himself, he repeats the experiment:
\"Oh! Now the meter is saying something different...\"
Ooops!
Wouldn\'t common sense have told you your earlier statements
were in error?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
That should be relatively easy!
Water Department guy at neighbors to troubleshoot \"High Water
pressure\". Screws a gauge on hose bib located as first fixture
after the meter:
\"You\'ve got 88psi.\"
and, in the next breath:
\"I can stop the flow with my finger\" (presumably *easily*)
(really? a half-inch line at 88 psi? AND, you\'re claiming
they\'re only getting 1GPM /with no backpressure/? Want me to
bring over a 1G bucket and show you that it fills in 12-15 seconds??)
He blames this on a PRV somehow *hidden* between the meter and
the house water inlet. (*buried* in the yard?? really?)
I\'ve lived here 30+ years and I can tell you *who* installed PRVs
and who hasn\'t (and NONE of the houses were built with them
in place as the high pressure is a result of recent systemic
changes; not the case 30+ years ago! Do you see an expansion tank
installed in the house? Or, do you think it, too, is buried??
But, he\'s the \"authority\".
Angrily trying to prove himself, he repeats the experiment:
\"Oh! Now the meter is saying something different...\"
Ooops!
Wouldn\'t common sense have told you your earlier statements
were in error?
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 2:06:58â¯AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
Nice to see Michael volunteering himself, though trolls rarely recognise their status.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
Nice to see Michael volunteering himself, though trolls rarely recognise their status.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:37:18â¯AM UTC+10, John S wrote:
He definitely qualifies as both. Flyguy would be another candidate
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 7/19/2023 11:06 AM, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
Let\'s start with a a.
He definitely qualifies as both. Flyguy would be another candidate
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
There\'s not going to be a 2050, thanks in no small part to all the greenhouse gas emissions from China.
> Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
There\'s not going to be a 2050, thanks in no small part to all the greenhouse gas emissions from China.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:58:16â¯PM UTC+10, a a wrote:
A a does seem to hear what we are telling him, but he echoes it back at us.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
go away with your daily delusional spam,
go away
A a does seem to hear what we are telling him, but he echoes it back at us.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
We\'ve got John Larkin with Pollyanna optimism and Fred Bloggs with equally unrealistic pessimism.
Equal degrees of unrealism don\'t represent a balanced debate. It\'s more like a shouting session in a lunatic asylum.
And then there is a a who gets his facts wrong as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
There\'s not going to be a 2050, thanks in no small part to all the greenhouse gas emissions from China.
We\'ve got John Larkin with Pollyanna optimism and Fred Bloggs with equally unrealistic pessimism.
Equal degrees of unrealism don\'t represent a balanced debate. It\'s more like a shouting session in a lunatic asylum.
And then there is a a who gets his facts wrong as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Planning for worst case is not pessimism. It\'s about as pessimistic as concluding driving down a twisty, curvy 25 MPH speed limit road at 100 MPH may result in an accident. And you grossly overrate your comprehension of the underlying science(s).
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
There\'s not going to be a 2050, thanks in no small part to all the greenhouse gas emissions from China.
We\'ve got John Larkin with Pollyanna optimism and Fred Bloggs with equally unrealistic pessimism.
Planning for worst case is not pessimism. It\'s about as pessimistic as concluding driving down a twisty, curvy 25 MPH speed limit road at 100 MPH may result in an accident. And you grossly overrate your comprehension of the underlying science(s).
Equal degrees of unrealism don\'t represent a balanced debate. It\'s more like a shouting session in a lunatic asylum.
And then there is a a who gets his facts wrong as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
You aren\'t planning anything. You are just telling us that everybody will be dead by then so that there is nothing to plan for.
> It\'s about as pessimistic as concluding driving down a twisty, curvy 25 MPH speed limit road at 100 MPH may result in an accident.
Planning would involve chosing not to do it and expected to arrive late, rather than never.
> And you grossly overrate your comprehension of the underlying science(s).
As if your own comprehension of the underlying science give any credence to your conclusion. In fact you\'ve never caught me presenting bad science on the subject, and neither has anybody else that I can recall. I do call out bad science when I see it, while you rarely bother.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
There\'s not going to be a 2050, thanks in no small part to all the greenhouse gas emissions from China.
We\'ve got John Larkin with Pollyanna optimism and Fred Bloggs with equally unrealistic pessimism.
Planning for worst case is not pessimism.
You aren\'t planning anything. You are just telling us that everybody will be dead by then so that there is nothing to plan for.
> It\'s about as pessimistic as concluding driving down a twisty, curvy 25 MPH speed limit road at 100 MPH may result in an accident.
Planning would involve chosing not to do it and expected to arrive late, rather than never.
> And you grossly overrate your comprehension of the underlying science(s).
As if your own comprehension of the underlying science give any credence to your conclusion. In fact you\'ve never caught me presenting bad science on the subject, and neither has anybody else that I can recall. I do call out bad science when I see it, while you rarely bother.
Equal degrees of unrealism don\'t represent a balanced debate. It\'s more like a shouting session in a lunatic asylum.
And then there is a a who gets his facts wrong as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:36:48â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Your command of the English language comprehension is lacking (too). Planning derives from an analysis of alternatives (AOA) motivated by worst case analysis, in the case. You wouldn\'t know anything about that because analytical thinking just isn\'t part of your playbook.
You completely dismissed the precision Earth energy imbalance satellite measurements as being insignificant, when the climate/ atmospheric scientists are saying it is EVERYTHING.
I don\'t make science up, like you. Anything I post is just a repetition of material published by reputable authority on the subject matter. You\'re too stupid to understand that, your ad hominem is an attack on established authority not me. You did the same thing with the choice of conserved receptor domain of the sars spike protein, ending up linking to the totally worthless CCP PNAS paper written by one of their totally worthless phony scientists, with a totally worthless and phonied up career, published for no other reason than to undermine confidence in western vaccine development. Brilliant.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
There\'s not going to be a 2050, thanks in no small part to all the greenhouse gas emissions from China.
We\'ve got John Larkin with Pollyanna optimism and Fred Bloggs with equally unrealistic pessimism.
Planning for worst case is not pessimism.
You aren\'t planning anything. You are just telling us that everybody will be dead by then so that there is nothing to plan for.
It\'s about as pessimistic as concluding driving down a twisty, curvy 25 MPH speed limit road at 100 MPH may result in an accident.
Planning would involve chosing not to do it and expected to arrive late, rather than never.
Your command of the English language comprehension is lacking (too). Planning derives from an analysis of alternatives (AOA) motivated by worst case analysis, in the case. You wouldn\'t know anything about that because analytical thinking just isn\'t part of your playbook.
And you grossly overrate your comprehension of the underlying science(s).
As if your own comprehension of the underlying science give any credence to your conclusion. In fact you\'ve never caught me presenting bad science on the subject, and neither has anybody else that I can recall. I do call out bad science when I see it, while you rarely bother.
You completely dismissed the precision Earth energy imbalance satellite measurements as being insignificant, when the climate/ atmospheric scientists are saying it is EVERYTHING.
I don\'t make science up, like you. Anything I post is just a repetition of material published by reputable authority on the subject matter. You\'re too stupid to understand that, your ad hominem is an attack on established authority not me. You did the same thing with the choice of conserved receptor domain of the sars spike protein, ending up linking to the totally worthless CCP PNAS paper written by one of their totally worthless phony scientists, with a totally worthless and phonied up career, published for no other reason than to undermine confidence in western vaccine development. Brilliant.
Equal degrees of unrealism don\'t represent a balanced debate. It\'s more like a shouting session in a lunatic asylum.
And then there is a a who gets his facts wrong as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 1:49:04â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
<snip>
> BTW, yesterday Hansen published a pre-peer review paper, which among other things stated he never said the warming was accelerating, when he clearly did say that in the publication just previous. Now he\'s saying the acceleration is only an appearance due to the effect of two types of warming he terms physics warming and climatological warming. He said the physics warming due to significant reduction of atmospheric aerosol and particulate pollution is just now combining with the climatological warming to create the appearance of an acceleration. The climatological warming is continuing on its steady linear trend.
So post the link. Your capacity to misunderstand what you read is well-established, even if you haven\'t noticed how often you screw up.
The \"climatological warning\" presumably reflects the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. and that isn\'t rising linearly
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the moment we are still dumping more of it per year in the atmosphere in every successive year.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:39:11â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:31:09â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:36:48â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
<snip>
> BTW, yesterday Hansen published a pre-peer review paper, which among other things stated he never said the warming was accelerating, when he clearly did say that in the publication just previous. Now he\'s saying the acceleration is only an appearance due to the effect of two types of warming he terms physics warming and climatological warming. He said the physics warming due to significant reduction of atmospheric aerosol and particulate pollution is just now combining with the climatological warming to create the appearance of an acceleration. The climatological warming is continuing on its steady linear trend.
So post the link. Your capacity to misunderstand what you read is well-established, even if you haven\'t noticed how often you screw up.
The \"climatological warning\" presumably reflects the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. and that isn\'t rising linearly
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the moment we are still dumping more of it per year in the atmosphere in every successive year.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:31:50â¯PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
That insult is so pat I\'m starting to suspect you got it out of some kind of automated insult generator.
I\'ve already linked you to Hansen\'s Columbia dot edu website numerous times.. It just doesn\'t seem to stick.
Well it\'s as linear as our GHG emissions. If they\'re increasing year over year then the warming will advance similarly.
Right, a year over year increase would mean non-uniform increments per time in the warming and therefore a non-linear rate of that warming.
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 1:49:04â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:39:11â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:31:09â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:36:48â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
snip
BTW, yesterday Hansen published a pre-peer review paper, which among other things stated he never said the warming was accelerating, when he clearly did say that in the publication just previous. Now he\'s saying the acceleration is only an appearance due to the effect of two types of warming he terms physics warming and climatological warming. He said the physics warming due to significant reduction of atmospheric aerosol and particulate pollution is just now combining with the climatological warming to create the appearance of an acceleration. The climatological warming is continuing on its steady linear trend.
So post the link. Your capacity to misunderstand what you read is well-established, even if you haven\'t noticed how often you screw up.
That insult is so pat I\'m starting to suspect you got it out of some kind of automated insult generator.
I\'ve already linked you to Hansen\'s Columbia dot edu website numerous times.. It just doesn\'t seem to stick.
The \"climatological warning\" presumably reflects the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. and that isn\'t rising linearly
Well it\'s as linear as our GHG emissions. If they\'re increasing year over year then the warming will advance similarly.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the moment we are still dumping more of it per year in the atmosphere in every successive year.
Right, a year over year increase would mean non-uniform increments per time in the warming and therefore a non-linear rate of that warming.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:48:42â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
That idiot Bozo from OZ volunteered EVERYBODY in his country by suggesting nuking EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:37:18â¯AM UTC+10, John S wrote:
On 7/19/2023 11:06 AM, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
Let\'s start with a a.
He definitely qualifies as both. Flyguy would be another candidate
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
That idiot Bozo from OZ volunteered EVERYBODY in his country by suggesting nuking EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 6:12:40â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
No. It\'s cause and effect, you make the same mistake repeatedly. and get roughly the same criticism every time you do it. The wording of the criticism is generated anew each time,
> I\'ve already linked you to Hansen\'s Columbia dot edu website numerous times. It just doesn\'t seem to stick.
If I can\'t click on it, it doesn\'t count.
That not what the American Institute of Physics web-site says.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
That is the index. There\'s a lot of depth to explore, and it\'s been a while since I dug into it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:31:50â¯PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 1:49:04â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:39:11â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:31:09â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:36:48â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
snip
BTW, yesterday Hansen published a pre-peer review paper, which among other things stated he never said the warming was accelerating, when he clearly did say that in the publication just previous. Now he\'s saying the acceleration is only an appearance due to the effect of two types of warming he terms physics warming and climatological warming. He said the physics warming due to significant reduction of atmospheric aerosol and particulate pollution is just now combining with the climatological warming to create the appearance of an acceleration. The climatological warming is continuing on its steady linear trend.
So post the link. Your capacity to misunderstand what you read is well-established, even if you haven\'t noticed how often you screw up.
That insult is so pat I\'m starting to suspect you got it out of some kind of automated insult generator.
No. It\'s cause and effect, you make the same mistake repeatedly. and get roughly the same criticism every time you do it. The wording of the criticism is generated anew each time,
> I\'ve already linked you to Hansen\'s Columbia dot edu website numerous times. It just doesn\'t seem to stick.
If I can\'t click on it, it doesn\'t count.
The \"climatological warning\" presumably reflects the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. and that isn\'t rising linearly.
Well it\'s as linear as our GHG emissions. If they\'re increasing year over year then the warming will advance similarly.
That not what the American Institute of Physics web-site says.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
That is the index. There\'s a lot of depth to explore, and it\'s been a while since I dug into it.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the moment we are still dumping more of it per year in the atmosphere in every successive year.
Right, a year over year increase would mean non-uniform increments per time in the warming and therefore a non-linear rate of that warming.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 3:34:34â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
Dear me. I suggested that we might do a Project Ploughshare job on our more productive iron mines to deny them to an invader.
That would have left some deeply buried radioactive material where it wouldn\'t have injured anybody. You wouldn\'t have set off the underground nuclear explosives until everybody had got out of the mines, so it wouldn\'t have killed anybody.
Sewage Sweeper can\'t remember any of this,so it it has morphed into a version that he invented to suite his own narrative, where he tries to claim that I was proposing the indiscriminate nuclear bombardment of my entire country. This is senile dementia on steroids.
I\'m sure his relatives are happy to keep on paying for him to be fed and sheltered, but they should realise that if word of his try identity got out they could be seriously embarrassed. More sedation does seem to be called for.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:48:42â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:37:18â¯AM UTC+10, John S wrote:
On 7/19/2023 11:06 AM, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
Can America depopulate to 150M till 2050 >?
Only if we eliminate all of the morons and trolls.
Let\'s start with a a.
He definitely qualifies as both. Flyguy would be another candidate
Bill volunteered EVERYBODY in his country by suggesting nuking EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!
Dear me. I suggested that we might do a Project Ploughshare job on our more productive iron mines to deny them to an invader.
That would have left some deeply buried radioactive material where it wouldn\'t have injured anybody. You wouldn\'t have set off the underground nuclear explosives until everybody had got out of the mines, so it wouldn\'t have killed anybody.
Sewage Sweeper can\'t remember any of this,so it it has morphed into a version that he invented to suite his own narrative, where he tries to claim that I was proposing the indiscriminate nuclear bombardment of my entire country. This is senile dementia on steroids.
I\'m sure his relatives are happy to keep on paying for him to be fed and sheltered, but they should realise that if word of his try identity got out they could be seriously embarrassed. More sedation does seem to be called for.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:20:51â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Really? And just what mistake was that?
You expect to have any credibility when you can\'t even find a site millions of others have found?
That\'s what you say it says. Unsurprisingly you can quite say what it does say.
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 6:12:40â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:31:50â¯PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 1:49:04â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:39:11â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:31:09â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:36:48â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
snip
BTW, yesterday Hansen published a pre-peer review paper, which among other things stated he never said the warming was accelerating, when he clearly did say that in the publication just previous. Now he\'s saying the acceleration is only an appearance due to the effect of two types of warming he terms physics warming and climatological warming. He said the physics warming due to significant reduction of atmospheric aerosol and particulate pollution is just now combining with the climatological warming to create the appearance of an acceleration. The climatological warming is continuing on its steady linear trend.
So post the link. Your capacity to misunderstand what you read is well-established, even if you haven\'t noticed how often you screw up.
That insult is so pat I\'m starting to suspect you got it out of some kind of automated insult generator.
No. It\'s cause and effect, you make the same mistake repeatedly. and get roughly the same criticism every time you do it. The wording of the criticism is generated anew each time,
Really? And just what mistake was that?
I\'ve already linked you to Hansen\'s Columbia dot edu website numerous times. It just doesn\'t seem to stick.
If I can\'t click on it, it doesn\'t count.
You expect to have any credibility when you can\'t even find a site millions of others have found?
The \"climatological warning\" presumably reflects the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. and that isn\'t rising linearly.
Well it\'s as linear as our GHG emissions. If they\'re increasing year over year then the warming will advance similarly.
That not what the American Institute of Physics web-site says.
That\'s what you say it says. Unsurprisingly you can quite say what it does say.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
That is the index. There\'s a lot of depth to explore, and it\'s been a while since I dug into it.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the moment we are still dumping more of it per year in the atmosphere in every successive year.
Right, a year over year increase would mean non-uniform increments per time in the warming and therefore a non-linear rate of that warming.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 8:34:59â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Quite a few. There\'s no point in repeating the message - you are quite as convinced of your own infalibiity as the pope.
It your credibility that is at issue here. Post the link or shut up.
It\'s years since I dug through it, and I wasn\'t looking for that specific information back then. It was fairly clear that the global temperature rise wasn\'t a linear function of atmospheric CO2 level - it was quite a bit more complicated than that - but there\'s not a lot of point in tryng to get complicated ideas over to you.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:20:51â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 6:12:40â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:31:50â¯PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 1:49:04â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:39:11â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:31:09â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:36:48â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 3:15:29â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 6:14:16â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:07:49â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:10:00â¯AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
snip
BTW, yesterday Hansen published a pre-peer review paper, which among other things stated he never said the warming was accelerating, when he clearly did say that in the publication just previous. Now he\'s saying the acceleration is only an appearance due to the effect of two types of warming he terms physics warming and climatological warming. He said the physics warming due to significant reduction of atmospheric aerosol and particulate pollution is just now combining with the climatological warming to create the appearance of an acceleration. The climatological warming is continuing on its steady linear trend.
So post the link. Your capacity to misunderstand what you read is well-established, even if you haven\'t noticed how often you screw up.
That insult is so pat I\'m starting to suspect you got it out of some kind of automated insult generator.
No. It\'s cause and effect, you make the same mistake repeatedly. and get roughly the same criticism every time you do it. The wording of the criticism is generated anew each time,
Really? And just what mistake was that?
Quite a few. There\'s no point in repeating the message - you are quite as convinced of your own infalibiity as the pope.
I\'ve already linked you to Hansen\'s Columbia dot edu website numerous times. It just doesn\'t seem to stick.
If I can\'t click on it, it doesn\'t count.
You expect to have any credibility when you can\'t even find a site millions of others have found?
It your credibility that is at issue here. Post the link or shut up.
The \"climatological warning\" presumably reflects the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. and that isn\'t rising linearly.
Well it\'s as linear as our GHG emissions. If they\'re increasing year over year then the warming will advance similarly.
That not what the American Institute of Physics web-site says.
That\'s what you say it says. Unsurprisingly you can\'t quite say what it does say.
It\'s years since I dug through it, and I wasn\'t looking for that specific information back then. It was fairly clear that the global temperature rise wasn\'t a linear function of atmospheric CO2 level - it was quite a bit more complicated than that - but there\'s not a lot of point in tryng to get complicated ideas over to you.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
That is the index. There\'s a lot of depth to explore, and it\'s been a while since I dug into it.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the moment we are still dumping more of it per year in the atmosphere in every successive year.
Right, a year over year increase would mean non-uniform increments per time in the warming and therefore a non-linear rate of that warming.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney