C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 01:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
By all means feel free to post a Wikipedia link to the \"much more
reliable information\" you mention then, Bill. ;->
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:09:32?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:20:59 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 2:42:38?AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 06:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 7:47:56?PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 23:42:12 -0700, Don Y
blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
\"NEW: 85 people in Arizona suffered severe burns from contact with
pavements heated up to 180F (82C). 7 of them died. In total, 257
people had underlying cause of death listed as \'exposure to excessive
natural heat\'.
This is not a forecast for 50 years time, its happening today.
pic.twitter.com/A3lmWXyj2o
John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) July 21, 2023\"
Gotta wonder how folks can NOT be aware of this, living here!
Well, Jim Thomspon lived there and he never complained about the heat.
In fact, 86\' at midnight was just \'pleasantly warm\' for ol\' Jim.
All this climate change alarmism is 99% BS.
Cursitor Doom prefer the BS served up by the climate change denial propaganda machine.
The world isn\'t going to end as a result of it - not even the human race, which isn\'t responsible for any warming which may or may not be happening anyway.
The world isn\'t going to end as a result of global warming. The human race my experience a population crash if it doesn\'t take it seriously enough, but it is unlikely to drive us to extinction.
However the extra CO2 in that atmosphere - and there is more of it despite Cursitor Doom\'s enthusiasm for cherry picking unreliable estimates from the 1890\'s to try to prove otherwise - is all our own work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
It was first noticed when radiocarbon dates started coming out odd.
We have been burning enough fossil carbon (which doesn\'t contain much C-13) that the CO2 in the atmosphere doesn\'t contain as much C-13 as it used to.
Hi Bill; long time no read.
Of course not. You prefer to read stuff that doesn\'t point out how fatuous your delusions are.
I didn\'t cherry pick the data. It came from a multiplicity of authoritative print sources compiled before climate change became politicized.
Actually, before measuring CO2 levels in air got automated enough for us to be able to get enough samples to find out how carefully you had to position your sampling station to get consistent and reliable results.
Climate change didn\'t get politicised until the 1990\'s until there had been enough of it for us to sure that it was happening, and the people who politicised it were the fossil carbon extraction business who saw that their cash cow was going to get slaughtered, and started spending money on spreading the lying propaganda which you\'ve decided that you fancy.
There\'s zero correlation between CO2 and warming - even if warming is taking place at all.
Wrong.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained broadly constant at around 385ppm for the last 150 years, so everything belched out during the most industrialized century of human existence was re-absorbed by the plants and oceans.
Keeling started making accurate and consistent measurements in 1958, and nobody found any fault with them until the fossil carbon extraction industry got worried about the consequences for their cash flow some forty years later. In the mean time his CO2 levels had gone up from 315 ppm in 1958 to the current 421 ppm.
That\'s about half of what we\'ve belched out over the time. The other half has been absorbed, but as the ocean keep on warming up they will take less of it.
And I see you continue to post references to Wikipedia! You should be ashamed of yourself quoting from such garbage, which any idiot can edit - and many do.
The bad edits get corrected. I do read the pages before I post links to them, and they are pretty reliable. It really isn\'t garbage. It doesn\'t tell the story you like, but you do prefer your fatuous conspiracy theories to be totally absurd.
You purport to be a scientist of some sort so please don\'t post links to demonstrable garbage.
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&oq=
I am a published and cited scientist (if a very minor one) and your idea of what constitutes \"demonstrable garbage\" makes it perfectly clear that you aren\'t, and haven\'t got the first clue about how science works.
You\'ve been published? What on? Wikipedia?? :-D
The first paper listed in the schoiar google link was published in Measurement Science and Technology. The next one was published in the Journal of Physics E, Scientific Instruments which happens to be same journal. The next one was publiushed in Review of Scientific Instruments. All of them are peer-reviewed academic journals which have been around much longer than Wikipedia. You\'ve just confirmed my claim that you haven\'t got a clue about how science works,
There\'s nothing I can put forward that would shake you out of your erroneous beliefs, Bill.
Mainly because they aren\'t erroneous, unlike yours.
I know that from old. So I\'ll simply post a link to where anyone interested to know the *facts* about CO2 and why it\'s most emphatically *not* responsible for any of the warming we may or may not be experiencing can see the proper *documentary* evidence for themselves. They will then be in a position to determine which of us is deluded...
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
It won\'t show the much more reliable information that you have chosen to ignore because it contradicts your favoured fantasy.
By all means feel free to post a Wikipedia link to the \"much more
reliable information\" you mention then, Bill. ;->