OT: Getting climate change under cotrol.

[Bill Sloman]

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[gregz]

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too
big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve things
that don't involve them.

Greg

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has
an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.
pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is toast.

I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar water
placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance of fiximg
that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water in the oceans.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 7:54:02 PM UTC+11, Gz wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too
big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve things
that don't involve them.

What's that supposed to mean?

Accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming mainly involves knowing enough about science.

Slowing it down involves burning less fossil carbon. The people that generate our electricity currently burn a lot of fossil carbon. Governments could encourage them to burn less, and spend more on the storage schemes that would let them use more wind and solar power, but the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Once the electricity generation system is less dependent on burning fossil carbon, it would make sense to move to electric cars, rather than burning more fossil carbon in internal combustion engines. Government could encourage the move, but people would have to buy the electric cars, so again the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Perhaps you think that accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming is part of a left-wing political package - it certainly looks as if right-wing nit-wits feel obliged to reject it - but there a lots of ways of not being right-wing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 8:15:37 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has
an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.
pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drabs we can. But the idea of full repair is toast.

The main aim is to stop it getting worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg

at the moment the CO2 content of the atmosphere is going up progressively faster every year, and it needs to level off as soon as possible.

I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar water
placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance of fixing
that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water in the oceans.

That's the silliest proposal I've come across so far. What is it supposed to about anthropogenic global warming?

There's going to be more water in the oceans when the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets slide off into the sea - worth about 10 metres of sea level rise between them - but dumping polar water in inland reservoirs isn't going to do much about that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:53:58 -0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net>
wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too
big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve things
that don't involve them.

According to - inter alia - the Enclyopaedia Britannica (no less) the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained pretty much constant over
the period between 1910 and 2009 at just under 400ppm. If that level
hasn't changed during the most industrial period in human history then
man-made global warming is barely even junk pseudo-science and those
who espouse warmist propaganda need to be thought of in the same terms
as those other nutcases who believe the world is flat and that the
moon landings were faked.

 

[bitrex]

On 2/7/20 8:01 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 7:54:02 PM UTC+11, Gz wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too
big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve things
that don't involve them.

What's that supposed to mean?

Accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming mainly involves knowing enough about science.

Slowing it down involves burning less fossil carbon. The people that generate our electricity currently burn a lot of fossil carbon. Governments could encourage them to burn less, and spend more on the storage schemes that would let them use more wind and solar power, but the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Once the electricity generation system is less dependent on burning fossil carbon, it would make sense to move to electric cars, rather than burning more fossil carbon in internal combustion engines. Government could encourage the move, but people would have to buy the electric cars, so again the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Perhaps you think that accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming is part of a left-wing political package - it certainly looks as if right-wing nit-wits feel obliged to reject it - but there a lots of ways of not being right-wing.

There are lots of things you can troll right-wing nits into doing if you
tell them left-wing politics is against it. since they have no other
ideas than "if they're for it then I'm against it."

Car exhaust systems are a left-wing conspiracy, for example. If you
simply cut your car's exhaust system off 2" below the header it
drastically improves power output, fuel economy, and engine reliability.
That muffler, catalytic converter, and tailpipe are CHOKING your engine!
Just like how the left kills babies!

 

[bitrex]

On 2/7/20 12:33 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 2/7/20 8:01 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 7:54:02 PM UTC+11, Gz wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has
an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too
big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve
things
that don't involve them.

What's that supposed to mean?

Accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming mainly
involves knowing enough about science.

Slowing it down involves burning less fossil carbon. The people that
generate our electricity currently burn a lot of fossil carbon.
Governments could encourage them to burn less, and spend more on the
storage schemes that would let them use more wind and solar power, but
the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Once the electricity generation system is less dependent on burning
fossil carbon, it would make sense to move to electric cars, rather
than burning more fossil carbon in internal combustion engines.
Government could encourage the move, but people would have to buy the
electric cars, so again the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Perhaps you think that accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic
global warming is part of a left-wing political package - it certainly
looks as if right-wing nit-wits feel obliged to reject it - but there
a lots of ways of not being right-wing.


There are lots of things you can troll right-wing nits into doing if you
tell them left-wing politics is against it. since they have no other
ideas than "if they're for it then I'm against it."

Car exhaust systems are a left-wing conspiracy, for example. If you
simply cut your car's exhaust system off 2" below the header it
drastically improves power output, fuel economy, and engine reliability.
That muffler, catalytic converter, and tailpipe are CHOKING your engine!
Just like how the left kills babies!

At some point I will see how many I can convince that the practice of
using indoor toilets was invented by the Communists. Baa baa, walk to
the toilet instead of using the kitchen sink like God intended, be a
good little sheep.

 

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:Sth%F.96687$uE2.69103@fx19.iad:

On 2/7/20 12:47 PM, boB wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.fu
ll. pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.


The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem
has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is
toast.


Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do
what we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are just
too easy to use.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric
vehicle trucking will be good but way too late from what I
understand.

Expect lots of bugs.



I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds
of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar
water placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance
of fiximg that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water
in the oceans.


I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming
wasn't quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.


Pleasant 70 degree days in January the Northeast and Northwest
aren't going to feel so pleasant when the brutal drought
everywhere else means there's no fucking food to buy

We have 7.5 or such billion folks breathing each day. Only about
5.5 billion of them are eating every day. The despite the fact that
there is enough for all of us.

With water, we all know there is plenty. Yet looking at the global
water map, there are plenty of nations desperate for water, and folks
are crying that if we do not do something the oceans are going to
rise and that is the last thing we need.

So we DO need to start taking polar ice, hundreds of cubic hectares
of it, and move it down to the east side of all these desert we have,
which are ALL growing westward and start re-greening our planet.

Pine trees grow two feet per year. Hemp grows two feet per month.
We can re-oxtgenate the world while we re-green it and re-green our
lungs at the same time! Hell, it works on salad too! Graze... And
hemp seed is second only to soy in protien level, and far better in
anti-oxidants. We could feed those unfed folks with that alone!

 

[bitrex]

On 2/7/20 1:05 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:Sth%F.96687$uE2.69103@fx19.iad:

On 2/7/20 12:47 PM, boB wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.fu
ll. pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.


The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem
has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is
toast.


Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do
what we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are just
too easy to use.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric
vehicle trucking will be good but way too late from what I
understand.

Expect lots of bugs.



I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds
of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar
water placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance
of fiximg that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water
in the oceans.


I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming
wasn't quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.


Pleasant 70 degree days in January the Northeast and Northwest
aren't going to feel so pleasant when the brutal drought
everywhere else means there's no fucking food to buy



We have 7.5 or such billion folks breathing each day. Only about
5.5 billion of them are eating every day. The despite the fact that
there is enough for all of us.

With water, we all know there is plenty. Yet looking at the global
water map, there are plenty of nations desperate for water, and folks
are crying that if we do not do something the oceans are going to
rise and that is the last thing we need.

So we DO need to start taking polar ice, hundreds of cubic hectares
of it, and move it down to the east side of all these desert we have,
which are ALL growing westward and start re-greening our planet.

Pine trees grow two feet per year. Hemp grows two feet per month.
We can re-oxtgenate the world while we re-green it and re-green our
lungs at the same time! Hell, it works on salad too! Graze... And
hemp seed is second only to soy in protien level, and far better in
anti-oxidants. We could feed those unfed folks with that alone!

Shit man, the best pedigreed-American-male professional managers and
engineers money can buy can't seem to do a 737 re-design properly what
makes anyone think humans are ready to undertake engineering projects at
a planetary scale.

We're still at the applying-leeches and tincture-of-laudanum-and-lead
stage on stuff like that; doctors in the 18th century who applied
leeches and tincture-of-laudanum-and-lead should have just left the
patient alone their chances would have been better.

 

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:ZVh%F.75865$kM2.3191@fx02.iad:

On 2/7/20 1:05 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:Sth%F.96687$uE2.69103@fx19.iad:

On 2/7/20 12:47 PM, boB wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of
Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.
fu ll. pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty
years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.


The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the
problem has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do
what little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full
repair is toast.


Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do
what we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are
just too easy to use.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric
vehicle trucking will be good but way too late from what I
understand.

Expect lots of bugs.



I personally feel that if we do not start making huge
hundreds of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar
water placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any
chance of fiximg that fact that we failed to notice the amount
of water in the oceans.


I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming
wasn't quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific
northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.


Pleasant 70 degree days in January the Northeast and Northwest
aren't going to feel so pleasant when the brutal drought
everywhere else means there's no fucking food to buy



We have 7.5 or such billion folks breathing each day. Only
about
5.5 billion of them are eating every day. The despite the fact
that there is enough for all of us.

With water, we all know there is plenty. Yet looking at the
global
water map, there are plenty of nations desperate for water, and
folks are crying that if we do not do something the oceans are
going to rise and that is the last thing we need.

So we DO need to start taking polar ice, hundreds of cubic
hectares
of it, and move it down to the east side of all these desert we
have, which are ALL growing westward and start re-greening our
planet.

Pine trees grow two feet per year. Hemp grows two feet per
month.
We can re-oxtgenate the world while we re-green it and re-green
our lungs at the same time! Hell, it works on salad too!
Graze... And hemp seed is second only to soy in protien level,
and far better in anti-oxidants. We could feed those unfed folks
with that alone!


Shit man, the best pedigreed-American-male professional managers
and engineers money can buy can't seem to do a 737 re-design
properly what makes anyone think humans are ready to undertake
engineering projects at a planetary scale.

We're still at the applying-leeches and
tincture-of-laudanum-and-lead stage on stuff like that; doctors in
the 18th century who applied leeches and
tincture-of-laudanum-and-lead should have just left the patient
alone their chances would have been better.

Man, you need a lobotomy to have heretic thinking like that!
Or maybe elctroshock 'therapy'. Or I know... BOTH!

All while the doc sits back and takes (yet another) shot of
Absynth, the original recipe. And he gets to call folks crazy and
prescribe things like lobotomies and electric shock sessions.

Leave the engineering to me. My ancestors were land speculators
and started towns all over the nation. I think I can handle digging
soft sand and alkaline lake beds to put in tank arrays and hemp
farms.

I don' need no stinking badge... I know what would work and what
would not. I rememeber the things I spent my life observing and
learning. I know whom to employ for help.

I know one landlord I would never employ, and that stupid bastard
claims to know how to build things. He is the guy you talk of with
the lead, mercury and cadmium face powders and pastes.

I am not doing cosmetology here.

 

[bitrex]

On 2/7/20 12:47 PM, boB wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has
an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.
pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.


The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is toast.


Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do what
we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are just too easy
to use.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric vehicle
trucking will be good but way too late from what I understand.

Expect lots of bugs.



I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar water
placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance of fiximg
that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water in the oceans.


I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming wasn't
quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.

Pleasant 70 degree days in January the Northeast and Northwest aren't
going to feel so pleasant when the brutal drought everywhere else means
there's no fucking food to buy

 

[boB]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has
an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.
pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.


The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is toast.

Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do what
we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are just too easy
to use.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric vehicle
trucking will be good but way too late from what I understand.

Expect lots of bugs.

I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar water
placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance of fiximg
that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water in the oceans.

I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming wasn't
quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 8:57:03 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:53:58 -0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net
wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us making too
big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve things
that don't involve them.

According to - inter alia - the Enclyopaedia Britannica (no less) the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained pretty much constant over
the period between 1910 and 2009 at just under 400ppm. If that level
hasn't changed during the most industrial period in human history then
man-made global warming is barely even junk pseudo-science and those
who espouse warmist propaganda need to be thought of in the same terms
as those other nutcases who believe the world is flat and that the
moon landings were faked.

That's a big IF. Seems you must have been reading somewhere other than Enclyopaedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide

If you just scroll down to the graph you will see levels of 320 ppm just back in 1965, not only increasing to today's level, but accelerating.

What did you read???

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 12:47:30 PM UTC-5, boB wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:5708ec3c-b960-40bd-8320-d977b0d04bb1@googlegroups.com:

The lasts Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has
an intereswtign article

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full.
pdf

It's about the social changes that will be needed to stop us
making too big a mess of the planet over the next thirty years.

Our resident denialists won't like it.


The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem has
already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what
little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is toast.


Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do what
we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are just too easy
to use.

That and the fact that most people think it is a problem for others to solve.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric vehicle
trucking will be good but way too late from what I understand.

Expect lots of bugs.

??? What do you know of it? What bugs are you talking about? I suspect you are confusing electric vehicles and self driving vehicles.

I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds of
square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar water
placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance of fiximg
that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water in the oceans.


I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming wasn't
quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.

That's one nice thing about periodic frosts. They keep the insect populations under control... well, some of them. Doesn't seem to do much for the mosquitoes and black flies in Maine though.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 5:57:03 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

According to - inter alia - the Enclyopaedia Britannica (no less) the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained pretty much constant over
the period between 1910 and 2009 ...

False.

See here: <https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/>

Neither the last few years' data nor the last few decades shows any 'constant' character.

That's published research, traceable from people who did the measurements,
and you don't need to trust the editors of an encyclopedia (who sit in offices
and shuffle paper) when you can look at data from such sources.

You certainly can't trust a vague reference (where, exactly, IN a Britannica would
one look?) posted on the internet by Cursitor D.

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 07/02/2020 21:50, Cursitor Doom wrote:

How would *you* possibly know? Do you possess those actual, physical,
full sets of encyclopaedias? *I* do - and various others besides:
Everyman's, Chambers, Odhams, Caxton and . I've been trying to obtain
a set of Americanas for some time, too. Very much harder to source
from the other side of the Atlantic, though.

Nothing worse than an attention-seeker with a set of crayons.

Draw your own conclusions. He has, literally.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:13:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 5:57:03 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

According to - inter alia - the Enclyopaedia Britannica (no less) the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained pretty much constant over
the period between 1910 and 2009 ...

False.

How would *you* possibly know? Do you possess those actual, physical,
full sets of encyclopaedias? *I* do - and various others besides:
Everyman's, Chambers, Odhams, Caxton and . I've been trying to obtain
a set of Americanas for some time, too. Very much harder to source
from the other side of the Atlantic, though.

>See here: <https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/>

Ah, I see where you went wrong now. Online sources; they cannot be
trusted. It's far too easy to revise history with anything published
in electronic form.

>Neither the last few years' data nor the last few decades shows any 'constant' character.

I don't doubt it. You're probably looking at that ridiculous hockey
stick curve popularised by Al Bore.

That's published research, traceable from people who did the measurements,
and you don't need to trust the editors of an encyclopedia (who sit in offices
and shuffle paper) when you can look at data from such sources.

I see it precisely the other way around.

You certainly can't trust a vague reference (where, exactly, IN a Britannica would
one look?)

Any proper set of encyclopedias has a seperate Index Volume. That's
your prime starting point. Oh, but you only have online sources; what
a shame.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 8:50:51 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:13:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 5:57:03 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

According to - inter alia - the Enclyopaedia Britannica (no less) the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained pretty much constant over
the period between 1910 and 2009 ...

False.

How would *you* possibly know? Do you possess those actual, physical,
full sets of encyclopaedias? *I* do - and various others besides:
Everyman's, Chambers, Odhams, Caxton and . I've been trying to obtain
a set of Americanas for some time, too. Very much harder to source
from the other side of the Atlantic, though.

See here: <https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Ah, I see where you went wrong now. Online sources; they cannot be
trusted. It's far too easy to revise history with anything published
in electronic form.

Try the ice core data then. If you don't like the results you can drill out you own ice core and check.

Neither the last few years' data nor the last few decades shows any 'constant' character.

I don't doubt it. You're probably looking at that ridiculous hockey
stick curve popularised by Al Bore.

First published by Mann et all in 1998

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

and subsequently replicated by some 24 independent studies, using other proxies for global temperature.

The denialist propaganda machine really disliked it, and used all kinds of dirty tricks to try and discredit. Cursitor Doom is gullible enough to have been suckered by them.

That's published research, traceable from people who did the measurements, and you don't need to trust the editors of an encyclopedia (who sit in offices and shuffle paper) when you can look at data from such sources.

I see it precisely the other way around.

Of course. You are a gullible twit who seeks confirmation for his demented delusions.

You certainly can't trust a vague reference (where, exactly, IN a Britannica would one look?)

Any proper set of encyclopedias has a seperate Index Volume. That's
your prime starting point. Oh, but you only have online sources; what
a shame.

If your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica is old enough it enshrines quite a few antique misconceptions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 22:07:41 +0000, Clive Arthur
<cliveta@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

Nothing worse than an attention-seeker with a set of crayons.

Draw your own conclusions. He has, literally.

Third-wit was in my KF for so long I forgot all about him. Then I
changed newsreaders and up he crops again with a bunch of fellow,
mostly-forgotten-about trolls who like to waste bandwidth here. Every
newsgroup's got 'em.