On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
No
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
No
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
No
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Yes, unless you start burning carbon.

Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)


In article , KLC Lewis
wrote:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
snip
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
No
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
No
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
No
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Yes, unless you start burning carbon.

Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)

Well, that certainly settles the issue.

Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
No
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
No
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
No
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Yes, unless you start burning carbon.

Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)

Well, that certainly settles the issue.

Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.

On 28 Mar 2007 17:11:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:41:28 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No

[snip]
No

[snip]



Wrong answer. He wasn't asserting it as a fact. He was asking that it be
assumed for the sake of argument. "No" in that context says simply "My
mind's made up and no amount of logic, argument or fact will change it. I'm
not willing to discuss the matter."

No, "no" means we need not guess or "assumed for the sake of argument"
because the measurements have already been made.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it
"pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes."


"In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by
30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed
to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last
50 years." -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources
and sinks.

"Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments,
especially
by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article
as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a
pointer to some of the published literature."



Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167


500 million years!

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you
might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it
"pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes."

Even given modern increases, our contribution remains a fraction of that
produced naturally.



"In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by
30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed
to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last
50 years." -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources
and sinks.

All sources are footnoted. And it's not "my" paper.


"Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments,
especially
by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article
as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a
pointer to some of the published literature."

And? It's clearly not your field either, but you feel qualified to discount
the source which I provided for you, even though the writer more or less
supports your side of the GW issue. lol



Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167


500 million years!


Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you
might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it
"pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes."

Even given modern increases, our contribution remains a fraction of that
produced naturally.



"In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by
30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed
to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last
50 years." -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources
and sinks.

All sources are footnoted. And it's not "my" paper.


"Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments,
especially
by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article
as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a
pointer to some of the published literature."

And? It's clearly not your field either,

No climate modelling is not my field. Atmospheric measurements are.

but you feel qualified to discount
the source which I provided for you, even though the writer more or less
supports your side of the GW issue. lol



Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167


500 million years!


Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.