You are still all over the place there is no doubt about that.
The cosmic rays are having a cooling effect but in spite of that the co2 output is still warming the earth at an increasing rate.
I am not agreeing with anything on this point, just trying to point out that your reference is counter to what you think it is.
Okay I have read back over the posts to this thread, and it appears that amnesia may be a requisite quality for alarmism!Ahem, the IPCC stated mostly gone by 2050 in summer. I have always concurred with that. Still 33 years away. Read back the posts. You just make stuff up in your head.
...
Since the scientists are saying the arctic will be ice free sometime between 2025 and 2030, I would advise Orr not to take up the sucker bet.
...
Okay I have read back over the posts to this thread, and it appears that amnesia may be a requisite quality for alarmism!
Now who is making stuff up in their head?!
At least back then you had allowed up to 18 years for the arctic ice to prove you wrong!
There is a very big difference between mostly gone by 2050 and all gone by 2030. Decades of difference in fact, (not to mention the difference in quantities of ice!)Good work. in 2012 we had that shock year of arctic melting and so I was quoting the Calgary Herald. But as I said, the IPCC is looking a bit conservative with their forecasts. When do you expect it to by 95% ice free?
On the contrary I am discussing one point and that is that the behaviour of the sun is not the cause of climate change. Radiation is not heat, think about it for a minute.
We'll you will just have to retrace and think a bit harder. Us younger scholars feel for you old fellas but you cant get blood out of a stone, and that's recorded somewhere too.I was thinking about it before you were born sonny.
We'll you will just have to retrace and think a bit harder. Us younger scholars feel for you old fellas but you cant get blood out of a stone, and that's recorded somewhere too.
Climate change induced by dirty co2 is accepted reality and one of our greatest problems, so time to move on and close down coal power stations and oil based fuel to cars.
All:
There is a HUGE difference in various CO2 QVL's (Quality Verification Levels - there are five).
ISBT (International Society of Beverage Technologists) has CO2 Guidelines for quality - this is what you want. Also CGA G-6.2 QVL I is Beverage Grade CO2 equivalent to ISBT.
"Food Grade" is QVL H. It is technically not Food Grade, it is Food Processing Grade.
Beverage Grade/Quality (ISBT/CGA G-6.2 QVL I) mandates many more impurities be removed that are not even checked in QVL H such as:
Benzene (yes BENZENE), ammonia, phosphine, much lower levels of sulfur and acetaldehyde both of which will affect taste, oil and grease and methanol.
You don't want higher levels of sulfur and acetaldahyde and you sure don't want unchecked benzene levels.
CO2 is an essential part of life and not a pollutant.
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp?MR=1
There is a very big difference between mostly gone by 2050 and all gone by 2030. Decades of difference in fact, (not to mention the difference in quantities of ice!)
Contrary to some popular alarmist opinions, I sincerely doubt that anthropegenic CO2 emissions have very much (if anything) to do with what may or may not be happening at the poles of this planet.
My prediction is that the IPCC predictions will continue to follow their established trend of increased generalisation (i.e. extended time frames and lessened specificity and quantification in regard to the predicted events).
That's just my prediction of course, but based upon the historical performance of the alarmist predictions to date, I think my prediction has excellent prospects of coming to pass!
Let's see if the IPCC can prove my prediction wrong!!
The human race has levelled around 80% of Earth's forest cover.....do you honestly believe this has no impact on the climate?
CO2 is an essential part of life and not a pollutant.
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp?MR=1
I love it. You clowns hawk the science (no matter how flawed), and then use totally inappropriate, unscientific and absolutely ludicrous analogies.Yes, because when we wanted some fresh air, we'd put a bag over our head and take deep breathes.
Good to hear from you my manI agree Wayne.
It will not be the first nor the last time the majority of the Scientific Community was wrong.
This Global Warming phenomenon is taking on the characteristics of a religion. And we all know that religions always end in tears.
gg
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?