In article ,
ocom (Michael King of Trolls Bryant) spewed:

From: (Diverd4777)

C'mon Tel:
Your an intelligent man..

I used to think that, also. His latest posts suggest a recent lobotomy.

You edited everything you goofball. How is anyone supposed to know what
you are referring too. Most people don't have your psychic abilities.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
N8KDV wrote:

Michael 'I'm a retarded piece of ****' Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV

C'mon Tel: Your an intelligent man..

I used to think that, also. His latest posts suggest a recent
lobotomy.

Whereas yours was performed quite some time ago.



And you never had a brain to operate on...

That would be impossible, retard. Guess you missed those science
classes while you were busy jacking your jaws.

He mush have skipped all his classes.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I think it'll be fairly safe to say that we "agree to disagree". While
Nature is quite capable of belching out hundreds of millions of tonnes of
noxious fumes in a short period of time (i.e. volcanoes) such outpourings
tend be an ocassional phenomena whereas man-made emissions are a constantly
increasing source of carbon dioxide. Smaller natural sources of CO2 would
include natural and man-made fires. However, nature rarely deforests the
vast tracts of land that humans do on a consistent basis. We have a
situation where mankind is actively destroying a CO2 sink and is
ever-increasing CO2 emissions via consumption of fossil fuels. What do you
expect to pick up the CO2 slack? The oceans? They can to a certain extent
but not to the extent that emissions are increasing. The remaining forests
can to a certain extent pick up some of the slack but appparently not all
plants/trees are created equally. Some will respond with increased growth
whereas other plants will not grow in repsonse to the increased CO2 levels.

If the increase isn't man-made then what is causing the increase in CO2 as
compared to the last century or two? When the scientists do the
number-crunching and modelling they do take into account natural sources.

What is known is that increasing CO2 levels can reduce the extent to which
energy can be re-radiated and that is due to inherent physico-chemical
properties of the molecule. No amount of atmosphere or biospshere dynamics
can alter those fundamental physico-chemical properties. If the CO2 levels
are increasing and increased CO2 levels can reduce the re-radiation of
energy back into space then why wouldn't temperature levels increase? The
increase would be expected to be small simply due to the raw inertia of the
biosphere systems but as the CO2 levels continuously increase so should the
average global temperature. Please feel free to tell me what could counter
the increased levels of trapped thermal radiation? The only solution would
be to reduce the entry of radiation from the space.

So much for jumping to conclusions.

Regards

John Barnard



Telamon wrote:

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

I think it'll be fairly safe to say that we "agree to disagree". While
Nature is quite capable of belching out hundreds of millions of tonnes of
noxious fumes in a short period of time (i.e. volcanoes) such outpourings
tend be an ocassional phenomena whereas man-made emissions are a constantly
increasing source of carbon dioxide. Smaller natural sources of CO2 would
include natural and man-made fires. However, nature rarely deforests the
vast tracts of land that humans do on a consistent basis. We have a
situation where mankind is actively destroying a CO2 sink and is
ever-increasing CO2 emissions via consumption of fossil fuels. What do you
expect to pick up the CO2 slack? The oceans? They can to a certain extent
but not to the extent that emissions are increasing. The remaining forests
can to a certain extent pick up some of the slack but appparently not all
plants/trees are created equally. Some will respond with increased growth
whereas other plants will not grow in repsonse to the increased CO2 levels.

If the increase isn't man-made then what is causing the increase in CO2 as
compared to the last century or two? When the scientists do the
number-crunching and modelling they do take into account natural sources.

What is known is that increasing CO2 levels can reduce the extent to which
energy can be re-radiated and that is due to inherent physico-chemical
properties of the molecule. No amount of atmosphere or biospshere dynamics
can alter those fundamental physico-chemical properties. If the CO2 levels
are increasing and increased CO2 levels can reduce the re-radiation of
energy back into space then why wouldn't temperature levels increase? The
increase would be expected to be small simply due to the raw inertia of the
biosphere systems but as the CO2 levels continuously increase so should the
average global temperature. Please feel free to tell me what could counter
the increased levels of trapped thermal radiation? The only solution would
be to reduce the entry of radiation from the space.

So much for jumping to conclusions.

Regards

John Barnard

Telamon wrote:

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

You are jumping to conclusions. We all understand the consequence of
increased CO2 levels.

Two examples I can think of right away is that vegetation in general
will grow more vigorously with higher CO2 levels, which will cause its
decrease in the atmosphere.

Air warmed over any body of water by the increased CO2 levels causes
more clouds to from in the atmosphere, which then reflect more sunlight
from the upper atmosphere so then it is not absorbed in the lower part.

It is a complex self-correcting system with energy going in and out
various ways.

Here is a simple way of looking at it. The weather service cant even
beat the law of averages being right about if it will ran in the county
two days in the future or tell me what the temperature will be next week
without the historical data so how the hell anyone can be sure what
direction the climate is going is just being unreasonable.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California