Discussion:
Two most common forms of litter in Canadian cities
(too old to reply)
Liberals are VERMIN!
2017-10-04 09:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1. Plastic water bottles.
2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
Greg Carr
2017-10-05 04:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
1. Plastic water bottles.
2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
The homeless and binners scoop up the water bottles pretty quick around here. You are right about coffee cups.
Dhu on Gate
2017-10-05 05:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
1. Plastic water bottles.
2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
The homeless and binners scoop up the water bottles pretty quick around here. You are right about coffee cups.
Yes! All containers should have a deposit, paper coffee cups included ;-)

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Liberals are VERMIN!
2017-10-05 05:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
1. Plastic water bottles.
2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
The homeless and binners scoop up the water bottles pretty quick around here. You are right about coffee cups.
Yes! All containers should have a deposit, paper coffee cups included ;-)
Dhu
Ideally, but at least the cardboard cups degrade eventually, unlike the water bottles.
Dhu on Gate
2017-10-11 16:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Greg Carr
1. Plastic water bottles. 2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
The homeless and binners scoop up the water bottles pretty quick
around here. You are right about coffee cups.
Yes! All containers should have a deposit, paper coffee cups included ;-)
Dhu
Ideally, but at least the cardboard cups degrade eventually, unlike the water bottles.
Actually I think that all manufactured goods should have a "return to
maker" deposit up front. The manufacturer knows what goes into goods,
and is therefore the best bet for safe recycling/reuse. Toyota wouldn't
have to ship cars back to Japan, but it would have to make some deal with
the local scrapyards and/or foundries.

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
BumbleBee
2017-10-11 17:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Greg Carr
1. Plastic water bottles. 2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
The homeless and binners scoop up the water bottles pretty quick
around here. You are right about coffee cups.
Yes! All containers should have a deposit, paper coffee cups included ;-)
Dhu
Ideally, but at least the cardboard cups degrade eventually, unlike the water bottles.
Actually I think that all manufactured goods should have a "return to
maker" deposit up front. The manufacturer knows what goes into goods,
and is therefore the best bet for safe recycling/reuse. Toyota wouldn't
have to ship cars back to Japan, but it would have to make some deal with
the local scrapyards and/or foundries.
Dhu
You really LOVE to spike prices for consumers, doncha statist boy?
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-04 05:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Greg Carr
1. Plastic water bottles. 2. Tim Horton's coffee cups.
The homeless and binners scoop up the water bottles pretty quick
around here. You are right about coffee cups.
Yes! All containers should have a deposit, paper coffee cups included ;-)
Dhu
Ideally, but at least the cardboard cups degrade eventually, unlike the water bottles.
Actually I think that all manufactured goods should have a "return to
maker" deposit up front. The manufacturer knows what goes into goods,
and is therefore the best bet for safe recycling/reuse. Toyota wouldn't
have to ship cars back to Japan, but it would have to make some deal with
the local scrapyards and/or foundries.
Dhu
You really LOVE to spike prices for consumers, doncha statist boy?
What's the deposit on a can of beer? Say 10 cents on a $5 can?
If you can afford to drink beer you can afford the deposit, and
besides, all yer out is the interest on the deposit you might
have made.

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
watchin U!
2017-11-04 16:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm


Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-07 18:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by watchin U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
Most assuredly bullshit.

Industrial civilization is not just "the fossil-fuel-burning public".
Post by watchin U!
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
Wrongo. Our global energy use is in the same orders of magnitude as
the tides and rivers and we eat and shit more than all the buffalo ever.
Post by watchin U!
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Not so. For a runaway positive feedback driven "environment",
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus .

Interestingly the atmosphere of Venus' is a lot like Earth's _except_ that
most of the dihydrogen-oxide has been replace with carbon dioxide.

Eventually Earth will look like it's twin, and there's no sense hurrying
the process.

Dhu
Post by watchin U!
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Watching U!
2017-11-07 20:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
Most assuredly bullshit.
Nope fact - we're not that important - see Deepwater Horizon for a clue...
Post by Dhu on Gate
Industrial civilization is not just "the fossil-fuel-burning public".
Semantic idiocy.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
Wrongo. Our global energy use is in the same orders of magnitude as
the tides and rivers and we eat and shit more than all the buffalo ever.
Utter codswollop!

We're 1%rs at best climate-wise.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Not so. For a runaway positive feedback driven "environment",
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus .
This ain't Venus, fool.

And Venus is a gassy non-populated virtual snow globe by comparison to
our blue marble.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Interestingly the atmosphere of Venus' is a lot like Earth's _except_ that
most of the dihydrogen-oxide has been replace with carbon dioxide.
Oh?

You posit it was a homey airy planet?

Lol.

You MORON!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Eventually Earth will look like it's twin, and there's no sense hurrying
the process.
Dhu
No, it will NEVER look like that because we will never be magnitudes
closer to our sun, fool.

Go away now.

You morons bore me to tears.

The best pearls, as ever before SWINE!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Learn cat-licker, LEARN!

Only the SUN heats this rock, not CO2, not particulate matter, not even
Volcanism.

You dolt.

Man couldn't change the energy equation if we wanted to.

Now go help Elon terraform Mars with your buddy Cohagen.
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-07 23:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
Most assuredly bullshit.
Nope fact - we're not that important - see Deepwater Horizon for a clue...
Post by Dhu on Gate
Industrial civilization is not just "the fossil-fuel-burning public".
Semantic idiocy.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
Wrongo. Our global energy use is in the same orders of magnitude as
the tides and rivers and we eat and shit more than all the buffalo ever.
Utter codswollop!
We're 1%rs at best climate-wise.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Not so. For a runaway positive feedback driven "environment",
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus .
This ain't Venus, fool.
And Venus is a gassy non-populated virtual snow globe by comparison to
our blue marble.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Interestingly the atmosphere of Venus' is a lot like Earth's _except_ that
most of the dihydrogen-oxide has been replace with carbon dioxide.
Oh?
You posit it was a homey airy planet?
Lol.
You MORON!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Eventually Earth will look like it's twin, and there's no sense hurrying
the process.
Dhu
No, it will NEVER look like that because we will never be magnitudes
closer to our sun, fool.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface."
+++
"the luminosity of the Sun has increased by 25% since around 3.8 billion years ago"

Things are going to heat up here more. We might have a billion years left.
But we could shorten that by a dozen orders with a little primate ingenuity.
Post by Watching U!
Go away now.
You morons bore me to tears.
The best pearls, as ever before SWINE!
You're a sneering idiot. Rhetoric is not the same as thought or discourse.
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Learn cat-licker, LEARN!
Only the SUN heats this rock, not CO2, not particulate matter, not even
Volcanism.
The problem you are missing is that it is the RATE OF ENERGY RE-EMISSION/RADIATION
from the Planet that CO2 affects. Go put your best vinyl Duck Suit on and sit out
in the Sun and tell me about.

Dhu
Post by Watching U!
You dolt.
Man couldn't change the energy equation if we wanted to.
Now go help Elon terraform Mars with your buddy Cohagen.
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Watching U!
2017-11-07 23:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
Most assuredly bullshit.
Nope fact - we're not that important - see Deepwater Horizon for a clue...
Post by Dhu on Gate
Industrial civilization is not just "the fossil-fuel-burning public".
Semantic idiocy.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
Wrongo. Our global energy use is in the same orders of magnitude as
the tides and rivers and we eat and shit more than all the buffalo ever.
Utter codswollop!
We're 1%rs at best climate-wise.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Not so. For a runaway positive feedback driven "environment",
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus .
This ain't Venus, fool.
And Venus is a gassy non-populated virtual snow globe by comparison to
our blue marble.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Interestingly the atmosphere of Venus' is a lot like Earth's _except_ that
most of the dihydrogen-oxide has been replace with carbon dioxide.
Oh?
You posit it was a homey airy planet?
Lol.
You MORON!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Eventually Earth will look like it's twin, and there's no sense hurrying
the process.
Dhu
No, it will NEVER look like that because we will never be magnitudes
closer to our sun, fool.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface."
IT IS SPECULATED!!!!
Post by Dhu on Gate
+++
"the luminosity of the Sun has increased by 25% since around 3.8 billion years ago"
And it's still going too, hence the apparent "warming" you AGW alarmists
are all blaming US for:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.


"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has
been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to
the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it
would have provided a significant component of the global warming the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its
mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the
primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar
radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Things are going to heat up here more. We might have a billion years left.
But we could shorten that by a dozen orders with a little primate ingenuity.
We might only have a few months left.

http://www.nibiruupdate.com/forums/topic/nibiru-real-reason-climate-change/



Oh, it's already hapPening on Mars:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent
climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according
to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority
of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions
revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had
been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and
Mars," he said.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Go away now.
You morons bore me to tears.
The best pearls, as ever before SWINE!
You're a sneering idiot. Rhetoric is not the same as thought or discourse.
You're incapable of learning, "rhetoric" is just a deflection from your
own innate moronity.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Learn cat-licker, LEARN!
Only the SUN heats this rock, not CO2, not particulate matter, not even
Volcanism.
The problem you are missing is that it is the RATE OF ENERGY RE-EMISSION/RADIATION
from the Planet that CO2 affects.
Please!

Look up "albedo".

Global "warming" always leads to more clouds, more reflectance, more albedo.

And albedo cuts?
Post by Dhu on Gate
Go put your best vinyl Duck Suit on and sit out
in the Sun and tell me about.
Dhu
Yeah, it cuts solar input!

Ice age soon?

That's ALL we can \possibly\ enhance here, natural cycles of glaciation.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
You dolt.
Man couldn't change the energy equation if we wanted to.
Now go help Elon terraform Mars with your buddy Cohagen.
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-09 03:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
Most assuredly bullshit.
Nope fact - we're not that important - see Deepwater Horizon for a clue...
Post by Dhu on Gate
Industrial civilization is not just "the fossil-fuel-burning public".
Semantic idiocy.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
Wrongo. Our global energy use is in the same orders of magnitude as
the tides and rivers and we eat and shit more than all the buffalo ever.
Utter codswollop!
We're 1%rs at best climate-wise.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Not so. For a runaway positive feedback driven "environment",
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus .
This ain't Venus, fool.
And Venus is a gassy non-populated virtual snow globe by comparison to
our blue marble.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Interestingly the atmosphere of Venus' is a lot like Earth's _except_ that
most of the dihydrogen-oxide has been replace with carbon dioxide.
Oh?
You posit it was a homey airy planet?
Lol.
You MORON!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Eventually Earth will look like it's twin, and there's no sense hurrying
the process.
Dhu
No, it will NEVER look like that because we will never be magnitudes
closer to our sun, fool.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface."
IT IS SPECULATED!!!!
Yes. It is also speculated that our species derives from the same biological evolution producing the other biotica of this planet.
As well it is speculated that Newtons principles are a specialized subset of general relativity (also a speculation).

Dhu
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
+++
"the luminosity of the Sun has increased by 25% since around 3.8 billion years ago"
And it's still going too, hence the apparent "warming" you AGW alarmists
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has
been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to
the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it
would have provided a significant component of the global warming the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its
mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the
primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar
radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Things are going to heat up here more. We might have a billion years left.
But we could shorten that by a dozen orders with a little primate ingenuity.
We might only have a few months left.
http://www.nibiruupdate.com/forums/topic/nibiru-real-reason-climate-change/
http://youtu.be/veWM0i6hXbw
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent
climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according
to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority
of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions
revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had
been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and
Mars," he said.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Go away now.
You morons bore me to tears.
The best pearls, as ever before SWINE!
You're a sneering idiot. Rhetoric is not the same as thought or discourse.
You're incapable of learning, "rhetoric" is just a deflection from your
own innate moronity.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Learn cat-licker, LEARN!
Only the SUN heats this rock, not CO2, not particulate matter, not even
Volcanism.
The problem you are missing is that it is the RATE OF ENERGY RE-EMISSION/RADIATION
from the Planet that CO2 affects.
Please!
Look up "albedo".
Global "warming" always leads to more clouds, more reflectance, more albedo.
And albedo cuts?
Post by Dhu on Gate
Go put your best vinyl Duck Suit on and sit out
in the Sun and tell me about.
Dhu
Yeah, it cuts solar input!
Ice age soon?
That's ALL we can \possibly\ enhance here, natural cycles of glaciation.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
You dolt.
Man couldn't change the energy equation if we wanted to.
Now go help Elon terraform Mars with your buddy Cohagen.
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Watching U!
2017-11-09 17:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
What's the deposit on a can of beer?
Believe it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
Most assuredly bullshit.
Nope fact - we're not that important - see Deepwater Horizon for a clue...
Post by Dhu on Gate
Industrial civilization is not just "the fossil-fuel-burning public".
Semantic idiocy.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
Wrongo. Our global energy use is in the same orders of magnitude as
the tides and rivers and we eat and shit more than all the buffalo ever.
Utter codswollop!
We're 1%rs at best climate-wise.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Not so. For a runaway positive feedback driven "environment",
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus .
This ain't Venus, fool.
And Venus is a gassy non-populated virtual snow globe by comparison to
our blue marble.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Interestingly the atmosphere of Venus' is a lot like Earth's _except_ that
most of the dihydrogen-oxide has been replace with carbon dioxide.
Oh?
You posit it was a homey airy planet?
Lol.
You MORON!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Eventually Earth will look like it's twin, and there's no sense hurrying
the process.
Dhu
No, it will NEVER look like that because we will never be magnitudes
closer to our sun, fool.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface."
IT IS SPECULATED!!!!
Yes.
Yes.

Period.
Post by Dhu on Gate
It is also speculated that our species derives from the same biological evolution producing the other biotica of this planet.
A poor speculation as we're clearly star seeds, fool.
Post by Dhu on Gate
As well it is speculated that Newtons principles are a specialized subset of general relativity (also a speculation).
Dhu
Non sequiturs on parade.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
+++
"the luminosity of the Sun has increased by 25% since around 3.8 billion years ago"
And it's still going too, hence the apparent "warming" you AGW alarmists
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has
been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to
the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it
would have provided a significant component of the global warming the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its
mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the
primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar
radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Things are going to heat up here more. We might have a billion years left.
But we could shorten that by a dozen orders with a little primate ingenuity.
We might only have a few months left.
http://www.nibiruupdate.com/forums/topic/nibiru-real-reason-climate-change/
http://youtu.be/veWM0i6hXbw
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent
climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according
to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority
of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions
revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had
been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and
Mars," he said.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Go away now.
You morons bore me to tears.
The best pearls, as ever before SWINE!
You're a sneering idiot. Rhetoric is not the same as thought or discourse.
You're incapable of learning, "rhetoric" is just a deflection from your
own innate moronity.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by watchin U!
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Learn cat-licker, LEARN!
Only the SUN heats this rock, not CO2, not particulate matter, not even
Volcanism.
The problem you are missing is that it is the RATE OF ENERGY RE-EMISSION/RADIATION
from the Planet that CO2 affects.
Please!
Look up "albedo".
Global "warming" always leads to more clouds, more reflectance, more albedo.
And albedo cuts?
Post by Dhu on Gate
Go put your best vinyl Duck Suit on and sit out
in the Sun and tell me about.
Dhu
Yeah, it cuts solar input!
Ice age soon?
That's ALL we can \possibly\ enhance here, natural cycles of glaciation.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
You dolt.
Man couldn't change the energy equation if we wanted to.
Now go help Elon terraform Mars with your buddy Cohagen.
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-09 23:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
It is also speculated that our species derives from the same biological
evolution producing the other biotica of this planet.
A poor speculation as we're clearly star seeds, fool.
I'm willing to believe you're an alien invader. Myself, I was born here
out of African dust.

Dhu
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
As well it is speculated that Newtons principles are a specialized
subset of general relativity (also a speculation).
Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Watching U!
2017-11-09 23:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
It is also speculated that our species derives from the same biological
evolution producing the other biotica of this planet.
A poor speculation as we're clearly star seeds, fool.
I'm willing to believe you're an alien invader.
There's a glimmer of intuition in you I see.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Myself, I was born here
out of African dust.
Dhu
Nope.

All horse pucky.

Nordics did NOT spring from "Eve" of the mud.
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-10 01:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
It is also speculated that our species derives from the same biological
evolution producing the other biotica of this planet.
A poor speculation as we're clearly star seeds, fool.
I'm willing to believe you're an alien invader.
There's a glimmer of intuition in you I see.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Myself, I was born here
out of African dust.
Dhu
Nope.
All horse pucky.
Nordics did NOT spring from "Eve" of the mud.
I ain't your kin. Believe it. You `"Nordics"' ain't westmen.

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Canuckleheaded Levity
2017-11-10 16:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Watching U!
Post by Dhu on Gate
It is also speculated that our species derives from the same biological
evolution producing the other biotica of this planet.
A poor speculation as we're clearly star seeds, fool.
I'm willing to believe you're an alien invader.
There's a glimmer of intuition in you I see.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Myself, I was born here
out of African dust.
Dhu
Nope.
All horse pucky.
Nordics did NOT spring from "Eve" of the mud.
I ain't your kin. Believe it.
I do, really.
Post by Dhu on Gate
You `"Nordics"'
Guess again, dragon boat cabin boy.

Loading...