It's all over but for the sweating?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Only a truely narrow minded person would put anyone other than scammers and spammers on ignore.

I read about some university doing an iron dumping experement a few years ago I didn't think it was anything new.

I was just being petulant that no-one was gushing over the ideas I was posting. I'm over it now. I don't even know if there is an Ignore in this forum.

The recent case was someone who convinced a tribe of coastal Indians in BC, Canada, that an algal bloom would help their Salmon catch, not choke it off. The University thing was a proof of concept, I think in the Southern Pacific.

[suspectnumber961]

Most of the relative warming is at the north pole...guess where most industrial activity occurs? Northern hemisphere?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The antarctic is gaining ice. Plus they (mainly al gore) were saying the polar ice caps (both of them) would be ice free in 2010. There is less ice, but no where near the stated goal.
In the 1970s scientists were convinced we were going into another ice age.
So how sure are you this time?
Really, really sure?
all these dooms day predictions end the same way, never coming close to being true.

According to the arctic ice volume chart at least half the ice has melted since the 1980s, shouldn't there be a substantial sea level rise to go along with it?

[suspectnumber961]

A SEARCH says it was a patent medicine...mostly alcohol?

I use 2 oz acetone/1 oz xylol and maybe 1/2 to 1 oz synth oil per 10 G. When changing out plugs I could see clean patches of alum on top of the pistons...meaning that it is apparently NOW burning clean with some crusty carbon patches left.

Haven't tried drinking this yet....mostly cause I'm not carboned up.....

Originally Posted by freebeard

Does anyone need to know what Hadicol is?

[NeilBlanchard]

The Arctic and Antarctic are quite different and not equivalent. The Arctic is water surrounded by land, and the Antarctic is land surrounded by water. The Antarctic is colder because it gets much less sunlight. The ocean and weather currents are quite different - and there is more moisture in the atmosphere (about 5% more) because of greater evaporation. This leads to more precipitation and when it is cold enough that precipitation is snow. More snow in Antarctica means more ice coverage; for the time being.

So a small gain of ice and snow coverage in Antarctica doesn't disprove global warming, nor is it "balancing" the melting that is happening in the Arctic.

On the carbon sequestration front; this is yet another huge advantage of organic perennial agriculture - plants would improve the soil by sequestering carbon both in the soil and in the plants themselves. Chemical fertilizer in soil stops the natural processes so the soil is depleted rather than improved, and the plants only live for a season so that carbon is released into the atmosphere right away.

So, if we change our agriculture to largely perennial organic we get numerous advantages:

We save fuel. We save water, and stop depleting the fossil water aquifers. We save the soil. We don't pollute the waterways, and we would not have dead zones in the ocean. We don't create nitrous oxide; a powerful GHG which accounts for about 25% of climate change. We sequester carbon at the same time as we reduced burning fossil fuel. We get more diverse, more nutritious, better tasting food; which gives us better health. We employ lots of people in dignified, satisfying, and rewarding work. Local food supplies are safer, and the local economy is greatly improved. Our food supply would be much more resilient to droughts, etc.

What's not to like?

[suspectnumber961]

But GEE our Prez would have to sleep alone...he's in bed with Monsanto et. al....the military/HLS...the banks. Mrs. Prez sleeps on the bedroom chair dreaming about her organic garden? We sidestepped the FORCES of DARKNESS for 4 yrs ...and are left with the GREAT COMPROMISER who drinks a lot of BUSH Lite.

Pay no attention to what he says...just watch what he does. He is creating a police state?

The US is currently doing a Nazi redux? They call it capitalism...but it's really fascism? The world biggest military...greatest debt...looming resource shortages...global warming....it's 1939 all over again....the US is exporting it's fascism to get out of the hole it has dug.

Start a garden? Cook your own food from basics. Wait for the soldiers to come? At least you will be healthy when they shoot you.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, if we change our agriculture to largely perennial organic we get numerous advantages:

We save fuel. We save water, and stop depleting the fossil water aquifers. We save the soil. We don't pollute the waterways, and we would not have dead zones in the ocean. We don't create nitrous oxide; a powerful GHG which accounts for about 25% of climate change. We sequester carbon at the same time as we reduced burning fossil fuel. We get more diverse, more nutritious, better tasting food; which gives us better health. We employ lots of people in dignified, satisfying, and rewarding work. Local food supplies are safer, and the local economy is greatly improved. Our food supply would be much more resilient to droughts, etc.

What's not to like?

[TheEnemy]

Freebeard: I had read it, I had dismissed it as impractical. The ammount of biomass required to accomplish thier goals is just immense. Maybe as a partial solution, even if I am right it would improve the soil which is still a win.

There still hasn't been any significant argument against my showing that base solar contribution is being compaired to the contribution of CO2 with feedbacks, the closest was the argument that the sun's intensity hasn't increased to which I posted documentation showing it had.

To whoever posted the taxing, taxing, and taxing some more... Without a smooth transition to another energy source that would cause as much if not more suffering than if I am completely wrong.

I just saw on the news yesterday... The tundra is now releasing tonns of CO2 and Methane as it thaws.... That supports at least in part the theory that warming causes a release of CO2 which raises atmospheric levels rather than an increase of CO2 causes an increase in temperature.

Suspect: There is no need to call us ignorant. I would suspect that many of us arguing on our side are more informed than you are, we just disagree with the conclusion that CO2 is the primary driver in the current warming.

[TheEnemy]

Science is supposed to be open, open to ones peers, open to scrutiny, open to opposing views. That is how HONEST science is conducted. The open discussion either strenthens the theory, or kills it. Why is much of climate science conducted behind closed doors with only the conclusions being public? Why is it that only those scientists that agree are allowed to work on the core data.

I have seen calls for those scientists who disagree to have their credentials removed (Dr. Jim Hansen-NASA). Or for Neremberg style trials for crimes against humanity for those scientists who disagreed. (Dr. Heidi Cullen-Weather Channel Climate Scientist)

[gone-ot]

Because the new war-cry is: "...Silence the nay-sayers..."? ie: shoot the messengers.

[TheEnemy]

Found this.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still digesting it, trying to figure out where they got their numbers to support it. It does weaken my position.

[gone-ot]

...from wiki on "radiative forcing":