A Global Warming Prediction.........

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

........ from 1922


http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RonD1120 62]

And Zeus spoke to Albert Arnold and Pauline LaFon Gore and said, "You shall conceive a son and he will fix it."

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,148]

1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science. Fossil fuels didn't start having a measurable effect of climate until the 1950s. That's the consensus position.

But it also shows that what we have been reading and hearing the last thirty years was what was said in 1922. Only they didn't think of blaming SUVs for the Great War.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

***1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

******1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 2,148]

jgoose71

*********1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

You don't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

jgoose71

*********1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

And how much of that has been dissolved into the worlds oceans.. acidifying it and affecting the food chain....

May you live in "interesting times"

[billvon 3,116]

>And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!

Ding ding ding! Get that man a nice denier prize.

In reality, CO2 levels are now .04% - twice that number. I know, details, details.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

True. There is nothing nonscientific about a hypothesis. It's a crucial first step in the process.

But the consensus is that CO2 first started having noticeable effects in the 1950s. Considering that this was a cooling period and a lot more CO2 was put up there, I think that the correlation, as far as the science goes, is pretty distinct from causation. It's been fairly concluded that the warmth of that period had nothing to do with CO2.

So no. Not unscientific in the suggestion or implication. Any conclusion drawn from the suggestion wouldn't be. It's a fine philosophical thought experiment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

jgoose71

*********1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

Actually, I think it has gone up to about .04%. Still a pretty small amount, but I don't see any use in minimizing it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

************1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

Actually, I think it has gone up to about .04%. Still a pretty small amount, but I don't see any use in minimizing it.

Define "small". What % of botulinum toxin in your body will kill you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***************1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

Actually, I think it has gone up to about .04%. Still a pretty small amount, but I don't see any use in minimizing it.

Define "small". What % of botulinum toxin in your body will kill you?

A very small amount. A microgram would kill you or me. Doubling that dose wouldn't make a difference so you are comparing apples with sheetrock.

Maybe a different comparison. Take a city like Dallas. Assume it had a million people in 1960. Of those 320 were Samoans. In 2015, there were still a million people but 400 are Samoans.

This is more what we are looking at. You are taking botulinum that is absent and introducing it. You're English, so in that honor let's compare CO2 to Vitamin C. What happens when there isn't enough Vitamin C? We get the legend of the British Smile. But there is a baseline amount in a person's system. What happens when a Brit eats a lime every day? Pee changes color but it probably won't hurt you. What happens when you add Vitamin C?

Or potassium. Too much potassium can kill you, so don't eat that banana.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>Maybe a different comparison. Take a city like Dallas. Assume it had a million people in
>1960. Of those 320 were Samoans. In 2015, there were still a million people but 400 are
>Samoans.

Then no problem. More Samoans in Dallas won't affect people in Bangladesh, or Manhattan, or New Orleans.

Here's a better example. Let's say your drinking water has an arsenic concentration of 0.01 mg/L. Someone opens a steel plant near your home, and the concentration rises to 0.02 mg/l. That is a tiny, tiny fraction of your water; so small that you could barely even see it even if it was the solid metal. Even lower than the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere! And there was arsenic there anyway. Heck, we need it in our diet; it's a stimulant in sub-fatal doses!

You OK with that?

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

******************1922 - right about the time that coal burning first reached a BILLION tons of CO2 per year spewed into the atmosphere.

Let's get with the science.

Nothing I stated was unscientific. A billion tons is a nice round number, and the early 20th Century is when human CO2 output first reached that figure, from being insignificant prior to, say, 1850.

....and then the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketed from .02% to .02%.....

And can you guess what they are today? If you said .02% you get a prize!!!!!

Actually, I think it has gone up to about .04%. Still a pretty small amount, but I don't see any use in minimizing it.

Define "small". What % of botulinum toxin in your body will kill you?

A very small amount. A microgram would kill you or me. Doubling that dose wouldn't make a difference so you are comparing apples with sheetrock.


Not relevant to the point that just because something is present in minute amounts doesn't mean it's harmless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.