Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

Panic? No.

Rational behavior would be nice.

That's spot on.

Actually my inventions are quite profitable:)

How do you explain the EUs drive for bio fuels?

Bill Slowman is convinced of his own superiority because so many people respond to his inanities.

...Jim Thompson

Bill's also wrong about ethanol in the USA--we got it from Mr. Albert Gore, as a cure for AGW:

================= Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design, alt.energy.homepower From: James Arthur Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:05:56 GMT Local: Fri, Jul 18 2008 11:05 am Subject: Re: OT Hydrogen economy, not?

Martin Brown wrote: > John Larkin wrote: >> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates >> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is >> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of >> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.

No! It started as an environmentalist / sustainable / alternative energy / anti-global-warming thing.

Al Gore invented it:

"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be." --Al Gore, Speech, Dec. 1, 1998

In the 2000 edition of his book "Earth In The Balance": "by tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010, we can keep millions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the air...." =================

Cheers, James Arthur

On Feb 6, 8:01=A0pm, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote: =3D

we are burning fossil carbon and producing carbon dioxide. the amount of carbon dioxide we have produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution can be calculated, and it is equal to about twice the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. the time curve of the increase of carbon dioxide in the air parallels the time curve of the combustion of fossil carbon. the isotope composition of the carbon in the carbon dioxide in the air resembles that produced by burning fossil carbon. the drop in oxygen in the atmosphere corresponds to that caused by the burning of fossil carbon forming carbon dioxide.

how much more evidence do you need, to reasonably eliminate the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is disappearing but there is another, completely unknown and unpredicted source of carbon dioxide, that fits the above criteria but is completely unrelated? this is a serious question; if you guys would specify what particular conclusive piece of evidence you are looking for which is not being supplied, then we could supply it. in the absence of that, you are just a two year old going "no no no no!"

Thanks! Rich

Hunter-gatherer populations live pretty good lives. The planet could support a few million hunter-gathers.

Engineering the population crash that gets our numbers down to that kind of level isn't difficult either - it's just business as usual.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Not the ones you condescend to post here.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Jim Thompson considers anything he can't understand inane. It's a rational attitude from his rather narrow point of view - he can't tell the difference between propositions that don't make sense to him (because he doesn't know anything about the subject) and propositions that wouldn't make sense to anybody.

Sadly, he doesn't seem to understand much outside of electronics.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ert

It isn't all that evident in the Netherlands. The French never miss an opportunity to subsidise their farmers at Europe's expense, so their government has presumably got into the act.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

vert

of

od.

Al Gore was Vice-President in 1998, and no less interested in the farming vote than Dubbya has been more recently. The ethanol initiative - what ever it was - doesn't seem to have been on anything like a large enough scale to do any serious damage.

There are biofuels that do make sense - Brazil's ethanol from sugar cane apparently does reduce fossil carbon emissions - and there schemes to exploit plants that grow on marginal land (that is useless for growing food) which make even more sense, if they can be ever made to work.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mssrs. Gore and Clinton proposed, promoted, laid out and passed a plan that corn ethanol production be exactly what it is today.

Bush supported, and carried out their plan.

This paper cited by Martin in the earlier discussion says ethanol from cane sugar is a loser too:

"Until recently, Brazil had been the largest pro- ducer of ethanol in the world. Brazil used sugar- cane to produce ethanol and sugarcane is a more efficient feedstock for ethanol production than corn grain (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996). However, the energy balance was negative and the Brazilian gov- ernment subsidized the ethanol industry. There the government was selling ethanol to the public for 22c / per l that was costing them 33c / per l to pro- duce for sale (Pimentel, 2003). Because of serious economic problems in Brazil, the government has abandoned directly subsidizing ethanol (Spirits Low, 1999; Coelho and others, 2002)."

Corn and cane ethanol: two examples of AGW-hysteria going awry, with "fixes" for it wreaking the exact opposite, at great cost in lives and treasure.

James Arthur

Hemp seed could feed millions.

England is now currently producing grapes and even wine.

I do agree that the Norse farmed in Greenland. I think that if someone has the inclination to do so, they could farm on warmer parts of southern and western Greenland nowadays - though fishing is a lot more profitable. The areas of Greenland that the Norse farmed are actually green nowadays.

I find past decade warmer than height of MYP by splicing smoothed HadCRUT-3 or smoothed HadCRUT-3v (latter is good enough for The Register in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" atrticle) onto Loehle's "Corrected Global Temperature Reconstruction" at almost any time where both exist. Loehle is favored by denialists and skeptics of AGW.

Specific location, and sediments sound to me like bottom of the ocean - sounds to me prone to a lag of decades.

Specific country. NASA's GISS does produce graphs for how the USA and the world have fared in terms of surface temperature since 1880. USA had some region-specific warming in the 1920's and 1930's.

Shows that nature is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere since the late 1950's (fossil fuel consumption accounts for more carbon than the atmosphere gained) but atmospheric CO2 is rising anyway.

How good are Arctic air temperature records that far back? 2 of the 3 most major determinations of global surface temperature exclude most of the Arctic due to insufficiency of data. The other one (NASA's GISS) relies heavily on interpolation to consider the polar areas and is "more warming" than HadCRUT and NCDC because the Arctic is warming more than the rest of the world. And why does this slide have Arctic temperature and solar activity curves stopping in the late 1990's? I suspect the reason is that the Arctic warmed a lot in the past decade while solar activity did not increase.

Can you cite the personal attack from me? You did not do so here!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Although that is a global extinction event associated with cooling, Bill is citing others associated with warming.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Where do you get that? From provably bad numbers in the "mhieb" site? From similar bad numbers in the "Great Global Warming Swindle" movie? (Their errors are in comparing gigatons of carbon from fossil fuel burning to gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, while a CO2 molecule has

Atmospheric CO2 gain is actually less than fossil fuel burning would account for - nature is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel burning (and cement production) accounts for a goodly 6-plus gigatons of carbon or 22-plus gigatons of CO2 annually and has done so at that rate since the mid 1990's, rising to about 7.5 gigatons of carbon (27.5 gigatons of CO2) annual rate around 2005, with preliminary figures for 2007 or so getting to about 8 gigatons annual carbon usage (29.3 gigatons annual CO2 contribution).

Atmosphere annual CO2 gain since 1995 has averaged about 4.8 gigatons of carbon content (17.6 gigatons more CO2 per year).

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

But what about the annual increase of atmospheric CO2 - which since 1995 or so has averaged about 17.6 gigatons per year while fossil fuel burning accounts for more than that?

HadCRUT-3v is good enough to be cited favorably by The Register in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article attempting to dispute AGW

Have a look at a graph of HadCRUT-3v, in the following link actually provided by The Register in that article:

Why did you pick 1908? HadCRUT-3v has 1908 being 3rd coldest year on record since starting with 1850, behind 1911 and 1909.

Although 2008 was coolest since 2000, it was .881 degree C warmer than

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)