President's Staff Idiots Trying to Kill LORAN

mug.

As Jim should know, the accountants can tell that about half the fossil carbon we burn turns up as CO2 in the atmosphere, and neatly acoounts for the rising CO2 levels we see.

This is roughly confirmed by the Suess Effect, which detected that the atmospheric CO2 contains less of the short-lived C-14 isotope of carbon than it used to - though the picture is complicated by the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests and fluctuations in solar wind, both of which convert atmopshereic nitorgeon-14 into carbon-14.

Finding a source for this which would be accepted by Jim as not being produced by an AGW-lover is a little difficult. Pretyy much everybody who knoews enough scinece to write this up also knows enough to know that the scientific case for AGW is pretty much water-tight.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John, By feeding the troll you give Slowman a soapbox from which to spout senile nonsense. Why?

...Jim Thompson

Naaaahhh... You have the group trophy for that one, Jim.

Do you still read Jim's posts? I don't.

John

That's alright, John.

I don't read your posts. I just throw darts at the ones where you persist in feeding the ignorant trolls... your reactions keep me very amused ;-)

BTW: Please list the claimed "favors" I requested from you.

...Jim Thompson

You still read DimBulb's posts?

Not feeding Slowman? ;-)

he

e mug.

Try to find something that I've said about electronics that is wrong before you make such claims - and "26mV" isn't wrong, merely oversimplified to cope with your superficial (if normally perfectly adequate) understanding of electronics.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

he

e mug.

Don't be silly. Would anybody here read such data, if I went to thr trouble of digging it up? Have you goen to the trouble of trying to dig up data which might prove me wrong?

There are lots more sorts of weeds that there are sorts of crop plants. It's a certainty that some weed will have a metabolic oddity that lets it take better advantage of higher CO@ than crop plants.

No. I've got a brain and I've got background knowledge. In this sort of intellectual kindergarten, that's more than enough.

You do get excited about typos.

We - in this context - is the whole human race, as should be obvious, even to you.

Your opinion about my credibity merely reminds the audience that you don't know what you are talking about.

No, I don't, but New Scientist dug up a few climatologists who think that they are better informed. You can find the article for yourself - your credibility needs the boost that successfully completing such a search would deliver.

You don't miss a chance to exhibit your ignorance and stupidity, do you. Year on year predicitions are still pretty much weather predictions rather than climate predictions, and the effect of the rising CO2 levels does really get above the short term noise until you start talking about decades or longer.

Consult your own local authorities. The general wish outside of Texas is that it should stop raining on the state, so that the obnoxious fauna that inhabits it would dehydrate into blessed inactivity, and people don't make predictions because there's too much risk of hope biasing the forecasts.

It would be a waste of time around here - Jim Thompson would complain that any reference that I cited came from a scientist who believed in AGW. You haven't exhbibted quite this level of inanity yet, but I'm sure that if I keep you posting for any lenght of time you will come up with something eually entertaining.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

mug.

mug.

Didn't "Dr. Sloman" get his PhD at DeVry ?:-)

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

...Jim Thompson

be

oothe

ffee mug.

to

You are being silly when you choose to think that I bluff.

Boredom. Neither of us have got anything more useful to do.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

r be

soothe

offee mug.

d to

te

p"

be

cal

Jim failing memory is playing him false, not for the first time. I got my Ph.D. from the University of Melbourne in Australia.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Do you think you could learn to snip, when all you are doing is making another, retarded peanut gallery comment?

Flying to Mazatlan in a c172, across Mexico from San Antonio, I lost loran in the mountains for at least two hours. Not fun, and not all that reliable. This was in '96, before GPS got cheap, and they started publishing non-precision approaches for any runway longer than 500'.

Regards, Bob Monsen

You're confusing 'DeVry' with 'Burger College' where you make the deans list by remembering to ask, "Ssssssssssssh. 'DYALLWANALIDONDAT' Ssssssssssssh."

Your beliefs are incorrect.

From

quote

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

end quote

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

Total bullshit. One major eruption can release the same amount as ten years worth of mankind's output.

The bovine stats are lame as well, because there are far more water buffalo, and other LARGE mammals in Africa and other nations that put out more than man's domesticated corral of beasties ever could.

Average annual output of CO2 from volcanoes is 130-230 million metric tons per year:

The great 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo released CO2 to an extent estimated to be 42 to 234 million metric tons:

The most recent 1-year figure I can find so far for CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is 8.05 petagrams of carbon, meaning 29.5 billion metric tons of CO2. That is from an estimate by BP, which has turned out to be reasonably accurate. The most recent estimate from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center is from 2005, and is probably the one in the line with the year labelled as "2005.5". That figure is 7.61 PgC, which is 27.9 billion metric tons of CO2. The one for the year before that is 7.34 PgC, which is 26.9 billion metric tons of CO2.

Looks like fossil fuel combustion is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at an annual rate 100-200 times that of that of volcanoes.

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