On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:26:45 +1000, Jimbo, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag, gutless.

Shut your senile gob, you abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile sow from
Australia!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?

It is what happened on Venus.

it is not....venus is just hotter
there is no such thing as 'runaway gw'

Do some research.

...there will always be an equilibrium
point...

Prove it.

any positive feedback system is unstable...
it's a matter of empiric experience...not 'proof'...
whatever you believe 'proof' may be

i told you to stop arguing



--
www.abelard.org

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

Thats how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

You made the claim.

You get to do the proving.

Thats how it works.

and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...sea_level_rise

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.

google earth

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal
opinion to be precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around
on usenet with nothing significant to say.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh troll child.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.


It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The whole
'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to be
rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing else,
the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently pushed the
planet to one extreme or other.

--
Joe

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.


It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The whole
'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to be
rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing else,
the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently pushed the
planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?




--
www.abelard.org

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 19:34:37 +1000, Jimbo, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile Ozzietard's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

A quick perusal of Wikipedia will tell you all you want to know.

Are you too lazy to even bother? Or can you not find Wikipedia?

Or are you just the sock of the same troll I killfiled ?



Thats how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Try this then - and swoon even more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...aises-risk-of-
runaway-global-warming/



Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

You made the claim.

You get to do the proving.

And then will you prove the counter argument?


Thats how it works.

We will see.



and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...sea_level_rise

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.

google earth

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal
opinion to be precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around
on usenet with nothing significant to say.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh troll child.

I seem to have hit a raw nerve yet again - sock puppet.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.


It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback. The one that results in the
hockey stick temperature graph, regardless of the initial inputs, which
is exactly correct for positive feedback. The 'discrediting' of the
hockey stick discredits the whole underlying theory.

--
Joe

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway
global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

A quick perusal of Wikipedia will tell you all you want to know.

It says nothing about any purported knife edge.

Are you too lazy to even bother?
Or can you not find Wikipedia?

Or are you just the sock of the same troll I killfiled ?

You quite sure you arent one of those
rocket scientist pathetic excuse for a troll ?

Thats how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Try this then - and swoon even more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...aises-risk-of-
runaway-global-warming/

That says nothing about any knife edge either.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is
the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10
metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

You made the claim.

You get to do the proving.

And then will you prove the counter argument?


Thats how it works.

We will see.

We've seen...

and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...sea_level_rise

Your lack of response noted.

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.

google earth

Ditto.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic)
into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are
both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not
last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there
much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal
opinion to be precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around
on usenet with nothing significant to say.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh troll child.

I seem to have hit a raw nerve yet again

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys, troll
child.

On 16 Jun 2019, Joe wrote
(in . com):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:


It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

Well of course. I forgot that you would know far more than planetary
scientists.



You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

Why dont you tell us - oh brainy one?



It's glaringly obvious

Does this arrogance get you around the possibility of providing any links to
your evidence?

It might be glaringly obvious to you and your IQ approaching 15 billion, but
to thick plebs such as myself it is anything but obvious let alone being
glaring.

Im afraid you will have to have me killed along with all the other
schmucks that you really dont want to encounter during your your vastly
elevated life-form progression into infinity.

that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The whole
'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to be
rubbish.

Is this glaringly obvious, or have you forgotten your links again?

A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing else,
the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently pushed the
planet to one extreme or other.

Why?

Please do tell....

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.


It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

but eventually there will still be a new equilibrium

The one that results in the
hockey stick temperature graph,

that was based on dubious dendroclimatology
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php

regardless of the initial inputs, which
is exactly correct for positive feedback.

i don't follow your words...

The 'discrediting' of the
hockey stick discredits the whole underlying theory.

but which theory exactly?

--
www.abelard.org

On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway
global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

A quick perusal of Wikipedia will tell you all you want to know.

It says nothing about any purported knife edge.

Are you too lazy to even bother?
Or can you not find Wikipedia?

Or are you just the sock of the same troll I killfiled ?

You quite sure you arent one of those
rocket scientist pathetic excuse for a troll ?

Thats how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Try this then - and swoon even more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-raises-risk-o
f-
runaway-global-warming/

That says nothing about any knife edge either.

Have you not realised that resorting to detailed pedantry was outed as the
first admission of a failed argument years ago?

And anyway, the time it took you to type your reply - given the time of my
post - shows that you could not possibly have read the article.

You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll.

Another KF.



Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is
the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10
metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

You made the claim.

You get to do the proving.

And then will you prove the counter argument?


Thats how it works.

We will see.

We've seen...

and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...sea_level_rise

Your lack of response noted.

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.

google earth

Ditto.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic)
into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are
both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not
last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there
much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal
opinion to be precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around
on usenet with nothing significant to say.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh troll child.

I seem to have hit a raw nerve yet again

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys, troll
child.

On 16 Jun 2019, Joe wrote
(in . com):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback. The one that results in the
hockey stick temperature graph, regardless of the initial inputs, which
is exactly correct for positive feedback. The 'discrediting' of the
hockey stick discredits the whole underlying theory.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/t...e/HadCRUT4.png

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change



but eventually there will still be a new equilibrium

The one that results in the
hockey stick temperature graph,

that was based on dubious dendroclimatology
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php

regardless of the initial inputs, which
is exactly correct for positive feedback.

i don't follow your words...

The 'discrediting' of the
hockey stick discredits the whole underlying theory.

but which theory exactly?

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:50:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

the article is blustering and unclear

i see no clear meaning to 'runaway'
i see 'tipping point' as hand waving...

the increase in temperature *could* indeed instigate another
driver...eg methane release....or annoying changes in
albedo...



--
www.abelard.org

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:50:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

the article is blustering and unclear

Here speaks the voice of clarity?



i see no clear meaning to 'runaway'

You dont understand running and/or away?

Try learning basic English.


i see 'tipping point' as hand waving...

It is a question of balance. Does that go over your head as well?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tipping point

It is pretty basic comprehension



the increase in temperature *could* indeed instigate another
driver...eg methane release....or annoying changes in
albedo...

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:02:58 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:50:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

the article is blustering and unclear

Here speaks the voice of clarity?



i see no clear meaning to 'runaway'

You don’t understand running and/or away?

Try learning basic English.


i see 'tipping point' as hand waving...

It is a question of balance. Does that go over your head as well?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tipping point

It is pretty basic comprehension

your post lacks content

--
www.abelard.org

On 16/6/19 8:43 pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.


It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

but eventually there will still be a new equilibrium

Yes, but if the forces that upset the equilibrium in the first place are
still in play, you can guarantee that the new equilibrium too will be
upset again and again.

The one that results in the
hockey stick temperature graph,

that was based on dubious dendroclimatology
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php

regardless of the initial inputs, which
is exactly correct for positive feedback.

i don't follow your words...

The 'discrediting' of the
hockey stick discredits the whole underlying theory.

but which theory exactly?



--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 21:50:56 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

On 16/6/19 8:43 pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.


It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

but eventually there will still be a new equilibrium

Yes, but if the forces that upset the equilibrium in the first place are
still in play, you can guarantee that the new equilibrium too will be
upset again and again.

a reasonable statement

the real world always changes...it is in its nature

--
www.abelard.org

On 16/6/19 9:02 pm, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:50:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

the article is blustering and unclear

Here speaks the voice of clarity?



i see no clear meaning to 'runaway'

You dont understand running and/or away?

Sorry to be pedantic here but the concept of a *runaway* in terms of
climate change cannot be gleaned from the individual words *run* and
*away*. For example, a *runaway* in a smelter furnace, and I've seen
them, is something like a leak of molten metal whose action of leaking
serves to accelerate the leak. Running away (from the leak) is exactly
the wrong thing to do. What is required is a run towards the leak with
appropriate equipment in order to stanch the flow of molten metal and
prevent the leak from enlarging itself. It is very confronting, as is
the prospect of climate change, and it needs to be confronted head on.
Deal with the problem early and all you need is a patch and a few new
firebricks. Run away, let the leak accelerate to destruction, and you
then need a complete new furnace and adjacent equipment. It takes cool
heads to resist the urge to run from what can look like Dante's Inferno.

I see climate change as the same sort of scenario. Deal with it early
and it will cost less and involve much less destruction.


Try learning basic English.

Well, yes, good idea.


i see 'tipping point' as hand waving...

It is a question of balance. Does that go over your head as well?

The tipping point is actually the point of a *loss of balance*.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tipping point

It is pretty basic comprehension

I would have thought so.


the increase in temperature *could* indeed instigate another
driver...eg methane release....or annoying changes in
albedo...




--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 16 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 16/6/19 8:43 pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

but eventually there will still be a new equilibrium

Yes, but if the forces that upset the equilibrium in the first place are
still in play, you can guarantee that the new equilibrium too will be
upset again and again.

The basic problem is that no one has a complete understanding of the forces
that are in play.

This is the straw that the €œeverything will find a higher equilibrium€�
know-alls play on in order to show that the science is not 100% certain.

Unfortunately for the deniers, the small percentage of unknown effects do not
outweigh the vast amounts of facts on the issue.

Polar ice caps are melting at an accelerating rate

https://www.dw.com/en/polar-ice-shee...ver/a-16432199

Sea levels are continuing to rise

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...-accelerating-
satellite-study-coastal-flood-risk-antarctica-oceans

Lots of influential corporations are still burying their heads in their cash
mountains.



The one that results in the
hockey stick temperature graph,

that was based on dubious dendroclimatology
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php

regardless of the initial inputs, which
is exactly correct for positive feedback.

i don't follow your words...

The 'discrediting' of the
hockey stick discredits the whole underlying theory.

but which theory exactly?

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:05:28 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Joe
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:

It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why not?

It's been calculated that if all the carbon held as carbonate were
released as CO2, we'd have an atmosphere similar to Venus, which has a
pressure of 90 bar at the surface. In our case, we have a thin crust on
the planet, with plate tectonics, and subduction of the carbonate as
it's produced and then recycled through volcanoes.

how come you know so much?

how about showing some of your working...
are you saying the carbon produced by vegetation is subducted?
what is the weight/mass of carbon?
by what process does it get converted to co2(eg venus)?

care to gift me a page on 'runaway warming'? to add to my list of
pages here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/re...ssil_fuels.php

When the Earth's CO2 level was higher, so was the amount of vegetation
which led to the laying down of what became coal and oil. We're further
enough from the Sun for what we have to be stable, provided that life
processes continue.

not understood...
are you saying that at this distance there is a chance of the venus
effect? or do you believe we'd go cold and lifeless instead? or
even that we don't have the energy input for the venus effect?

At our stellar distance, the planet's average temp
ought to be -15C (as it is on the Moon). In fact it's +15C, and it's
life that is holding it there, despite a chunky increase in energy
output by the Sun in the last coupla billyun years.

--
www.abelard.org

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 22:15:38 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

I see climate change as the same sort of scenario. Deal with it early
and it will cost less and involve much less destruction.

please show your working

you seem to disagree with lomborg...is that so?

if so why in simple terms



lomborg and fruit flies

“In high-school biology class, we used to do an experiment with fruit
flies. You put flies and food in a jar, screw the top on tight and
wait to see what happens as the flies reproduce like mad.

“The goal is to see at what point the limits of the jar - air, food,
space - begin to affect the ability of the fruit flies to exist. At
some point, the jar becomes inhospitable and the flies die en masse.

“If Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of Cool It: The Skeptical
Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, were to write up that
high-school experiment, he would focus on the point just before the
flies began to hit the limits.

“He would wax on about how the population of flies had never been
stronger, trot out statistics to show how astoundingly well the
population had reproduced over time, and gush boyishly about the
excellent living conditions in the jar. And he would be right. Given
those facts, examined at that specific point in the arc of the
experiment, he would have drawn the correct conclusions.

“But he would have missed the facts that the food supply was getting
low, that the air was becoming fouled and that fruit-fly catastrophe
loomed.”



--
www.abelard.org

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:37:44 +1000, Jimbo, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


You quite sure you arent one of those
rocket scientist pathetic excuse for a troll ?

You quite sure you don't KEEP reading my sigs, you ridiculous trolling
senile asshole from Oz? You know, like this one:

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2
as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen
tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well
and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if
the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway
global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

A quick perusal of Wikipedia will tell you all you want to know.

It says nothing about any purported knife edge.

Are you too lazy to even bother?
Or can you not find Wikipedia?

Or are you just the sock of the same troll I killfiled ?

You quite sure you arent one of those
rocket scientist pathetic excuse for a troll ?

Thats how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented
agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Try this then - and swoon even more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-raises-risk-o
f-
runaway-global-warming/

That says nothing about any knife edge either.

Have you not realised that resorting to detailed pedantry

That isnt detailed pedantry, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

was outed as the first admission of a failed argument years ago?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

And anyway, the time it took you to type your reply - given the time
of my post - shows that you could not possibly have read the article.

Read it long before you ever showed up, gutless.

You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll.

Another KF.

Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures,
is
the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A
10
metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

You made the claim.

You get to do the proving.

And then will you prove the counter argument?


Thats how it works.

We will see.

We've seen...

and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...sea_level_rise

Your lack of response noted.

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.

google earth

Ditto.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the
pedantic)
into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which
are
both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not
last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be
there
much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal
opinion to be precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around
on usenet with nothing significant to say.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh troll child.

I seem to have hit a raw nerve yet again

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys, troll
child.

On 16 Jun 2019, Levi Jones wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2
as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen
tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well
and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if
the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway
global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

A quick perusal of Wikipedia will tell you all you want to know.

It says nothing about any purported knife edge.

Are you too lazy to even bother?
Or can you not find Wikipedia?

Or are you just the sock of the same troll I killfiled ?

You quite sure you arent one of those
rocket scientist pathetic excuse for a troll ?

Thats how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented
agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Try this then - and swoon even more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...wn-raises-risk
-o
f-
runaway-global-warming/

That says nothing about any knife edge either.

Have you not realised that resorting to detailed pedantry

That isnt detailed pedantry, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

was outed as the first admission of a failed argument years ago?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

And anyway, the time it took you to type your reply - given the time
of my post - shows that you could not possibly have read the article.

Read it long before you ever showed up, gutless.

You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll.

Another KF.

Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.

Blimey, you have more nyms than The Peeler.



Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures,
is
the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A
10
metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

You made the claim.

You get to do the proving.

And then will you prove the counter argument?


Thats how it works.

We will see.

We've seen...

and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_...sea_level_rise

Your lack of response noted.

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.

google earth

Ditto.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the
pedantic)
into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which
are
both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not
last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be
there
much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal
opinion to be precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around
on usenet with nothing significant to say.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh troll child.

I seem to have hit a raw nerve yet again

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys, troll
child.

"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 16/6/19 9:02 pm, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:50:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:39:30 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:57:06 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

It's what we are currently being told happened on Venus, which is
not
necessarily the same thing.

You know that the Earth was much hotter in the past, and had a high
atmospheric carbon dioxide content (not just a paltry fraction of a
percent) and yet for some reason it didn't stick like that. Why
not?

It's glaringly obvious that the Earth's atmosphere is a system with
overall *negative* feedback, if not then it would have moved to an
extreme and *stayed* *there*, at least millions of years ago. The
whole 'positive feedback' thing shows the global warming theories
to
be rubbish. A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not
have permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently
pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

as a rule of thumb, *any* closed system reaches equilibrium...
until some factor disturbs that equilibrium....

digging up the carbon deposits is such a factor

that moves the 'point' of equilibrium higher...

hence the atmosphere becomes warmer

i could go further!

what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...

i think you know all this but i feel the need to check your
details :-)

continuing to dig up more carbon can be called positive feedback...
that positive feedback can set of new positive inputs...which is
what i believe sorrel is trying to say...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

the article is blustering and unclear

Here speaks the voice of clarity?



i see no clear meaning to 'runaway'

You dont understand running and/or away?

Sorry to be pedantic here but the concept of a *runaway* in terms of
climate change cannot be gleaned from the individual words *run* and
*away*. For example, a *runaway* in a smelter furnace, and I've seen them,
is something like a leak of molten metal whose action of leaking serves to
accelerate the leak. Running away (from the leak) is exactly the wrong
thing to do. What is required is a run towards the leak with appropriate
equipment in order to stanch the flow of molten metal and prevent the leak
from enlarging itself. It is very confronting, as is the prospect of
climate change, and it needs to be confronted head on. Deal with the
problem early and all you need is a patch and a few new firebricks. Run
away, let the leak accelerate to destruction, and you then need a complete
new furnace and adjacent equipment. It takes cool heads to resist the urge
to run from what can look like Dante's Inferno.

I see climate change as the same sort of scenario.

More fool you. It is nothing even remotely like the same scenario.

Deal with it early

Not even possible with climate change except in the
sense of scrapping all power generation and using
nukes and electric cars and that just isnt feasible
with electric cars alone. And doesnt do a damned
thing about aircraft.

and it will cost less

Thats bull****. The cost of just nukes and electric
cars and no planes would be immense.

and involve much less destruction.

You havent established that doing what we are
currently doing will produce any destruction.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:43:22 +0200
abelard wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:31:02 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:05:16 +0200
abelard wrote:


what 'global warming theories' are you labeling 'rubbish'?

The one that depends on positive feedback.

more co2 higher temperature...that is a positive feedback

but
as stated all positive feedback is unstable...
eventually there will be a new equilibrium...



There isn't an equilibrium in the case of overall positive feedback. The
end point is 'latch-up', in electrical terms, hard up against a power
rail or ground, in mechanical terms at one end of potential travel.

The only way a new equilibrium can be reached is if the positive
feedback only occurs over a small range, and the equilibrium is just
outside that range at one end or other. There is no equilibrium under
prevailing positive feedback.

We are not told that the positive feedback allegedly involved in the
global warming hypothesis (*not* technically a theory) is in any way
limited or local. Mr Cox has just told us that Venus is the endpoint for
such a system.

--
Joe

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:37:55 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:



A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing else,
the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently pushed
the planet to one extreme or other.

Why?

Please do tell....


If the ecosystem was balanced on a 'knife edge', then the great
extinction event would certainly have nudged it over, permanently. It is
the action of a negative feedback system to restore conditions to a
fairly stable state.

Positive feedback systems tend to rush to one or other end of their
possible range. It takes active intervention to prevent that. If you
were to succeed in balancing a pyramid on its point, the slightest of
air movements would begin its positive feedback rush to a state of
minimum potential energy.

--
Joe

Xeno spewed this twaddle:
On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to
a report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about
it -
not you, it would seem - will say.


Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that
has happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He
also says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.

The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

No, the result of warming is CO2 which does not trap heat in the upper
atmosphere, which is why the outside temperature displayed in cabins of
Virgin Atlantic flights displays -50°C.


The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2) and removal of forest cover.

And the excess CO2 causes vegetation to grow faster which reduces the
excess.

I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but
not his bother Jeremy.

Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

No, it's two, Piers and myself.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On 16 Jun 2019, Joe wrote
(in . com):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:37:55 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:


A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing else,
the time of the dinosaur extinction would have permanently pushed
the planet to one extreme or other.

Why?

Please do tell....
If the ecosystem was balanced on a 'knife edge', then the great
extinction event would certainly have nudged it over, permanently.

Why?

The extinction was caused by a meteorite, the impact of which threw up
trillions of tons of tiny solid particles high into the atmosphere.

This would have drastically cut the amount of suns energy reaching the
surface for years, maybe decades. Less incoming energy would result in less
long wave radiation from the surface and less greenhouse effect.

It is
the action of a negative feedback system to restore conditions to a
fairly stable state.

Positive feedback systems tend to rush to one or other end of their
possible range. It takes active intervention to prevent that. If you
were to succeed in balancing a pyramid on its point, the slightest of
air movements would begin its positive feedback rush to a state of
minimum potential energy.

Now you are bull****ting - probably for effect.

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 03:30:16 +1000, "Levi Jones"
wrote:



"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
anews.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Jimbo wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2
as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen
tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well
and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methane’s effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if
the
planet’s
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway
global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?

You made the claim about a knife edge.

You get to provide that proof.

A quick perusal of Wikipedia will tell you all you want to know.

It says nothing about any purported knife edge.

Are you too lazy to even bother?
Or can you not find Wikipedia?

Or are you just the sock of the same troll I killfiled ?

You quite sure you arent one of those
rocket scientist pathetic excuse for a troll ?

That’s how it works.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented
agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your
argument a little more effective than zero.

We all swooned at your links.

Try this then - and swoon even more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-raises-risk-o
f-
runaway-global-warming/

That says nothing about any knife edge either.

Have you not realised that resorting to detailed pedantry

That isnt detailed pedantry, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

was outed as the first admission of a failed argument years ago?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

And anyway, the time it took you to type your reply - given the time
of my post - shows that you could not possibly have read the article.

Read it long before you ever showed up, gutless.

You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll.

Another KF.

Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.

Levi, Levi...is jewish, this name?

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 03:47:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 03:30:16 +1000, Levi Jones, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH troll****

Changed nym yet again, you disgusting abnormal 85-year-old senile pest?

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:37:13 +0100, Keema's Nan wrote:


Blimey, you have more nyms than The Peeler.

So, what "more nyms" do I have, oh delusional one? BG

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 19:28:08 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, Joe wrote
(in . com):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:37:55 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:


A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have
permanently pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

Why?

Please do tell....
If the ecosystem was balanced on a 'knife edge', then the great
extinction event would certainly have nudged it over, permanently.

Why?

The extinction was caused by a meteorite, the impact of which threw
up trillions of tons of tiny solid particles high into the atmosphere.

This would have drastically cut the amount of suns energy reaching
the surface for years, maybe decades. Less incoming energy would
result in less long wave radiation from the surface and less
greenhouse effect.

It is
the action of a negative feedback system to restore conditions to a
fairly stable state.

Positive feedback systems tend to rush to one or other end of their
possible range. It takes active intervention to prevent that. If you
were to succeed in balancing a pyramid on its point, the slightest
of air movements would begin its positive feedback rush to a state
of minimum potential energy.

Now you are bull****ting - probably for effect.


You think it's practical to balance a pyramid on its point for any
significant time?

There are no forces causing it to topple while it is exactly balanced.
But that is not a stable position. Any disturbance at all will create a
moment of rotation about the point, and movement in response to this
moment will increase the size of the moment, thereby increasing the
speed of rotation: positive feedback.

It won't reach another point of equilibrium, it will just fall over
into a position of local minimum potential energy.

My hypothesis: the ecosphere of the Earth is governed by one or more
overall negative feedback systems, *not* an overriding positive feedback
system. Evidence in favour: we're still here.

Believe it or not as you wish.

--
Joe

on 6/15/2019, Xeno supposed :
On 15/6/19 5:41 am, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

In , Xeno
wrote:

On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according
to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about
it -
not you, it would seem - will say.

Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that
has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined
in the 81 report.

Then they are not scientists, since any scientific idea has to be
susceptible to being proved incorrect. Note: Any scientific
hypothesis
can be proved untrue. It can never be proved true, however; all
any
scientist can manage is to provide evidence that supports the
hypothesis.

This has been true throughout history. Time was when it was
"settled"
that the Sun goes round the Earth. Dispute that, and the Catholic
Church would threaten to cut your balls off. Then along came
Copernicus
and Galileo and others, who demonstrated that accepting that
planetary
orbits could be non-circular, and that the Sun was the centre of
the
Solar System, could lead to a *much* simpler and *more* *accurate*
picture of the SS. One which, moreover, could make accurate
predictions
about where the planets would be in the future, especially when
combined with Newton's Theory of Gravity. But then even the latter
was
replaced by Einstein's General Relativity, which works better than
Newton in extreme situations.

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets
threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes
more
to religion than real science.

Im not sure that I follow your logic.

I'm not sure even that any logic is involved in his response.

Climate is not a hypothesis. It is a description of long term
weather
parameters which prevail across certain regions of the planet.

Typically these parameters have been determined by data from 30
(preferably
more) years of observation. You cannot prove a climate to be
untrue.

Areas of the globe might change from one climate description to
another, such
as from Tundra to Cold High Latitude (or whatever the current
description
happens to be) but the individual climate parameters would remain.

Similarly, a Desert climate could envelop parts of the world which
are
currently classed as Steppe or Savannah. However, if rainfall
increased in a
Desert, that could become Steppe over the decades. That would be
true Climate
Change - not the snowflake version which relies on short term
weather
extremes to persuade the ignorant MSM that the climate has changed.

If you really believe climatologists are not scientists, then you
are either
extremely misguided or you are trying to stir up mischief.

I'm going with the *mischief* angle.

If you wish to prove that climate science is incorrect, then it is
up to you
to do so.

It's odd, isn't it, that all the climate deniers have no
qualifications in any relevant field, never provide evidence to back
up their claims, yet have loud voices in an attempt to drown out
those who do.

Piers does and provides evidence but a televised debate for instance,
wouldn't sit well with the agenda.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On 16 Jun 2019, Joe wrote
(in . com):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 19:28:08 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:

On 16 Jun 2019, Joe wrote
(in . com):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:37:55 +0100
Keema's Nan wrote:


A positive feedback system is unstable, and would not have
permitted many thousands of years of human history. If nothing
else, the time of the dinosaur extinction would have
permanently pushed the planet to one extreme or other.

Why?

Please do tell....
If the ecosystem was balanced on a 'knife edge', then the great
extinction event would certainly have nudged it over, permanently.

Why?

The extinction was caused by a meteorite, the impact of which threw
up trillions of tons of tiny solid particles high into the atmosphere.

This would have drastically cut the amount of suns energy reaching
the surface for years, maybe decades. Less incoming energy would
result in less long wave radiation from the surface and less
greenhouse effect.

It is
the action of a negative feedback system to restore conditions to a
fairly stable state.

Positive feedback systems tend to rush to one or other end of their
possible range. It takes active intervention to prevent that. If you
were to succeed in balancing a pyramid on its point, the slightest
of air movements would begin its positive feedback rush to a state
of minimum potential energy.

Now you are bull****ting - probably for effect.

You think it's practical to balance a pyramid on its point for any
significant time?

I know nothing about this pyramid of which you inform us.



There are no forces causing it to topple while it is exactly balanced.
But that is not a stable position. Any disturbance at all will create a
moment of rotation about the point, and movement in response to this
moment will increase the size of the moment, thereby increasing the
speed of rotation: positive feedback.

It won't reach another point of equilibrium, it will just fall over
into a position of local minimum potential energy.

My hypothesis: the ecosphere of the Earth is governed by one or more
overall negative feedback systems, *not* an overriding positive feedback
system. Evidence in favour: we're still here.

Is the earth flat, in your world? Or is it a pyramid?



Believe it or not as you wish.

Ill pass, thanks.

You appear to be away with the fairies.

On 16 Jun 2019, Peeler wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:37:13 +0100, Keema's Nan wrote:

Blimey, you have more nyms than The Peeler.

So, what "more nyms" do I have, oh delusional one?BG

You are Pamela, ****stack, Grikbuster, and many more....

You could even be Abelard for all the junk you post.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:28:23 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbuster®™", farted again:


Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.

Levi, Levi...is jewish, this name?

LOL!!! One clinically insane idiot confused about another clinically insane
idiot!

--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").