Adios, and good riddance.For one thing, if you knew anything about me, you would know I am NO FUCKING LEFTIST. There hasn't been a president that has been conservative enough for me in my lifetime. Second, Just because you can cram 50 human beings into an oil drum doesn't mean it will support their life. Geeez, what a moron thing to say. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Fuck off you self agrandizing piece of shit.
1. The geography of earth is immaterial to the total volume of all humans alive today.
If you do not understand that, ask someone to explain it to you.
2. I made no mention of habitation or cultivation. Those are YOUR words. YOU put YOUR words in my mouth and then condemn me for your misrepresentations. Typical of a Leftist.
One of my websites describes Leftists such as you:
Democrat Insanity - Trump Derangement Syndrome
DemocratInsanity.blogspot.com
"50 human beings" is your phrase, not mine.
"into an oil drum" is your fabrication. I pointed out the total volume of all humans alive today, NOT "50 human beings" and NOT "an oil drum."
Yes indeed you continue to spew moron things, as Leftists do. Oh but you're not one of them. You only sound and act like one. Listen up, boy. I crap bigger than you.
You're so ignorant you can't even spell self-aggrandizing.
Your foul mouth and hatefulness should put you on many more Ignore Lists besides mine.
ciao brutto
The real question is, if man was responsible for the CO2 increase and warming, why are temperatures so inconsistent from one place to another?Hmmm?
Have you ever flown over the earth? Have you ever seen just how much land there is that is completely uninhabited? There is still plenty of space for more people, and birth rates in a lot of the developed world are dropping to a point where even the chi-coms went from a "one child" policy to "three child" policy.
www.smithsonianmag.com
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
Have you ever flown over the earth? Have you ever seen just how much land there is that is completely uninhabited? There is still plenty of space for more people, and birth rates in a lot of the developed world are dropping to a point where even the chi-coms went from a "one child" policy to "three child" policy.
Three-child policy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I reject the idea that the population will ever get to the point where the available resources can't support it. Here is why...
This Old Experiment With Mice Led to Bleak Predictions for Humanity’s Future
From the 1950s to the 1970s, researcher John Calhoun gave rodents unlimited food and studied their behavior in overcrowded conditions
We are already witnessing the serious decline of society because inner cities are packed with over-fed social rejects, deviants and psychopaths. Safety standards keep imbeciles from wandering into machines, police protect oxygen thieves from themselves, and morality stops the people traveling through from shooting these asswipes so that they can continue to travel unimpeded.
I don't believe we're over populated at all, it's just that we've created a circumstance that thwarts natural selection. When people in a society or nation tolerate a creature like this vacuous piece of shit stealing oxygen...
View attachment 508305
It's over... Pack your shit kids.... and get the fuck out of the cities unless you're a bed wetting liberal. In which case you're urged to stay put. Your ghetto rat pets are going to cannibalize you.
.
The climate is always changing and has been changing since the birth of the Earth. Claiming that humans can do anything about it is stupid and dangerous because the thrust is in the wrong direction. We need to prepare for NATURAL climate changes because we can't change it. Pretending we can do anything about it is complete insanity.
This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.
Jo Nova
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:
This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.
Jo Nova
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:
Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...
Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...
We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...
C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...
=====
WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...
Actually there is no way to decide which follows which because the relationship is not perfectly linear. It is clear that they are related but not clear which is causal. Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal. They also know of times in the past where the CO2 levels were much higher than they are now while the temperature was not. Despite this they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view
This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.
Jo Nova
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:
Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...
Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...
We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...
C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...
=====
WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...
You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?
Very obvious examples,
View attachment 508699
View attachment 508700
I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.
Go read the published papers!
Probably the best post in this thread
