errr Global Warming?

[mellie]

Why are we still arguing for or against this topic?

It's a bit like ghosts or flying saucers.


Should the world be expected to prove they don't exist?



Global warming is a bit like ghosts and E.T...

Either you want/need to believe in them or you don't.


Personally, I think it's a cult/ fanatical religion which preys on those with a ((certain) tendency to self-blame and self-loath.

Self-haters.

What other that those who have a keen hatred of themselves would resolve our human condition is a plague upon itself?



Think about it.

[Rorschach]

Gee how long?
You alarmists have jumped the gun many times already... warming, cooling, warming, dimming, warming.... oh heck, let's just call it climate change...

Bullshit!

It has only been the GW denialists making claims of cooling or dimming.

The alarmists as you call them have consistently claimed one thing - "The planet is warming"
And posit right or wrong that CO2 is the cause.

Y'see most of you denialists and alarmists seem to be completely ignorant that Global Warming theory
and CO2 as the primary cause has been around since the end of the 19th century, when it was noticed
temps were gradually rising.
At this time the Eugenics debate was raging and the do gooders like the Fabian Society proposed that
Global Warming was a white supremacist conspiracy to wipe out the poor and coloured races.

Since that time Eugenics has faded into the past but Global Warming has continued and CO2 is still getting the blame
despite conflicting evidence suggesting NO and/or Axial Precession to have a greater impact on the phenomena.

Don't be an ill informed idiot and Conspiranut all your life.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Here you go swampy, a perfect representation of you.

Swampy?
Hey that's pretty cool, I like it.

When I was a boy always wanted my own jungle to play Tarzan in. Now I have my own forest,
so I'll just have to be content playing Robin Hood minus the merry men.
But I also wanted my own swamp so I could pretend I was a gator wrestling moonshiner.

Where I grew up in Engadine, the ground is hard, everywhere I dug I hit sandstone, and most of the
flora in the bush is spikey/prickly.
During holidays I would stay at my grandparent's farm, in the MacDonald valley.
It is lush and has a large billabong we knew as the swamp. Actually it's a freshwater lagoon
teeming with giant ells (upto 18 ft long) and aquatic bird life, but it has a mud bottom, so we called it the swamp.

My fat grandmother always played favourites with my fat cousin, and so women being what they are -
predictably devious - when my grandfather died, Nana reneged on Grandad's promise that the farm
would go to the 6 grandchildren and gave the property to my fat cousin.
Now she is the size of an oil tanker and lives there with her effeminate boyfriend, so I didn't get my swamp.
But she is going broke. Her mother, my aunt took some horses to auction at Magic Millions
and got less than it cost to raise them. Meanwhile I'm sitting on a gold mine, so am reasonably confident one that
I'll be able to buy the farm out from under my fat cousin and acquire my desired swamp.

These days I hunt pigs. I get $50 each for sows and suckers to make German sausages, but only get photo ops
and bragging rights for boars. This past time would be more profitable if I had my own swamp because pigs love
feeding and wallowing in swamps.

Of course with you, intended derogatories usually have sexual connotations, and that regard "Swampy" is quite apt too.
One of my former girlfriends is a dirty girl, but that's OK 'coz dirty girls give the best sex.
Secretly she was religious and thought I was God. I only know this because that's what she called me just prior to
squirting the doona.
After a while she always wanted to go on top. I asked why we had to root on my side of the bed?
And women being what they are - spoilt - must argue with their god, so retorted "Why should I have to sleep in the puddle?"
I answered "Because it's your your swamp". But she insisted that I caused it, so I was creator of the swamp.

Seeing as you're so imaginative with the lexicon, if you grow some integrity and earn some credibility, I'll give you some
advice on successful copulation technique, and then you can be a swamp god too.
When your missus asks "Where did you learn that?" you can tell her you got divine help from Lord of the Swamp.
But when she babbles "Praise Jesus" be sure to correct her and say "No, praise Swampy"

[Outlaw Yogi]

Do beg off Yogi...

Not likely. I tend to go where I please.

Oh and don't jump into others arguments unless you know what's been said before or actually have a relevant point to make yourself.

This is a debate site like it or not, and jumping on anyone's argument has always been accepted common practice.
And my comments were perfectly relevant because they directly addressed your bullshit.

Both these posts relating to my earlier posts are absolute crap.

No, your comments were absolute crap, inciting my correction of your bullshit.

Wassup, dog stopped talking to you

There's always something up, but I've got too much on my plate to sit here
giving a run down of my current bitches and gripes.

My dogs can't talk. If yours does, that merely confirms my assertion that you're schizophrenic.

[Rorschach]

Do beg off Yogi...

Not likely. I tend to go where I please. oooohhh weally?

Oh and don't jump into others arguments unless you know what's been said before or actually have a relevant point to make yourself.

This is a debate site like it or not, and jumping on anyone's argument has always been accepted common practice.
And my comments were perfectly relevant because they directly addressed your bullshit. Ah no they weren't but your too dumb it seems to know any difference

Both these posts relating to my earlier posts are absolute crap.

No, your comments were absolute crap, inciting my correction of your bullshit. No once again you speak crap...

Wassup, dog stopped talking to you

There's always something up, but I've got too much on my plate to sit here
giving a run down of my current bitches and gripes.

My dogs can't talk. If yours does, that merely confirms my assertion that you're schizophrenic Got nothing Yogi... best you, go find a hog to play with...

[Outlaw Yogi]

Do beg off Yogi...

Not likely. I tend to go where I please. oooohhh weally?

Oh and don't jump into others arguments unless you know what's been said before or actually have a relevant point to make yourself.

This is a debate site like it or not, and jumping on anyone's argument has always been accepted common practice.
And my comments were perfectly relevant because they directly addressed your bullshit. Ah no they weren't but your too dumb it seems to know any difference

Both these posts relating to my earlier posts are absolute crap.

No, your comments were absolute crap, inciting my correction of your bullshit. No once again you speak crap...

Wassup, dog stopped talking to you

There's always something up, but I've got too much on my plate to sit here
giving a run down of my current bitches and gripes.

My dogs can't talk. If yours does, that merely confirms my assertion that you're schizophrenic Got nothing Yogi... best you, go find a hog to play with...

Shit, you're dumber than the speed freak and schizo I'm currently at war with.
Actually you're so pitifully stupid you're boring.
It's like arguing with a 12 year old girl.

[Rorschach]

Even a 12 year old girl would leave you for dead Yogi...

Got nothing again except ad hom I see... gee... par for the course with you.

[Super Nova]

With global warming being a real threat.... unlike some denialists I expect in action will result in something like this ....

Could Diamond Dust Sprayed into the Sky Cool Earth?

Solid particles of diamond or alumina might be safer than sulphate droplets as a way to redirect the sun’s energy, calculations suggest

By Andy Extance and Nature magazine | October 27, 2015


Climate scientists have thought up plenty of futuristic ways to cool the planet, but an analysis published on October 26 examines what may be their wildest idea yet: spraying tiny diamonds high into the atmosphere.

Researchers have for years discussed the merits of pumping water-based sulphate spray into the sky to reflect and scatter the Sun’s energy—essentially, mimicking the cooling caused by volcanic eruptions. Like most kinds of geoengineering, the idea is highly controversial and so far untested.

But if anyone does try this ‘solar-radiation management’, then it may be safer to use dusts of solid, nanometre-sized particles, suggests a team of scientists from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In a paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, they calculate that nanoparticles of diamond or alumina (aluminium oxide) could be more effective and less environmentally damaging than sulphates. And although diamond dust is expensive, it is not completely out of the question, the researchers argue.

“Our paper is really geared towards removing the mindset that it has to be sulphate that’s used to do solar radiation management,” says Debra Weisenstein, an atmospheric modelling expert at Harvard and one of the study’s authors.

Sulphate’s side-effects
Other researchers have proposed spraying solid dusts before. But the latest study is the first to model the particles’ effects in detail, Weisenstein says, by examining how they interact—both physically and chemically—with different substances in the atmosphere, and making the comparison with sulphates.

In the atmosphere, sulphates lead to the production of sulphuric acid, which damages the ozone layer. By absorbing certain wavelengths of light, they also heat up the lower stratosphere; that in turn could affect air-circulation patterns and climate. Sulphates would also diffuse light, an effect that could boost plant growth but would lower the power output of solar panels.

Alumina and diamond dust both lead to fewer problems, says Weisenstein. “You could have significantly less impact on ozone, less heating of the stratosphere and less of an increase in diffuse light at Earth’s surface,” she says. That is because alumina and diamond do not result in the production of sulphuric acid, and they scatter and absorb particular wavelengths of light in a different way.

Besides analysing environmental effects, the paper also shows that, pound for pound, alumina dust would achieve a similar cooling effect to that of sulphate sprays—but that diamond dust would be at least 50% more effective.

Diamonds in the sky
Of course, spraying diamond dust into the sky would ring up a hefty bill. Diamond dust is less expensive than cut gemstones: tiny synthetic diamond particles are now available at less than US$100 per kilogram, the Harvard researchers note. But based on their paper’s results, offsetting just a few percent of the energy trapped by human-emitted greenhouse gases would take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of dust annually. Although the Harvard researchers stress that they didn’t do a detailed cost analysis, at current prices that would still require billions of dollars each year.

However, Weisenstein is adamant that the ultimate cost would be lower. “Once this can be scaled up to make the right quantities, you assume the price is going to drop,” she says. “Trying to estimate based on how much diamond costs currently is not particularly useful.”

And David Keith, a climate scientist also at Harvard and another of the paper’s authors, says he does not think even today’s costs would be prohibitive. By 2065, he says, with 10 billion people on the planet, the cost might be on the order of $5 per person to pump up some 450,000 tons of diamond dust.

Still, the Harvard team is focusing on alumina right now, Weisenstein says, because it’s easier to make and its chemical behaviour has been better studied.

The scientists warn, however, that both alumina and diamond nanoparticles carry unknown risks. Sulphates are reasonably well understood, thanks to research on volcanoes. By contrast, the chemistry of the solid particles—such as how their surfaces catalyse chemical reactions—is not as clear, although the Harvard researchers are doing lab tests to remedy that.

The study “strongly suggests” that such solid dusts could significantly lower some of the risks associated with sulphates, says Matthew Watson, a volcanologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who was the principal investigator on one cancelled small-scale geoengineering experiment, the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project, or SPICE. But he suspects that the unknown risks and lack of any natural analogue will make solid dusts even less popular with the public than are sulphate sprays.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ool-earth/

[Rorschach]

Oh dear SN... NASA says Antarctic ice is growing.

[Rorschach]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 7592539440

Antarctica is gaining more ice than it is losing and is helping to slow the rise in global sea levels, a NASA study suggests.

The findings contradict claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice for the past two decades.

The ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tonnes of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. The net gain slowed to 82 billion tonnes per year from 2003 to 2008.

SO who has been telling fibby wibbys and who has been believing them despite the obvious facts?