| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 143941 | 2017-05-19 05:02:00 | An Aussie Tells it.... | B.M. (505) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1435503 | 2017-05-19 05:02:00 | how it is. HERE (www.youtube.com) :thumbs: | B.M. (505) | ||
| 1435504 | 2017-05-20 00:07:00 | Perhaps the NZ govt should look at this | PeterQ (16315) | ||
| 1435505 | 2017-05-20 02:32:00 | BM: Would you be willing to take a small amount of cyanide? It would only make up a tiny, tiny faction of your total weight :) | Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1435506 | 2017-05-20 04:45:00 | BM: Would you be willing to take a small amount of cyanide? It would only make up a tiny, tiny faction of your total weight :) Absolutely, I’ll take 1/32 of whatever amount you take. :) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1435507 | 2017-05-20 06:44:00 | how it is. HERE (www.youtube.com) :thumbs: Well, goodness gracious me! Rice pudding will never be the same again!! |
Jayess64 (8703) | ||
| 1435508 | 2017-05-20 10:33:00 | I didn't hear him say "Ring Now, operators are waiting for your call." All joking aside, is he clockwork or electric? ;) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1435509 | 2017-05-20 21:21:00 | He’s a Hybrid, there are quite a few around now. ;) However, one interesting bit I hadn’t heard before is he claims it’s Temperature that adjusts the CO2 levels, not the other way around. If this is the case the CO2 alarmists have got some explaining to do and it’s time for the reintroduction of Public Floggings. |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1435510 | 2017-05-21 00:04:00 | He’s a Hybrid, there are quite a few around now. ;) However, one interesting bit I hadn’t heard before is he claims it’s Temperature that adjusts the CO2 levels, not the other way around. If this is the case the CO2 alarmists have got some explaining to do and it’s time for the reintroduction of Public Floggings. Nothing remarkable here, it's an old story. Milankovitch perturbations of the earth's orbit have been originating and terminating 'ice ages' on earth for millions of years. Comparison of CO2 levels and temperatures at the end of the last glaciation indeed show the initial temperature rise leading atmospheric CO2. The small increase in temperature starts to release CO2 that causes greenhouse warming. The resulting positive feedback takes over and leads to the interglacial temperatures. The point is that the orbital perturbations are not themselves sufficient to account for the observed temperature increase. This has been known for a long time, but the old know-nothing denialist baloney is quite unable to understand it. |
Jayess64 (8703) | ||
| 1435511 | 2017-05-21 05:32:00 | Nothing remarkable here, it's an old story. Milankovitch perturbations of the earth's orbit have been originating and terminating 'ice ages' on earth for millions of years. Comparison of CO2 levels and temperatures at the end of the last glaciation indeed show the initial temperature rise leading atmospheric CO2. The small increase in temperature starts to release CO2 that causes greenhouse warming. The resulting positive feedback takes over and leads to the interglacial temperatures. The point is that the orbital perturbations are not themselves sufficient to account for the observed temperature increase. This has been known for a long time, but the old know-nothing denialist baloney is quite unable to understand it. Do I detect the old “BS Baffles Brains” and “If you can’t Convince them Confuse Them” ploys being brought into play here? Anyway, you agree that Temperature does effect CO2 levels. However, you don’t believe it is relevant. But now we have the Temperature driving CO2 levels and the CO2 levels in turn driving the Temperature. Beauty, Perpetual Motion at last! :clap Whilst having a chuckle about this nonsense, I remember the days when Hospitals used to remove all flowers at night. The theory was that the flowers produced Oxygen during the day, but CO2 at night, so out they went. I have no idea how many deaths were caused by an errant nurse missing a bunch, but my Computer Model suggests 1.725 per day, per Hospital, perhaps. ;) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1435512 | 2017-05-21 06:06:00 | Do I detect the old “BS Baffles Brains” and “If you can’t Convince them Confuse Them” ploys being brought into play here? Anyway, you agree that Temperature does effect CO2 levels. However, you don’t believe it is relevant. But now we have the Temperature driving CO2 levels and the CO2 levels in turn driving the Temperature. You find my explanation confusing? Sorry about that, perhaps I should have cut the last sentence of my post. Einstein once said "Explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler", so you see my problem. At least we have a sense of humour in common. |
Jayess64 (8703) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||