On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:59:28AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:13:57PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May?
You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity.
Link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
See attached graph. <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
in case the significance doesn't dawn - look at the time scale.
Thanks for your graph.
Sorry for the docx file - I guess you were unable to open that first one properly, I've saved it as PDF (attached) - check out the graph on page 10, and note its timescale - it's another time scale again.
These geologic time scales can be a little deceptive - you see a graph with a time scale of 400,000 years and think "oh wow, that's yuge! That's the bees knees of the facts we need to know" and then along comes another time scale - an order of magnitude greater.
Oh wait, let me recalibrate - actually TWO orders of magnitude greater.
So thinking you have the full picture is, of course, an easy mistake to make...
Regards, Z