Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Pollen

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Funny thing , BFTV, we also seem to be moving into a period where folk are denying current warming by noting the fall from peak values of the last Nino.

Sadly for them Nino is now on watch over at NOAA so not only are we not seeing the wicked Nina that followed the 98' Nino but also another strong Nino likely to push the record higher still.

Will they be clumsy enough to reset and begin the same nonsense post 2019 Nino?

I feel they will!

Sounds like 1998 all over again, Ian?😂 And what a shame it is that so many CCDs don't seem to realise that CO2 is toxic to humans - too much of it acidifies the blood and will eventually result in death. And, as we all know - well, most of us - death can be fatal!😱

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse than that Pete if they do not see huge crowds of Tornados eating cities and port towns not being washed away by ice cliff failure Tsunami's whilst the northern Permafrost burns and gas explosions over the East Siberian Sea then it is not climate change as work at all.

I suspect their working in the 'C' in front of AGW is just to facilitate such ? "4 million dead from starvation? that's not climate change millions have always starved why look at India in the late 1700's.........."

"Bangladesh refugees? Well it has always flooded there....."

Nothing more than a waste of time but at least they are commiting it all to the internet so it will not be lost to future generations when they piece together why we allowed this to happen?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Sounds like 1998 all over again, Ian?😂 And what a shame it is that so many CCDs don't seem to realise that CO2 is toxic to humans - too much of it acidifies the blood and will eventually result in death. And, as we all know - well, most of us - death can be fatal!😱

😁😁

Well  I've  heard every possible angle now.

Carbon Dioxide is 0.04% in the air.

It Is about 15% of the air in the lungs as we breath out. Can I request  you do not catch your breath when you read this. I do not want to be responsible for your death!!!:good:

Come on Ed this gets more and more stupid.

You are correct that part of the lungs function is reduce the CO2 in the blood stream, but really get it into context.

It possibly explains why you believe it to be a serious danger...

CO2 is not a poison to us unless it has recently started reacting  spontaneously (or even more improbably with the extra  heat in the atmosphere:whistling:!!! )  with Oxygen.

😁😁 

I think you have been watching to many experiments on the TV with 100% CO2 in a test-tube!!.

 

Oh and thanks for your comments BFTV, anybody else claim to have read the document.?

MIA 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

😁😁

Well  I've  heard every possible angle now.

Carbon Dioxide is 0.04% in the air.

It Is about 15% of the air in the lungs as we breath out. Can I request  you do not catch your breath when you read this. I do not want to be responsible for your death!!!:good:

Come on Ed this gets more and more stupid.

You are correct that part of the lungs function is reduce the CO2 in the blood stream, but really get it into context.

It possibly explains why you believe it to be a serious danger...

CO2 is not a poison to us unless it has recently started reacting  spontaneously (or even more improbably with the extra  heat in the atmosphere:whistling:!!! )  with Oxygen.

😁😁 

I think you have been watching to many experiments on the TV with 100% CO2 in a test-tube!!.

 

Oh and thanks for your comments BFTV, anybody else claim to have read the document.?

MIA 

A wonderful litany of irrelevant factoids, MIA - you forgot to quote the height of The Empire State Building, though!:good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Worse than that Pete if they do not see huge crowds of Tornados eating cities and port towns not being washed away by ice cliff failure Tsunami's whilst the northern Permafrost burns and gas explosions over the East Siberian Sea then it is not climate change as work at all.

I suspect their working in the 'C' in front of AGW is just to facilitate such ? "4 million dead from starvation? that's not climate change millions have always starved why look at India in the late 1700's.........."

"Bangladesh refugees? Well it has always flooded there....."

Nothing more than a waste of time but at least they are commiting it all to the internet so it will not be lost to future generations when they piece together why we allowed this to happen?

GW…

Two can play imaginative games... 

 How about the 3 billion extra people we will need to feed in an atmosphere devoid of CO2 in a CO2 vastly reduced world, where the temps and humidity have been reduced to 1950 levels?.   

How about the 20.000 people a year being killed by virtue of a real poison - NO -  (and NO2) in our iungs by that wonderful CO2 reducing fuel called diesel? 

How about all the migration birds killed by the wonderful wind turbines in the North Sea.

Can we please stick to actual data and reports not to figments of the mind?

MIA

 Also - if all these problems you seem to think exist and many do (they have all occurred many times before) why should we not spend lets say just a half of the trillions we are spending on CO2 reduction and research  on feeding these people and giving them flood protection or arranging for water to be supplied to their locations?. 

It is all technically achievable now - whereas you are reliant upon further technology enhancements in order to ensure that technology can save lives in the future (how do you get power to the isolated people in the deserts).  Come to think of it how are you going to stop all the events you describe happening when and if  we move to a low CO2 environment? They have always occurred you know!. 

I suppose the difference will be that the people of the future will not be so keen to want to identify scapegoats -   as you obviously do from your comments above....

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

GW…

Two can play imaginative games... 

 How about the 3 billion extra people we will need to feed in an atmosphere devoid of CO2 in a CO2 vastly reduced world, where the temps and humidity have been reduced to 1950 levels?.   

How about the 20.000 people a year being killed by virtue of a real poison - NO -  (and NO2) in our iungs by that wonderful CO2 reducing fuel called diesel? 

How about all the migration birds killed by the wonderful wind turbines in the North Sea.

Can we please stick to actual data and reports not to figments of the mind?

MIA

 Also - if all these problems you seem to think exist and many do (they have all occurred many times before) why should we not spend lets say just a half of the trillions we are spending on CO2 reduction and research  on feeding these people and giving them flood protection or arranging for water to be supplied to their locations?. 

It is all technically achievable now - whereas you are reliant upon further technology enhancements in order to ensure that technology can save lives in the future (how do you get power to the isolated people in the deserts).  Come to think of it how are you going to stop all the events you describe happening when and if  we move to a low CO2 environment? They have always occurred you know!. 

I suppose the difference will be that the people of the future will not be so keen to want to identify  as you obviously from your comments above....

 

Ah but...in a world without CO2, we'll no' be needing matches for lighting cigarettes?💥

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

A wonderful litany of irrelevant factoids, MIA - you forgot to quote the height of The Empire State Building, though!:good:

Your correct as usual Ed...

I do not know the height of the  Empire State building? Are CO2 levels higher up there?🙄

 No more of this...

 the forum title is 'papers and links' .

 I have submitted a paper and I am awaiting feedback, before I get baned for taking the forum off track.   

 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be terrible if we made a better world for all and it was a mistake!!!........ better wait 'till we're really,really,really sure eh?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

GW…

Two can play imaginative games... 

 How about the 3 billion extra people we will need to feed in an atmosphere devoid of CO2 in a CO2 vastly reduced world, where the temps and humidity have been reduced to 1950 levels?.   

How about the 20.000 people a year being killed by virtue of a real poison - NO -  (and NO2) in our iungs by that wonderful CO2 reducing fuel called diesel? 

How about all the migration birds killed by the wonderful wind turbines in the North Sea.

Can we please stick to actual data and reports not to figments of the mind?

MIA

 Also - if all these problems you seem to think exist and many do (they have all occurred many times before) why should we not spend lets say just a half of the trillions we are spending on CO2 reduction and research  on feeding these people and giving them flood protection or arranging for water to be supplied to their locations?. 

It is all technically achievable now - whereas you are reliant upon further technology enhancements in order to ensure that technology can save lives in the future (how do you get power to the isolated people in the deserts).  Come to think of it how are you going to stop all the events you describe happening when and if  we move to a low CO2 environment? They have always occurred you know!. 

I suppose the difference will be that the people of the future will not be so keen to want to identify scapegoats -   as you obviously do from your comments above....

 

Scapegoats? Look no farther than windmills, as you have...

Its quite clear what is predominately causing the decline in bird numbers in Europe (and elsewhere no doubt) - I suspect you well know its not windmills, or indeed climate change! Nor, for that matter, are windmills to blame for the drop in insect numbers seen Europe wide - though I'm sure you'll find a way to link the two...

NO2? I've never driven a diesel - bar a tractor (but I'm sure you think we need tractor driving farmers to feed the world's billions?).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke had a converted diesel van to take his wheelchair so he could travel. I take it that was wrong of us to have done too?

What troubles me is the older folk kicking the mistake that was made but staying silent about the amount of lead they happily deposited into playgrounds prior to the roll out of unleaded?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×