Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
View Poll Results: To what extent are humans influencing the climate?
Major Influence 521 79.30%
Minor Influence 136 20.70%
Voters: 657. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
24-10-2017, 16:17   #646
server down
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountainsandh View Post
Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?
just start producing carbon again, job done.
server down is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
24-10-2017, 16:35   #647
Master of the Omniverse
Registered User
 
Master of the Omniverse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by server down View Post
just start producing carbon again, job done.
I think perhaps most people in this thread should give up their bedrooms at mummy and daddys and get out into the real world.
Master of the Omniverse is offline  
24-10-2017, 16:38   #648
Subcomandante Marcos
Registered User
 
Subcomandante Marcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 6,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of the Omniverse View Post
I think perhaps most people in this thread should give up their bedrooms at mummy and daddys and get out into the real world.
I think you should get out of their basement and enroll in a foundation science course in your nearest third level institution.
Subcomandante Marcos is offline  
24-10-2017, 16:40   #649
Master of the Omniverse
Registered User
 
Master of the Omniverse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subcomandante Marcos View Post
I think you should get out of their basement and enroll in a foundation science course in your nearest third level institution.
More brainwashing?
Master of the Omniverse is offline  
24-10-2017, 17:05   #650
server down
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by dense View Post
Anyone seriously interested in learning about how the IPCC has got it wrong should read this.

"Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2"

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why...tmosphere-co2/


And the comments.

I have invited Akrasia to log on there and chastise the author pointing out various flaws etc;, but they've refused......

They can't dispute it. Yet, they will, here.

But folks, don't take my word for it, read it yourselve.

You've already been fooled by the 97% of scientists lie.

Don't get fooled again. Unless you want to be, that is.

Read it and come back here to say what you think.

If you can disprove it log on there and post a link here so we can follow you.

If you can't or won't like Akrasia here, well then Ed Berry is right and the IPCC bandwagon is wrong.

As it stands:

Ed Berry 1
Akrasia and the whole IPCC hysteria bandwagon 0
That whole post assumes that there will be an outflow equal to the human added inflow and that the oceans will absorb any extra carbon emissions. This leaves him with an explanation of the carbon increase in the atmosphere being down to some external increase in temperature, but he doesnt explain where the increase in temperature comes from.
server down is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
24-10-2017, 17:06   #651
server down
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of the Omniverse View Post
More brainwashing?
some ( I wouldnt say more) scientific training might help you know what you are on about.
server down is offline  
24-10-2017, 17:32   #652
Master of the Omniverse
Registered User
 
Master of the Omniverse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by server down View Post
some ( I wouldnt say more) scientific training might help you know what you are on about.
I might suggest that you investigate outside your comfort zone.Otherwise you will be perpetually stuck in the nether regions of misinformation.
Master of the Omniverse is offline  
24-10-2017, 18:12   #653
B0jangles
Registered User
 
B0jangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of the Omniverse View Post
I might suggest that you investigate outside your comfort zone.Otherwise you will be perpetually stuck in the nether regions of misinformation.
Physician, heal thyself.
B0jangles is offline  
24-10-2017, 19:37   #654
dense
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 2,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by server down View Post
That whole post assumes that there will be an outflow equal to the human added inflow and that the oceans will absorb any extra carbon emissions. This leaves him with an explanation of the carbon increase in the atmosphere being down to some external increase in temperature, but he doesnt explain where the increase in temperature comes from.
If you asked him, I wonder would he say:


Quote:
"The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that “Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.” To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1.

In science, showing that a hypothesis is wrong is an end in itself. I do not need to go any further. I do not need to propose or prove an alternative to Claim#1.

The burden for those on your side of this issue is to come up with a new and better argument to support Claim#1.

Once we acknowledge that I do not need to propose an alternative to Claim#1 to prove the present arguments for Claim#1 are invalid, I will be happy to entertain ideas to address your interest in other possible causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2."
Claim#1 is that human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

You appear to agree that he has done what he says he has done, namely set out to prove that Claim#1 is wrong?

And, there are many loose ends to many theories......

This is not my area but what he says appears to be true.

It would most useful to the conversation here if someone more qualified would challenge or critique his paper on a peer basis, one to one with him, it is even something he says he welcomes.

Whether that's true or not, there's one way to find out.
dense is offline  
Advertisement
24-10-2017, 20:30   #655
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by dense View Post
If you asked him, I wonder would he say:


Claim#1 is that human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

You appear to agree that he has done what he says he has done, namely set out to prove that Claim#1 is wrong?

And, there are many loose ends to many theories......

This is not my area but what he says appears to be true.

It would most useful to the conversation here if someone more qualified would challenge or critique his paper on a peer basis, one to one with him, it is even something he says he welcomes.

Whether that's true or not, there's one way to find out.
ED Berry is wrong because he counts all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural. In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

Berry is not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, he calls all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

His 'paper' completely fudges the rate at which long term co2 sequestration occurs.
I explained this 2 weeks ago.

If only he spent more time on the science and less time ranting about Al Gore and the Aztecs

Last edited by Akrasia; 24-10-2017 at 21:08.
Akrasia is offline  
24-10-2017, 21:03   #656
dense
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 2,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
ED Berry is wrong because he counts all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural. In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

Berry is not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, he calls all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

I explained this 2 weeks ago.
Why not post that response there if it's so simple then?
That's what I find odd.

I could do it for you if you like.
What about using a name we both agree on, such as Arkasia for example?

Would you be on for it?

I'll change the "Berry" and "he" in the above etc. to "you" etc?

Have you tried to post there? Is it difficult to get published do you think?
dense is offline  
24-10-2017, 21:10   #657
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by dense View Post
Why not post that response there if it's so simple then?
That's what I find odd.

I could do it for you if you like.
What about using a name we both agree on, such as Arkasia for example?

Would you be on for it?

I'll change the "Berry" and "he" in the above etc. to "you" etc?

Have you tried to post there? Is it difficult to get published do you think?
You're free to post anything i say here anywhere you like.

You can link to this thread if you want
Akrasia is offline  
Thanks from:
24-10-2017, 22:31   #658
conditioned games
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 680
Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.
conditioned games is offline  
24-10-2017, 22:42   #659
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by conditioned games View Post
Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.
I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?
Akrasia is offline  
24-10-2017, 23:31   #660
Master of the Omniverse
Registered User
 
Master of the Omniverse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?
I dont believe you.
Master of the Omniverse is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet