Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #534668 > unrolled thread

Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 19:43 -0600
    Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 20:45 -0500
      Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 19:47 -0600
        Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 21:50 -0500
          Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 21:20 -0600
            Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 22:52 -0500
              Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 23:06 -0500
            Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 06:11 +0000
        Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 23:11 -0500
          Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 23:27 -0500
    Re: Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 02:17 +0000

#534668 — Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?

Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?
> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-permafrost-climate.html


> "There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere,"
> said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for
> Scientific Research (CNRS).
>
> "So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, we
> would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that
> would mean the end of the world as we know it."

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534669

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:43:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?

Nope.

Now will you sleep better tonight?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534671

On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:

> Nope.

   And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?

   Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?
 > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-permafrost-climate.html


 > "There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere,"
 > said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for
 > Scientific Research (CNRS).
 >
 > "So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, we
 > would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that
 > would mean the end of the world as we know it."




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534692

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> Nope.
>
>   And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?

I look at the track record of your doom and gloom predictions.

Yawn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534699

On 11/22/15 8:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>    And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?
>
> I look at the track record of your doom and gloom predictions.
>
> Yawn.
>

   You... in this sci.physics newsgroup, you don't even look at the
   physics of climate change. Why go get a little smarter and educate
   yourself about the physics of climate change?



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534705

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:20:57 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 11/22/15 8:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>    And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?
>>
>> I look at the track record of your doom and gloom predictions.
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>
>   You... in this sci.physics newsgroup, you don't even look at the
>   physics of climate change. Why go get a little smarter and educate
>   yourself about the physics of climate change?

"The physics of climate change" is a bullshit, propaganda, marketing
phrase.

Walk before you run.

Show us "the physics of weather for one month."

Make a series of solid predictions one month out in locations with
various existing climates.

Then get back to us aobut "the physics of climate change." 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534708

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:52:18 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:20:57 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>On 11/22/15 8:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>    And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?
>>>
>>> I look at the track record of your doom and gloom predictions.
>>>
>>> Yawn.
>>>
>>
>>   You... in this sci.physics newsgroup, you don't even look at the
>>   physics of climate change. Why go get a little smarter and educate
>>   yourself about the physics of climate change?
>
>"The physics of climate change" is a bullshit, propaganda, marketing
>phrase.
>
>Walk before you run.
>
>Show us "the physics of weather for one month."
>
>Make a series of solid predictions one month out in locations with
>various existing climates.
>
>Then get back to us about "the physics of climate change." 

Or should I say ***the*** physics of climate change?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534720

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/15 8:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>    And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?
>>
>> I look at the track record of your doom and gloom predictions.
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
> 
>   You... in this sci.physics newsgroup, you don't even look at the
>   physics of climate change. Why go get a little smarter and educate
>   yourself about the physics of climate change?
 
There is the "physics of clmate change", which is tenuous at best, and
then there is the wild eyed, hysterical nonsense you spout. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534709

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> Nope.
>
>   And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?
>
>   Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-permafrost-climate.html
>
>
> > "There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere,"
> > said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for
> > Scientific Research (CNRS).
> >
> > "So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, 

... instantaneously ...

>we
> > would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that
> > would mean the end of the world as we know it."

And if we transformed all the carbon in all coal and oil deposits
***instantaneously*** the sky would fall.

Any other unrealistic scenarios you want to scare the kiddies with?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534713

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:11:03 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:47:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>On 11/22/15 7:45 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>   And you know this how? What scientific data are you using?
>>
>>   Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?
>> > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-permafrost-climate.html
>>
>>
>> > "There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere,"
>> > said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for
>> > Scientific Research (CNRS).
>> >
>> > "So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, 
>
>... instantaneously ...
>
>>we
>> > would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that
>> > would mean the end of the world as we know it."
>
>And if we transformed all the carbon in all coal and oil deposits
>***instantaneously*** the sky would fall.
>
>Any other unrealistic scenarios you want to scare the kiddies with?

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of
life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous
poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten
ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_global_warming_hoax_how_soon_we_forget.html
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres49.html
let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. - FDR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534685

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-permafrost-climate.html
> 
> 
>> "There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere,"
>> said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for
>> Scientific Research (CNRS).
>>
>> "So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, we
>> would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that
>> would mean the end of the world as we know it."

If frogs had wings they wouldn't hit their butts so hard when they landed.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web