tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post2880026316083491154..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: UCS climate scientist tells litany of lies denying the 'pause' in global warming satellite dataUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-51099985325970686872014-10-24T22:15:19.100-07:002014-10-24T22:15:19.100-07:00Appalling presentation, real Bozo stuff. Thanks f...Appalling presentation, real Bozo stuff. Thanks for suffering through it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-54439907307117451762014-10-24T19:04:40.762-07:002014-10-24T19:04:40.762-07:00OMG!! Dr. Ekwerzel saw a Polynya!! It's wors...OMG!! Dr. Ekwerzel saw a Polynya!! It's worse than we thought!!Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01458668365706038244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-692403565573237892014-10-24T06:00:49.995-07:002014-10-24T06:00:49.995-07:00The claimed 2 ppm per year increase in global atmo...The claimed 2 ppm per year increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels is likely fraudulent. <br /><br />Although it is likely human CO2 emissions are approximately 4 ppm per year, human contribution to overall CO2 levels is insignificant when compared to the millions of other sources of CO2 emissions. Termites alone produce more CO2 than we humans I believe.<br /><br />The other issue with current atmospheric CO2 levels of 385 ppmv is that the biosphere actually requires levels of 1200 + ppmv for optimal growth. Any CO2 increases up to 1200 + ppmv would simply be absorbed by the biosphere causing it to expand. Even if the biosphere was at maximum expansion it is unlikely that a few extra ppm in CO2 emissions would effect Global levels. For the biosphere to even get to the stage where it is fully expanded as it was during the Jurassic period, would take hundreds of millions of years of CO2 levels at or above optimum 1200 + ppm.<br /><br />Therefore the claim that CO2 has been increasing at 2 ppm per year since 1950 or so is likely yet another lie. <br /><br />The AGW fraudsters have clearly and provably lied about so many aspects to their hypothesis, why should we be expected to believe one word of it?<br /><br />Personally I don't.<br /><br />W. R. Pratt<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com