Why Global Warming does not bother me.

[pErvinalia]

I am. I've dealt with him long enough to know him inside out. The "troll" or "persona" line he puts out there is total bullshit. He believes the crazy! He should be in a lab being studied under a project titled - "When humans go terribly wrong".

Now there's the ad hom slinging, argument-free rEv we all know so well!

Oh, reported, for all the good it'll do.

Jeez you're a sook. You've ad hommed me a couple of times in the last few days. This is a more relaxed forum. You don't have to dob every time someone says something about you.

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist, regarding your post here.

This is a reminder that personal attacks on other members are not permitted under the forum rules.

Oops, sorry. Didn't see this post before my last few posts. No worries, I'll play nice with the poor defenceless chap.

[Clinton Huxley]

This chap was a sceptic. He collected his own data.......and changed his mind. Presumably, "Big Climate Change" got to him.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... hange-mind

[MiM]

rEvolutionist, regarding your post here.

This is a reminder that personal attacks on other members are not permitted under the forum rules.

Please mods, get real. Seth is so ambivalent with his "Troll and Persona" stuff, that that post can't seriously be regarded as a personal attack.

[Tyrannical]

Hey!
If the Chinese could build a dinky little so called "great wall" the 'Mericans can build a much Greater one on a Grander scale.

[macdoc]

Keeping on the theme- nice tongue in cheek from the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le4475628/

[Gawdzilla Sama]

rEvolutionist, regarding your post here.

This is a reminder that personal attacks on other members are not permitted under the forum rules.

Please mods, get real. Seth is so ambivalent with his "Troll and Persona" stuff, that that post can't seriously be regarded as a personal attack.

He gets a very frequent bye on attacks, I'd declare him fair game just to watch the fun.

[mistermack]

This chap was a sceptic. He collected his own data.......and changed his mind. Presumably, "Big Climate Change" got to him.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... hange-mind

Firstly, I'm always dubious about claims of converted sceptics. You get so many from the religious fundies.

In this case, something is DEFINITELY not right.
He doesn't make a claim about what has caused the warming of the last sixty years. But claims that the evidence is really strong that man was the cause of the PREVIOUS 200 years of warming.

Well, if that's the case, then CO2 is not the cause. Because as everybody knows, the CO2 levels were practically flat till 1950.
So what the fuck is he claiming? Humans caused warming over 200 years, but it wasn't CO2?

There is no logic in that claim at all. Ludicrous.

[macdoc]

Open season on climate deniers and evolution deniers...

..lets have a vote - no more nice.

[macdoc]

Well, if that's the case, then CO2 is not the cause. Because as everybody knows, the CO2 levels were practically flat till 1950.

as usual you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.



what everyone knows is you haven't a clue what you are talking about when it comes to climate science.

The role of C02 in the atmosphere has been known for over a century -
Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

It's simple physics but you can't even get that far.

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

We've added 50% of the primary persistent GHG to the atmosphere in 200 years - what the fuck do you think is going happen?

Fucking ditzes the lot.....AGW deniers.

At least the scientist is honest enough to admit he was wrong ......are you????

[mistermack]

Perhaps you'd like to dump that stupid graph, and substitute one of HUMAN CO2 OUTPUT.
PPM are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the cause is human activity.
And you accuse ME of not knowing what I'm talking about?

[mistermack]

I'll do it for you :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globa ... ssions.svg

[Blind groper]

There is a wee bit of truth in what mistermack is saying. I think the term "practically flat" is a bit misleading. However, it is likely that the largest part of the warming since, say 1750, until 1950 was caused by a natural return to normal conditions after the Little Ice Age. The contribution of minimal greenhouse gas increase at that time was there, but a lot less than the present day contribution. However, the much more dramatic warming after 1950 is definitely anthropogenic.

[Woodbutcher]

Natural CO2 is cycled in the nature, by plants and algae. 40% of human emissions are also absorbed by nature, but that still leaves 60% to accumulate in the atmosphere. We are increasing our CO2 output, so more and more accumulates in the atmosphere each year. This leads to heat retention and warming of tundra and ocean water. As tundra warms it releases methane and CO2 that has been tied in it for tens of thousands of years. This causes more warming. The ocean warms, and warm water has a lower saturation point for CO2, and thus can't hold as much as before. Eventually water starts to release its CO2 becoming a source instead of a sink. The atmosphere warms, Seth's ammo dump blows up and the human race perishes to the last man. The corvids will take over.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm

[mistermack]

There is a wee bit of truth in what mistermack is saying. I think the term "practically flat" is a bit misleading. However, it is likely that the largest part of the warming since, say 1750, until 1950 was caused by a natural return to normal conditions after the Little Ice Age. The contribution of minimal greenhouse gas increase at that time was there, but a lot less than the present day contribution. However, the much more dramatic warming after 1950 is definitely anthropogenic.

The thing is, people make that assumption, because we don't have evidence for such swings in the past. BUT, we never measured temperatures accurately in the past. So we have no way of knowing if the last sixty years is unusual or not.

It's the only sixty years for which we have reasonably accurate records. Everything that we compare it with is just INTERPRETED indirectly.

Surface temperatures might have been shooting up and down just like today for the last million years. We have no way of knowing.