22 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis sort of thing used to make me angry, but now I just find it humorous... one big advantage of getting older is that stuff like this doesn't really bother me anymore.
I vaguely remember something about that, but I can't remember if it was from one of the Debates threads or from the media.
Think about it... an increase of CO2 preceding a period of global warming is indisputable (yes, indisputable!) evidence that an increase of CO2 causes global warming. But oops, as it turns out the increase actually followed a period of global warming, so now it's not indisputable evidence of anything... nope, not evidence of anything at all. Nothing to see here folks, so you can all just mosey along and forget about it now, okay? lol
And to make matters worse, if an increase of CO2 follows a period of global warming, this means the global warming is over and we are entering a period of global cooling... not necessarily the beginning of an ice age, but an increase of CO2 after a period of global warming seems to suggest that CO2 might have something to do with initiating a period of cooling.
After all, if an increase of CO2 before a period of warming means CO2 caused that warming, then why would CO2 coming before a period of cooling not be the cause of that cooling?
23 Jul 14
1 edit
Oops... I just now noticed a glaring omission for any nit-picker to notice and jump on, so I will fix that right now!
"After all, if an increase of CO2 before a period of warming means CO2 caused that warming, then why would [an increase of] CO2 coming before a period of cooling not be the cause of that cooling?"
glaring omission fixed
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeYes I can, but you apparently can't.
Can you hear yourself talk?
You claimed there were some serious scandals with regards to global warming.
I asked you what they were and to give a reference.
Instead you just grabbed the first website you could find with an appropriate sounding title, then started your ridiculous rant about how nobody in their right mind in the whole world could possibly have not heard about it.
When asked about the article in question you try to absolve yourself from responsibility by saying you just picked it at random.
So do you have any references to these scandals you mention or not?
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they were reported more widely than your local paper?
Do you have any evidence that they are anything more than the concoction of some reporter at your local paper?
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeAccording to what I've read, there isn't much of a hysteresis effect here. Rather, (relatively) high levels of CO2 are thought to be directly related to (relatively) high temperatures independent from previous CO2 levels.
This sort of thing used to make me angry, but now I just find it humorous... one big advantage of getting older is that stuff like this doesn't really bother me anymore.
Think about it... an increase of CO2 preceding a period of global warming is indisputable (yes, indisputable!) evidence that an increase of CO2 causes global warming. But oops, as it t ...[text shortened]... g, then why would CO2 coming before a period of cooling [b]not be the cause of that cooling?[/b]
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadpffft... naw, I just made the whole thing up out of whole cloth. You're a pretty smart feller to have figured that out. So congratulations to you for a job well done.
Yes I can, but you apparently can't.
You claimed there were some serious scandals with regards to global warming.
I asked you what they were and to give a reference.
Instead you just grabbed the first website you could find with an appropriate sounding title, then started your ridiculous rant about how nobody in their right mind in the whole world coul ...[text shortened]... y evidence that they are anything more than the concoction of some reporter at your local paper?
Now go away and leave me alone...
... you insufferable dumb-ass
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere does appear to be some confusion as to what could actually be happening. If CO2 levels are higher after rather than before a period of warming it seems to suggest something during the warming period is creating an increased amount of CO2. Plants give off CO2 as well as oxygen, so it's not a stretch to imagine a period of warming boosting the growth of plant-life, which would then in turn boost the production of both oxygen and CO2.
According to what I've read, there isn't much of a hysteresis effect here. Rather, (relatively) high levels of CO2 are thought to be directly related to (relatively) high temperatures independent from previous CO2 levels.
But whether or not an increase of CO2 is a cause of cooling is something I can't speak to... all I know is the claim that CO2 causes climate warming, which has been shown to be a false claim because CO2 levels have been lower rather than higher before periods of global warming. The global warming proponents claim higher levels of CO2 are to blame for climate change (global warming). This claim obviously cannot be true if in fact higher levels of CO2 only show up after (rather than before) periods of "climate change"... aka global warming.
I'm just going by what the climate change experts say is the cause. If they say increased levels of CO2 causes warming, then how do they account for evidence to the contrary? They were the ones who presented this evidence, and if they hadn't goofed and gotten it backwards to start off with I doubt this evidence would have ever seen the light of day.
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell who do you think?
By whom?
~ global warming proponents say increased levels of CO2 is the cause of warming.
~ global warming proponents presented evidence showing that an increase of CO2 has previously preceded periods of global warming.
~ global warming proponents goofed and got it backwards, because the evidence actually showed an increase of CO2 showing up after (not before) periods of global warming.
~ It's obviously too late to try hiding or burying this evidence because they've already made it public.
However, maybe they can just make this whole mess go away by simply ignoring it. Wait long enough and the public can be counted on to forget just about anything... and from where I'm sitting I have to admit, this seems to have worked out for them.
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeSo when asked for actual references that's the best you can do?
Now go away and leave me alone...
... you insufferable dumb-ass
So why is it so important for you to deny global warming? Are you afraid of a carbon tax? Are you guilty about the problems you have left for your children to solve? Is it the 'party line'?
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, it's all of those things. And now that I've confessed my sins will you please leave me alone to wallow in my shame and sorrow? I will thank you in advance for respecting my wish to be left alone now. Thank you.
So when asked for actual references that's the best you can do?
So why is it so important for you to deny global warming? Are you afraid of a carbon tax? Are you guilty about the problems you have left for your children to solve? Is it the 'party line'?
23 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeI should also mention that a boost to plant-life would correspond to a boost in animal life as well. An increase in vegetation means more food sources for all animals up and down the food chain.
There does appear to be some confusion as to what could actually be happening. If CO2 levels are higher after rather than before a period of warming it seems to suggest something during the warming period is creating an increased amount of CO2. Plants give off CO2 as well as oxygen, so it's not a stretch to imagine a period of warming boosting the growth ...[text shortened]... tten it backwards to start off with I doubt this evidence would have ever seen the light of day.
23 Jul 14
Originally posted by lemon limeJust after the great oxygenation event around 2.3 billion years ago, the methane in the atmosphere was oxidised into carbon dioxide and water plunging the earth into a 300 million year long ice age. Because methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide as well as the sun being cooler than it is now and factors to do with the earth's orbit; an increase in carbon dioxide presaged the longest ice age in the earth's history. So it depends on the other gasses in the atmosphere.
Oops... I just now noticed a glaring omission for any nit-picker to notice and jump on, so I will fix that right now!
"After all, if an increase of CO2 before a period of warming means CO2 caused that warming, then why would [an increase of] CO2 coming before a period of cooling [b]not be the cause of that cooling?"
glaring omission fixed[/b]
23 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not a mind reader. What answer are you looking for and/or will find acceptable?
That doesn't answer the question.
Or maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. This is what I was talking about...
"I'm just going by what the climate change experts say is the cause. If they say increased levels of CO2 causes warming, then how do they account for evidence to the contrary? They were the ones who presented this evidence..."