What Do We Think About Climate Change

are you including yourself in the weasel category?

 

well G if you must know I was out on the town posting from an I Pad, when ever the girl was off flocking with the other girls in the squad. Some friends of mine were all interested in the I Pad so I broke it out and answered a few posts. Thing is it only opens one window at a time so its difficult to dig up some graphs ( that have been shown a hundred times over and still your demanding to see them again ) for you. I wasn't aware that your Saturday night wouldn't be complete unless I responded to you soonest. I can feel the love.



obviously there is an issue with CO2 in the industrial era however the resolution of the above graph is insufficient to show the corresponding rise in temp given the extreme magnitude of the CO2 problem

in this graph bellow it should be equally as obviously temp and CO2 are moving in tandem ( and yes it was necessary to scale one of the two data sets to allow a comparison between to items of vastly differing scales, just to keep you guys honest )



going back farther its also obvious that the speed of the change in temp is unprecedented, which is the heart of the problem as our denier friends are so adamantly refusing to admit



the simple reality is yes, climate has always changed ( was never the argument anyway ) but every bit of data available shows that the speed of the change induced by the pollutant CO2 is unprecedented

now I'm sure your going to try and pull some rabbit out of your hat and call it cleaver but the simple reality is that most scientists believe in RGCC for a reason.

if you have some viable counter theory that explains the data sets better than the theory of RGCC then sing out, otherwise all anyone is hearing from the deniers camp is a denial of basic established science and not any form of valid argument.

"nipping at the heals of science as it runs ahead of you" is no way to establish a scientific hypothesis

on the other hand the "working theory" of RGCC is enjoying one of the largest consensus ever established in the history of scientific theory

feel free to try and pull whatever out of your sleeve but in the end I'm sure it will be just as inaccurate as the rest of the denial we have exposed before, many times.

cheers
B

ps
so impatient

 

We need two more pages and 86 more posts.
Why you will ask?
The answer on the next post

Daniel

 

I don't know

 

ah, well that one was easy; 42

 

have you been into the pain medication again Daniel

cause your going to need to share that stuff if you keep up with this wonky sense of humor of yours

 

Absolutely.

 

Neither does anyone else.

 

Alan has put you on ignore. He got tired of you calling him names.

Congratulations. You used your bad manners to drown out the only legitimate scientist who was bothering to post in this thread.

 

So many weasels. Not a double post. For some reason I just felt like saying it again. They must be awfully bright because I feel like wearing sunglasses.

 

So you managed to get a hung parliament? Doesn't sound like any huge victory or mandate for change to me....

 

I think a physics based argument would probably attribute the vast majority of the correlation between CO2 and temperature is primarily the temperature dependance of the solubility of carbon dioxide and water. IE: Henry's Law.

Because CO2 is such a small percentage of the total atmosphere (by weight, volume, or moles) and how water is such a big factor. The obvious answer is that the water temperature of the ocean is the dominating factor, which itself is mostly solar dependent.

Other factors are potentially "real" but are 2nd, 3rd, fourth etc order contributing factors.

Plainly stated CO2 is "more" of a lagging indicator of temperature, rather than a serious contributor towards effecting that temperature.

 

It sounds like a victory to me.

 

Boston my darling, please do not keep on posting the same graphs once and again and just answer my small questions. Is it that difficult for you?

 

99% of climatologist on one side and our deniers on the other.


hmmmm what oh what is one to believe?