Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Pearson  Wow!!!
I see this consistently with the Global Warming talking heads. Apparently, your eagerness to amplify the premise of man’s destructive nature has limited you to same unrealistic ‘what-if’ scenarios seen in the IPCC models. I have come to understand that conduct such as this, be it from ideology or ignorance, is prerequisite for a position of status on the WAB Team.
First I want to thank you for not disregarding the calculated measurements of approx. 4% contribution of CO2 by humans. The sticky part is when the IPCC talks about CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, they are sure to understand that CO2 does not just pay-out in big separate chunks like a slot machine. CO2 gradually enters the system over time from all of its sources. To put it simply, CO2 will continue to out-gas from the oceans as long as its temperature remains at higher levels. It will continue to do so as temperatures rise in the ocean regardless of man’s CO2 output. What you are implying is that 96% of the CO2 has no effect on the warming but our 4% has done it all. In light of the possibility the a few pictures of Polar Bears have made you forget about mathematical proportion, I will put it like this. Let’s say the rise in temperature over the last few centuries was 1.2deg. Over the last century man has been contributing CO2 at an accelerating rate. Temperatures during that time have warmed in the 30’s, cooled in the 70’s, warmed in the late 90’s and are now cooling since 2003. Even if all of that contrary evidence to the theory of man’s 4% total liability is ignored, we still would have contributed only enough CO2 to exact a .048deg to the total rise up to now. For man to double the CO2 content on his own, he would need to increase his output by a factor of 25. I do not know how long it would take to build these refineries and production platforms, but let’s say your argument is hogwash and not even guess.
The final question in our minds is if man’s influence on the global picture has caused the steady incremental rise in global temperatures since the start of the interglacial period. I certainly hope this is not the case. If it is, that would mean we all would have to lower our populations and living conditions to something less than 10,000 years ago. All I can say is that the people, who believe in this theology, can be the first to live according to its mandates.
By the way, temperature drives CO2, not visa-versa. See Vostok Ice Core Data. (Maybe some future discussion?)
P.S. Don't quit your day job. |
I'm not even going to respond to this. It's downright rude and there are so many mistakes, misunderstandings and flawed reasoning in this one post I genuinely wouldn't know where to start.
You need to learn how to debate in a civil manner. Your views are extreme, your reasoning blunt and often flawed yet I don't see anyone being rude to you. You may or may not have noticed that WAB is a very friendly, polite site and we don't tolerate personal attack of this nature. You'll no doubt convince yourself that all WAB moderators are part of the global conspiracy that is climate change (even though I'm the only moderator ever to have posted on this topic so I've no idea what you're talking about in the post above) but that won't stop us taking action to remove such behaviour if it arises again.
Matt