I can lie on the internet too.

 

"Too" is wrong.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

We don't have measurements on short term changes before thermometers were in use. The proxy measurements are averages over 50 or more years. When you look at thermometer measurements, the changes that happened between 1910 and 1940, before CO2 enrichment, are the same as those from 1980 to 2010.


 

CO2 has SOME effect. Nobody (well very few) disagree with this. All other things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will increase global temperature by 1.5 degrees C. The disagreement is in the 'other things.' The Warmists claim that 'other things' will amplify the warming (positive feedback). The skeptics claim that 'other things' will limit the warming (negative feedback).

 

Forgive me, it's been a while since I really read anything on this thermometer arguement...  So there was no measurements of temperature before 1910?

 

And I'm glad you admit that burning carbon has some effect on climate changes.   The concept of a negative feedback loop within the enviornmental system is something I remember from my college days in ecological biology.  My professor, who is pretty well known in his profession discussed these feedback systems.  At some point, the system becomes over-run and cannot compensate anymore.  That's the thing.

 

See, now that you admit that there is an issue, you should realize that the negative feedback loop is not the savior if we continue on the same trajectory of burning that we currently are on.

---

"Too" is wrong.

actually that is used correct, as in also.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

actually that is used correct, as in also.

 

'Also' is incorrect. My point was that there were no others.


 

Forgive me, it's been a while since I really read anything on this thermometer arguement...  So there was no measurements of temperature before 1910?

 

And I'm glad you admit that burning carbon has some effect on climate changes.   The concept of a negative feedback loop within the enviornmental system is something I remember from my college days in ecological biology.  My professor, who is pretty well known in his profession discussed these feedback systems.  At some point, the system becomes over-run and cannot compensate anymore.  That's the thing.

 

See, now that you admit that there is an issue, you should realize that the negative feedback loop is not the savior if we continue on the same trajectory of burning that we currently are on.

 

There were thermometers before 1910. There was warming before 1910. I just used 1910-1940 because it was the most recent and best documented incidence of warming before CO2 enrichment. IIRC your statement was that warming in the past occurred over thousands of years and that the 1980-2010 warming was unprecedented. The 1910-1940 warming disproves that.


 

For there to be a problem with Global Warming Climate Change there needs to be a positive feedback. Just ending negative feedback won't cause a problem. So can you give me an example of positive feedback in nature? Can you give me an example of any prediction of global doom, 'scientific' or otherwise, that ever actually happened?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

'Also' is incorrect. My point was that there were no others.







[color=#008080]For there to be a problem with <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change there needs to be a positive feedback. Just ending negative feedback won't cause a problem. So can you give me an example of positive feedback in nature? Can you give me an example of any prediction of global doom, 'scientific' or otherwise, that ever actually happened?

One of the positive feedback hypotheses that I have heard of is that the water under the ice sheet at the North Pole is dark, and as the ice melts, dark water is exposed, which absorbs more heat therefore melting more ice. And so on.


I don't happen to believe we are doomed, because I believe in our ingenuity and adaptability. But of course it will be a lot easier to adapt if we are able to recognize a looming problem.


But let me ask you a couple of questions.


1) Do you believe that a positive feedback in the environment is possible?


2) Do you believe that it is possible that mankind can damage the environment to an unacceptable degree?

---

One of the positive feedback hypotheses that I have heard of is that the water under the ice sheet at the North Pole is dark, and as the ice melts, dark water is exposed, which absorbs more heat therefore melting more ice. And so on.


I don't happen to believe we are doomed, because I believe in our ingenuity and adaptability. But of course it will be a lot easier to adapt if we are able to recognize a looming problem.


But let me ask you a couple of questions.


1) Do you believe that a positive feedback in the environment is possible?


2) Do you believe that it is possible that mankind can damage the environment to an unacceptable degree?

 

0) The effect is negligible. The ice is only slightly more reflective than water at that high angle. September is the month of lowest ice coverage, so half the time the north pole will receive no sunlight at all.


 

1) Not with temperature. Not with climate. Biologically I can see the possibility.


 

2) Sure. Nuclear weapons can do that. CO2 can't. The Earth has had higher CO2 levels than the predicted 2100 level for most of it's history.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

0) The effect is negligible. The ice is only slightly more reflective than water at that high angle. September is the month of lowest ice coverage, so half the time the north pole will receive no sunlight at all.


 
1) Not with temperature. Not with climate. Biologically I can see the possibility.


 
2) Sure. Nuclear weapons can do that. CO2 can't. The Earth has had higher CO2 levels than the predicted 2100 level for most of it's history.

Since the Earth is 4.7 billion years old, and multicellular life didn't even exist for most of its history, isn't your last sentence a little disingenuous?

---

We don't have measurements on short term changes before thermometers were in use. The proxy measurements are averages over 50 or more years. When you look at thermometer measurements, the changes that happened between 1910 and 1940, before CO2 enrichment, are the same as those from 1980 to 2010.


CO2 has SOME effect. Nobody (well very few) disagree with this. All other things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will increase global temperature by 1.5 degrees C. The disagreement is in the 'other things.' The Warmists claim that 'other things' will amplify the warming (positive feedback). The skeptics claim that 'other things' will limit the warming (negative feedback).

Every single sentence in this post is wrong.

---

Every single sentence in this post is wrong.

 

Every single one?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Every single sentence in this post is wrong.

 

As usual, your posts say absolutely nothing except for your erroneous beliefs.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Since the Earth is 4.7 billion years old, and multicellular life didn't even exist for most of its history, isn't your last sentence a little disingenuous?

 

OK, let me restate that: Earth's CO2 levels have been higher than 1000 ppm (predicted to exist in 2100 for business as usual scenarios, although our current path is closer to 700 ppm) for most of it's history since multicellular life formed.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

OK, let me restate that: Earth's CO2 levels have been higher than 1000 ppm (predicted to exist in 2100 for business as usual scenarios, although our current path is closer to 700 ppm) for most of it's history since multicellular life formed.

So what?

---

'Also' is incorrect. My point was that there were no others.



There were thermometers before 1910. There was warming before 1910. I just used 1910-1940 because it was the most recent and best documented incidence of warming before CO2 enrichment. IIRC your statement was that warming in the past occurred over thousands of years and that the 1980-2010 warming was unprecedented. The 1910-1940 warming disproves that.


For there to be a problem with <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change there needs to be a positive feedback. Just ending negative feedback won't cause a problem. So can you give me an example of positive feedback in nature? Can you give me an example of any prediction of global doom, 'scientific' or otherwise, that ever actually happened?

I'm sorry, it's hard for me to respond to you at the moment. Your inability to recognize that "too" is grammatically the correct word that can be used is making me question some of your theories.


Too, also... they are synonyms. You may be able to say he should have used a comma, but that's about it...

---

I'm sorry, it's hard for me to respond to you at the moment. Your inability to recognize that "too" is grammatically the correct word that can be used is making me question some of your theories.


Too, also... they are synonyms. You may be able to say he should have used a comma, but that's about it...

 

Grammatically it was correct. He was incorrect because there were no others lying, at least in this thread.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So what?

 

So high CO2 is the norm. We're a lot closer to a CO2 level so low that all life on Earth would end than we are to a problem with too much.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Grammatically it was correct. He was incorrect because there were no others lying, at least in this thread.

 

Now that I think about it, I may be misreading oface's comments. Maybe he was referring to the other Warmists on the internet. He did also claim that my statement that "CO2 has some effect" was wrong. Maybe he switched sides in this discussion.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Now that I think about it, I may be misreading oface's comments. Maybe he was referring to the other Warmists on the internet. He did also claim that my statement that "CO2 has some effect" was wrong. Maybe he switched sides in this discussion.

Lol, you're talking to yourself now... :-)

---

Lol, you're talking to yourself now... :-)

 

It was the only way I could find an intelligent listener.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So high CO2 is the norm. We're a lot closer to a CO2 level so low that all life on Earth would end than we are to a problem with too much.

Your logic is poor and you should feel bad.

---

I thought all this science talk was confusing then you guys started on the "too" damn it I'm leaving This thread!

---