Clippo

Humans ARE responsible for GW

Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere 14,000 times the rate of natural additions.

Human warming hobbles ancient climate cycle

mkpdavies

That's frightening. When you hear co2 has soared by that huge figure, you understand why the planet's weather is bordering on unlivable at the moment.

I fear this could mutate pets into foul beasts that will feast on their owners flesh.

Also have you noticed out the credit crunch happened and Charlton Heston died. I think you would have to be pretty deluded to think this hasn't got something to do with it.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Poptech

I am surprised I am still able to move around with such an increase. Too bad the climate is driven by natural cycles:

Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says (Science Daily)
Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores (Science Daily)
Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher (Science Daily)
Natural Climate Change May Be Larger Than Commonly Thought (Science Daily)
North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability (Science Daily)
Pacific Ocean Temperature Changes Point To Natural Climate Variability (Science Daily)
Solar cycle drives ocean temperatures, study says (USA Today)

g hall

Usual inaccurate hysterical posting from the Cr@pmeister

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

I don't ignore posters just any post made which meets my ID-TEN-T criteria

C_steam

good. Bring on the floods. Far better than freezing.

Too many people on this earth anyway, its about time Gaia mother made some adjustments in favour of the dolphins.

Anyway, it matters not the cause of all of this ("if true" caveat applies, of course). The point is there is nothing mere man can do about it anyway, least of all taxation.

I'm going to have a celebratory bar-b-q tonight.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.

EURO-SLAGS. we're not just about Europe - we're about taking the pi55 out of the EU.

George

Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But what happens to this claim when you actually break it down and analyse it? Quite simply, it falls apart.

From the article: The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.

The avarage change per what? Per year? Per millenium? Or over the whole of the last 600,000 years? To me, it reads over the last 600,000 years, and averaging out over this kind of timeframe allows for deviations far beyond 22 PPM. And exactly what does average change mean? It means that if the number of CO2 PPM rises by 100 over 10 years and then falls by 100 over 10 years the average change is zero. So a change of 100 PPM per se means nothing. If it had never happened before then perhaps it would be a concern.

Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

And what have we here? A paragraph that makes it sound as if indeed it has never happened before. Could this be true? In fact, no it's not. At the end of the last ice age CO2 PPM rose by, guess what, 100 PPM. What was that all about? Were the wooly mammoths using 4x4's? Or could it be that the changes we are seeing today are quite capable of being caused by nature? Well, given that I've yet to hear about a fossilised Nissan Terrano, I dare say it's the latter.

That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.

No, it means that the rise in CO2 PPM is not unprecedented and in fact may be completely unrelated to human behaviour. EVEN IF the rise in CO2 is ENTIRELY caused by man, it is exactly the same as the rise at the end of the last ice age, therefore it is NO FASTER than natural processes can achieve.

However, I'm sure the AGW fanatics are capable of spinning 14,000 times faster than the Earth is via natural process.

__________________
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.

g hall

[Clippo mode on]
Sorry George you're not peer reviewed and besides Exxon or some other dirty oil company has paid you
[Clippo mode off]


Good points

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

I don't ignore posters just any post made which meets my ID-TEN-T criteria