I have to add also that later posts also showed that you are not letting go of the magnetic idea and the colling.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18537949&postcount=73
So, indeed: Do you think it will cool down when the magnetic activity of the sun will drop or are we going to see a golden age of richness in a warming world?
I think we all knew this was coming …
We are still waiting for the reasons why the ADA was wrong too, so deal with it or you are only acknowledging that you are the poster boy of the deniers of dental science too.
How many of you are in there?
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
As it seems that you forgot too (I have made this point many times before in other threads) , it is not only for me that I post. I post for to teach all others that read this thread, and if you do not deal with the issue… Well, I’m not the one with the denial trouble and many others can see how capable you really are.
Nobody can possibly deny this!
And yeah, I have grammar problems, I learn from them.
But I prefer to have those kind of problems rather than felling the need to toss denier bones to a shrinking peanut gallery.
What I tried to say is that **I post to teach all others that read this thread. ** And I have reported that many times before, that you forget is your trouble.
It’s not the grammar that is the problem …
Are we still denying the denialism that denies the deny.
I don’t know GIGO, is there something in my quote you don’t understand? I’m just asking the links to the scientists who you say agree with me.
BTW, do you happen to have the amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] being dumped into the atmosphere? God I hope I don’t have to explain conservation of mass …
The point was that it not likely that there are many, again you did continue to press on the magnetic bit even after it was clearly not going to do much regarding a cooling effect on the earth. It was clear also that referring there to the laws of thermodynamics it was just another version of the denier point that scientists are ignoring the sun.
And that is indeed a clue that shows that indeed you are holding a lot of contradictory baggage still. Looking at your posts it is clear that you are only claiming one thing and almost immediately you will continue harping with the debunked item, hence the point that you still have to be clear going forward:
So will it cool or we will see a golden age in a warming world?
We know that already Amalgam Man. 
It’s okay if you don’t know, I don’t either … but it’s not my axe to grind.
Please, if you wish to dispute any post I’ve made, post it to the thread I’ve made my post that you wish to dispute. I’m not ready to pit The Master, but feel free to if you want, I guess.
Avoidance of the main question noted again; oh well, it is clear that you think that the peanut gallery will suffer if you stop being inconsistent as baby poop.
So it is warming that we will see then in the future? And what in heck is causing the warming that will give us the richness that we will see then?
Well it’s hard to deny the last thing our Pit Mod wants is a clusterfuck of debating global warming by proxy in this thread.
It matters for several scientific reasons. Knowing the amount of fuels burned allows an approximation of the amount of CO2 being removed. The long term data shows us that about 55% of the fossil fuel caused CO2 each year is vanishing into … well. somewhere. This is an interesting figure, and that it has stayed constant since the first real measurements of global CO2 levels started is pretty fucking amazing. Averaged over time, the majority of our fossil fuel CO2 just goes somewhere. This is a truly startling discovery, because it used to be thought the carbon sinks would become saturated, and the levels would start rising much faster. Or worse, sinks would flip and become sources of more CO2, causing a much faster rise in levels.
(this could of course still happen)
But here’s the amazing thing. Mankind has really increased the fossil fuel burning. You can check the figures yourself. That the percentage of CO2 being used up (by something, it’s actually an unknown) is still the same, 55% of emissions, is just mind blowing.
Because it means that last year, the earth pulled so much CO2 out of the atmosphere, it equaled the total amount of CO2 being pumped out in 1976. Why is that mindblowing? Because if you look at the data, you can see that now, in the present, somehow the planet is using up as much CO2 as the total amount we were adding back in the seventies!
WTF? It’s basic fucking math. Anyone can do it.
Using carbon rather than CO2 makes it easier to visualize.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2010.html
In 2010 it was 10 Gt of carbon, and the fraction remaining was 45%, then the amount used by the carbon sinks was 5.5 Gt
Which is equal to the total amount spewed out from fossil fuels in 1980!
Which of course somebody will deny.
Yeah, doing the arithmetic kinda spoils the lesson
Don’t think so, despite the sinks the problem is that the concentration of CO2 (PPM) in the atmosphere is still increasing:
FX mentioned too the rate of the CO2 going to the sinks can change and then the problem will get worse. This item is like when many deniers insisted that cap ice was not going to accelerate their rate of loss, they seem to be betting here that the sinks will never change or decrease in their effectiveness as several scientists do worry about.
I do not think deniers will ever feel any need to accept any blame if the situation gets worse.
What problems would we face that we haven’t faced already, and yet still thrived? Seriously, adding three feet to our seawalls over the next hundred years is hardly a crisis. We need to know the rate of CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration increase, if you agree with the numbers that have been presented so far, then we’ve many centuries to added those three feet.
Oh that is nice. Who will pay for it (or make it so) when the denier party does not see a problem coming?
The problem is that you ignore the evidence of the acceleration of the loss of cap ice already observed. There is no mechanism really that can explain away the fact that the oceans will rise more than it was expected until recently.
That item BTW shows that whoever you are relying on about what the CO2 is doing to the atmosphere and the seas is wrong.
The bozos burnin’ coal for electricity are gonna pay … who the hell do you think is going to pay? We can start by making the rate-payers pay the costs of cleaning up that crap.
Yes, the ice caps once extended down to Minnesota, and we know why they don’t anymore. That they should never return is good for people in Minnesota.
Please correct the numbers, 40Gt or what?
[looks at the current congress]
You really think I’m the one that is wrong?
Well, the thing is that I’m not referring to that.
I see not much of a need when in the end the concentration of CO2 continues to increase, logic would tell us that we are just fortunate that whoever number was emitted that nature could deal with a lot of our emissions but the evidence still shows that not all of it is being naturally sequestered. And I know enough of the history to tell you that climate scientists indeed looked at this issue already and in their calculations they do take into account the most likely behavior of the sinks, the bottom line is that the evidence shows that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is observed continues to be mostly of human origin.