Re: What caused the other Ice Ages before man?

Bob Brown <.> writes:

On 28 Jan 2007 11:58:06 -0600, D Smith <maji1234@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I haven't seen Bob Brown post a followup to my discussion, but it seem
clear that in the text above he is continuing with the belief that human
breathing is a factor in the observed atmospheric CO2 rise.

So, don't hold your breath (pun intended) that anything you say
(regardless of how well supported by evidence) will change Bob Brown's
mind.

You explained it to me. What did you want me to reply with?
I asked the question, you explained it. Why would you expect me to
reply to something that was explained very well?

Didn't necessarily expect a reply.

Were you just expecting an "ok, thanks"

That would have been polite.

or were you expecting me to
say something that you, or others, could point out as being false?

Well, after reading a bunch more of your posts over the past week, that
is something I think is probably quite likely, whether it is on this
subject or another.

What is the problem with me asking questions?

Nothing, if you are truly interested in answers. If they are rhetorical
questions, and you have no intention of listening to replies (especially
ones that disagree with you), then the problem is a refusal to discuss
things honestly on your part.

After all, your orignal post on the subject made a big thing about how
you didn't think anyone would answer your questions. Your exact words were
"I doubt anyone will answer my questions because you're [sic] assumption
is I want to poke holes in the MAN MADE global warming theory."

That makes it look like you've already made up your mind, that you
think you know it all, and there isn't anything anyone can say that will
change your mind. Your complete silence on the issue afterwards is
suggestive of this also. You started off with a rather confrontational
post, and then at the first sign of disagreement you disappeared (from
that particular thread). That's not a way to win friends and influence
people.


I would think that if you wanted more people to get on the man-made
cause explanation side of GW that you, and others, would WELCOME
questions?

Even more than questions, we welcome DISCUSSION. That includes such
things as "OK, I see that now, that makes sense. Now, how about...?"

I was sincere in my questions, those before and after.

That's not the way it looks. It looks like you completely ignored the
answer.

If you, or anyone else, wants me on the right side of the science then
please inform me as best you can. What better way to win me over to
your side then with facts?

The vast majority of the onus is on you to inform yourself. This isn't
Sesame Street, where you can learn by just sitting and watching. If you
want people to spend the time taking your questions seriously, then I
strongly suggest that you thank them and tell them when they've said
something that has helped you or made you understand things better. If you
don't close the loop, don't expect people to take you very seriously for
very long. An awful lot of us do this in our spare time, and we'll spend
it as we see fit.

I never had any issues with GW. GW is real. My only issue was with
what causes/caused it to happen. My problem was/is with the part where
people say man has caused it to happen.

So, are you convinced that the current increase in CO2 is from fossil
fuels, as Bob Grumbine has explained? This question is largely independent
of what has happened eons ago, as the methods Bob Grumbine described do
NOT require looking at CO2 levels prior to the current (say, past 50
years) time. Your other post, in reply to Grumbine, makes it look like you
still don't accept his argument, even though you don't point out anything
specifically wrong with it. Instead, you started to talk about periods
well into the past, which are irrelevant to the point Grumbine was making.

After all, if you catch me taking money out of your wallet, the judge
isn't going to ask you to demonstrate an entire history of previous
additions and removals of money from your wallet, for the entire time you
owned it, before I'll be convicted. All you'll need is a reliable witness
to the event of me taking the money out.

Now, to be specific: what is wrong with Grumbine's explanation, which
tells us how we can determine where the RECENT CO2 increase has come from,
regardless of what has caused CO2 changes in the distant past? If you
think his explanation has hidden assumptions about CO2 levels or fluxes
from the past, then what are they?

I am being sincere in my questions and comments. I am not a climate
scientists NOR do I wish anyone to think I am trying prove that I know
more than anyone else.

So, if you now accept my argument that humans breathing (in increasing
numbers) is irrelevant, why do you still post that the number of humans on
earth now compared to some time ago is an issue? Your exact words were:

"ALSO more people are alive today than the periods of time we
constantly hear people compare to today"

If this statement is NOT about the amount of CO2 we exhale, then what
is it about? It sure looks like the same thing.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other ... ancestors must have survived similar changes in climate. ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, ... the cycle is not man made; the realy high level of CO2 is. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that with all that extra CO2, temperatures will become higher than is good for us. ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, they are just what we are used to. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, like Al Gore says, or a sea level rise of 19 inches, which is more in line with the "consensus" everyone likes so much. ... GW "advocates" like to focus on the most alarming scenarios, the end of the world as we know it, when in fact the current climate change isn't much different than what has happened before. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere ... and humans have survived just fine. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, ... current climate change isn't much different than what has ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other ... Current conditions are not necessarily 'perfect' for humans, ... when in fact the current climate change isn't much ... the cycle is not man made; the realy high level of CO2 is. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere ... and humans have survived just fine. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, ... current climate change isn't much different than what has ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)