gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:54am:



Why do you require that considering if it doesn't work with your political view, that climate change is crap, you will deny the science.


We are on a path to 440 parts and higher. When will the denialist decide to pull their heads in ... when they are starving to death, within a short period of time?

Current Humans behaviour increases carbon pollution and the human population is exploding. Doesn't take a scientist to understand the consequences of this.

You mean massive asteroids smacking into the planet disprove human caused climate change?


Loooooong bow you are pulling there.


meanwhile back to the graph, 330 ---> 380 ppm in 50 years is enough proof that whatever the cause, it is time for calculated action.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have upset this balance in the natural environment. Reducing the carbon greenhouse gas is a logical step alongside other actions like reducing human population growth.

The time for polluters and their hard right political allies to stop this greedy short term obstruction and think of the children.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:



I'm looking forward to your answer woody.

Please delete wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Here and there on the net...

The Sangamon interglacial was the last 'warm period' before the last ice age (the last time the ice sheets covered the world)..we are currently in the Holocene Interglacial, which is a warm period after the last glaciation.....The Sangamon interglacial was the most recent previous time when similar conditions existed, since we are currently in an interglacial...Therefore, IF the rate of increase in Co2 (ppm/years) was markedly different 'then' to now...that would be a good indication that man IS affecting Climate Change...if it was close to the same rate (like +0.80 ppm/year), then man is NOT affecting the climate....

See, fairly simple, yes??

Oh the Eemian interglaical is the same thing as the Sangamon interglacial ..different names in different countries..

but the sangamon interglacial lasted thousands of years???!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:


Well that's a stupid argument. But anything green argues is probably a bit stupid.

It certainly wasn't this rapid for the 15000 years of the sangamon.

The only way to answer your question would be to have the same sort of detailed records we have for the last 100 years. 50 year periods don't reflect themselves in the geologic record. Maybe ice cores, but talk abou a needle in a haystack. 

Did you notice that sea levels were 6m higher in the sangamon?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:08am:


Going back to the analogy it's the fact that the knife is in the chest and we know that if you are stabbed through the heart with a knife , your pulse was quite normal beforehand and no pulse after, then there is a 99%+ chance that it was the act of being stabbed through the heart that killed Colonel Mustard.

In the same way, we know that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Greenhouse Effect (the CO2 molecule has the property of absorbing LW Infrared radiation etc). We know that the CO2 has been increasing as a result of activities such as cement manufacture and fossil fuel burning, and there is a 99% + chance that this is what is causing the increase in mean global temperatures.

Of course we know that colonels might have died from natural causes in the past, and we know that there have been perturbations of the climate in the past, but in both cases, the evidence is equally compelling.