Tech PC Forums

Really dude, c'mon. Not only have you set up a strawman in the beginning of your post that doesn't represent either my view or reality, but you've made a huge assumption in your final point. I'll ignore the first point since if you read the last couple of pages, you'd realise my stance and not bother. I'll address your second assumption though, cause it's important.

Why, oh why have you made the assumption that my world view is driving my understanding of the global warming scam? Seriously, where's that come fromm? I simply observed the rapid hysteria which grew in the media and so, as an inquisitive soul, decided to do a bit of research and find out about the subject. I, like everyone else, assumed that we were being told the truth and assumed, due to my ignorance, that CO2 was a problem. moreover, I fell into the trap of "bundling", as I call it, whereby you bundle a few, genuinely good causes in with the shite and if someone disagrees with the shite, you call them on the good stuff. Example is that if you're anti climate change alarmism then you must, therefore be anit recycling, pro deforestation, pro overfisshing etc cause they're all the hippy,green causes. Anyh00, I started off in the same place as everyone else and, upon examining the evidence available to me, changed my view; realising that there was no such thing as global warming. It was only later that I heard about the Club of Rome documents and such like which lead me to the concept of a UN conspiracy to create a world government. So please understand cause and effect here. My belief that there is a small group of people who are trying to manipulate the world into a one world government came after my understanding of global warming was reached

Dude, I just showed that's wrong. Organic materials sink to the ocean floor, gets pressed into sediment, eons later - shale, slate (your roof tiles, dude) - and some coal, oil, and gas.

It is cumulative, just not in the way you think. Yes there is a real carbon cycle, but it involves very real and very large stores of carbon. In our little one, things die. Some dead things get eaten by living things. The rest returns to the earth. Think about it, from the rivers how many tons of silt are washed downstream every second of every minute? That's the carbon and nitrogen (and organism by inevitable extension) rich material going slap bang to the ocean floor. All put there in the first place by volcanoes.
Erosion, dude. Given enough time, that stuff will do the impossible.

But the real question is - are those pockets of material that has built up so much, sufficient, when released in a short span of a few decades, enough to significantly effect the temperature of the atmosphere?

Answers on a postcard.

I personally don't think CO2 is the biggest threat. If the planet does start to warm up large amounts of methane will be released from the ocean and will go up into the atmosphere. The world's atmosphere has ranged between 300 and 400 ppb in cool periods and 600 to 700 ppb in warm periods. We're currently at 1850 ppb which is higher than any time in the previous 400,000 years.

Ai, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

Yes it is

Did I miss this post?

I think weed probably happened

That was part of my earlier point, lots of times the promised expansions are forgotten.

You could always do it yourself? That way you'd at least be able to slightly dispell the cries of "n00b - always want to be spoon fed - sheep - blah blah (bah bah?)" innit. Otherwise, like all the rest of the sheep, you don't have a leg (of lamb ) to stand on cause you're following the crowd

It wasn't weed, I'm off it for a bit. It was work and sleep, my sincere apologies.

I'll get round to it. After I get over the post that just told be carbon wasn't cyclical and immediately described a fucking cycle.

Oh, and for and on the record, my last offer to expand was on the birth certificate bond.....I went to huge lengths, and was promptly ignored as no-one could be arsed to read that much data.

I should have pre-chewed it and put it on telly I suppose.

I think I missed that one

Aye. We might actually be better off burning the methane in a lot of instances.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/12 ... ?art_pos=1

If it gets out naturally we're 25 times as screwed anyway.

I clicked the link and was immediately sidetracked about mosquito populations being the highest in the frozen tundra, which actually interested me more than combustible ice.

Ah yes, combustible ice. Interesting resource, eh, what?

You can't call it a resource. New UN directive. It doesn't inspire fear in the population. Deadly explosive ice please.

Its both, you noob. Some of it gets trapped for hundreds of millions of years. That coal oil and gas wasn't going anywhere.

Apologies for calling you a noob, I was annoyed that you didn't get my point.

Perhaps I should try to explain again. But I really can't be arsed, when this stuff is all just a google search away.

It technically is, although whether you can call it a prospective one is another matter.

1. I'm not a n00b.

2. The reason for my tone is simple....you condescend to me as if I'm some 17 year old halfwit moron. Do that and you can expect my disdain.

It is a cycle, a long one granted, but it's a long universe.

Peace?

I wasn't obviously joking here?