Scientists: The earth is cooling but we don't know why

[HAL 9000 96]

Dr. Hal 9000

Professor Emeritus, Chair of Science Studies

University of VJ

OT, Internet

Email: maviwaro@visajourney.edu

Courses Taught:

1. Scientific literacy

2. Scientific common sense

3. Reading Scientific information

4. Accurate interpretation of Scientific data: fact versus bias

PhD. Science Studies

June 2008 University of VJ

Dissertation Title: Correlative Relationships Between Mental State and Argumentative Bias in Science Laypeople

MS. Biology

June 2001 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

BS. Biology, Magna Cum Laude

June 1998 University of Puerto Rico

Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez

whoopee, you've not even published!

Dr. AJ

Dean and Chair of Troll Studies

University of VJ

Various forums

Email: suspendaj@visajourney.edu

Courses Taught:

1. The art of trolling

2. Suspensions and you

3. Sucking up to mods

4. How to annoy admin without being banned

PhD: Posting controversial topics

July 2004 University of VJ

Dissertation Title: How to start a flame war with just one post

MS. How to be missed on VJ

March 2009 University of VJ

BS. Art of BS'ing, Magna Cum Laude

University of VJ 2004-2008

Published: The art of trolling. Translated into 16 different languages.

Dr. AJ, welcome to the faculty!

Charles... you don't know that.

[nyhazmat 2]

Oops, I just noticed that I left the rerigerator door open, I'll close it and we can get back to our 'global warming'. By the way, the glaciers didn't just disappear. They have been receeding for how long? And as they were melting, and adding water to the oceans, raising the water levels, and adding more liquid cools the surface temps, hmmm, I'm still not convinced. This rock that we call home has had how many different cycles, in term of 'ice ages' and melting?

[MrsCat 6]

My grandfather died last year, and the sudden decrease in methane gas emissions is the cause for the reduction in the earth's atmospheric temperature.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oops, I just noticed that I left the rerigerator door open, I'll close it and we can get back to our 'global warming'. By the way, the glaciers didn't just disappear. They have been receeding for how long? And as they were melting, and adding water to the oceans, raising the water levels, and adding more liquid cools the surface temps, hmmm, I'm still not convinced. This rock that we call home has had how many different cycles, in term of 'ice ages' and melting?

Yeah and? Natural + Artificial = Total.

[nyhazmat 2]

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

[HAL 9000 96]

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

Good. Welcome to science then.

Problem is that you have a lay segment of the US population that believes its 100% Natural and 0% Artificial. Which is insane beyond any scientific point of view.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

Good. Welcome to science then.

Problem is that you have a lay segment of the US population that believes its 100% Natural and 0% Artificial. Which is insane beyond any scientific point of view.

And you have the larger, more vocal, wacko crowd that insists that is 100% man-made, and caused by plant food, which is lacking any credible scientific basis.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

Good. Welcome to science then.

Problem is that you have a lay segment of the US population that believes its 100% Natural and 0% Artificial. Which is insane beyond any scientific point of view.

And you have the larger, more vocal, wacko crowd that insists that is 100% man-made, and caused by plant food, which is lacking any credible scientific basis.

I suggest you read the link I provided. Carbon Dioxide Residence Time Lines. Interesting.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

Good. Welcome to science then.

Problem is that you have a lay segment of the US population that believes its 100% Natural and 0% Artificial. Which is insane beyond any scientific point of view.

And you have the larger, more vocal, wacko crowd that insists that is 100% man-made, and caused by plant food, which is lacking any credible scientific basis.

I suggest you read the link I provided. Carbon Dioxide Residence Time Lines. Interesting.

Is that the one with all the swamp gases trapped under the frozen tundra? Yeah, that was interesting and methane is a green house gas.

[HAL 9000 96]

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

Good. Welcome to science then.

Problem is that you have a lay segment of the US population that believes its 100% Natural and 0% Artificial. Which is insane beyond any scientific point of view.

And you have the larger, more vocal, wacko crowd that insists that is 100% man-made, and caused by plant food, which is lacking any credible scientific basis.

That's a pretty huge claim there. Hope you can substantiate it. Specially in this country.

On a VJ basis... show me where those nutjobs are.

Then on a google basis, show me an example since at least those I can think of understand 1) the difference between weather and climate and 2) the combinatorial aspects of natural and artificial causes of climate changes.

I agree completely, but when we start assigning percentages to natural vs. artificial is probably where we would disagree.

Good. Welcome to science then.

Problem is that you have a lay segment of the US population that believes its 100% Natural and 0% Artificial. Which is insane beyond any scientific point of view.

And you have the larger, more vocal, wacko crowd that insists that is 100% man-made, and caused by plant food, which is lacking any credible scientific basis.

I suggest you read the link I provided. Carbon Dioxide Residence Time Lines. Interesting.

I think someone needs to understand that CO2, just like other organisms' food source, turns toxic above certain 'concentrations' too.

On top of the geophysical effects you eloquently linked there.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Found it! The charts. He hints at the reason why it takes so long for the CO₂ to be sequested, but does not state it in the article. Most of the carbon dioxide is converted by the plantlife into carbohydrates and hence, larger, and more numerous plants. As the atmospheric CO₂ further declines, the vigorous plant growth can no longer be supported, and the decaying vegetation becomes incorporated in to the soil, and eventually that material is again sequestered further in the sediment.

[HAL 9000 96]

Found it! The charts. He hints at the reason why it takes so long for the CO₂ to be sequested, but does not state it in the article. Most of the carbon dioxide is converted by the plantlife into carbohydrates and hence, larger, and more numerous plants. As the atmospheric CO₂ further declines, the vigorous plant growth can no longer be supported, and the decaying vegetation becomes incorporated in to the soil, and eventually that material is again sequestered further in the sediment.

Add to that [artificial] deforestation.

And the fact that a growing, respiring (major output: CO2), animal population, on top of industrial sources... don't help plants out that much.

[Peikko 1,575]

My understanding is that carbon dioxide absorption is not linear. Some gets absorbed quickly, some doesn't get absorbed for 1,000's of years and part of the problem is interrupting the balance that had inevitably become part of the global climate. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not that great at biology.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Found it! The charts. He hints at the reason why it takes so long for the CO₂ to be sequested, but does not state it in the article. Most of the carbon dioxide is converted by the plantlife into carbohydrates and hence, larger, and more numerous plants. As the atmospheric CO₂ further declines, the vigorous plant growth can no longer be supported, and the decaying vegetation becomes incorporated in to the soil, and eventually that material is again sequestered further in the sediment.

Add to that [artificial] deforestation.

And the fact that a growing, respiring (major output: CO2), animal population, on top of industrial sources... don't help plants out that much.

And, the loss of much of the ocean's plankton. I am not sitting on either teams bench at the moment.

[HAL 9000 96]

My understanding is that carbon dioxide absorption is not linear. Some gets absorbed quickly, some doesn't get absorbed for 1,000's of years and part of the problem is interrupting the balance that had inevitably become part of the global climate. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not that great at biology.

I think you have a fairly clear grasp of it. CO2 in the atmosphere dances around like in a liquid. Brownian motion is the phenomenon of how its molecules bounce off of themselves and other molecules and the more concentrated it gets, the more it moves around.

Found it! The charts. He hints at the reason why it takes so long for the CO₂ to be sequested, but does not state it in the article. Most of the carbon dioxide is converted by the plantlife into carbohydrates and hence, larger, and more numerous plants. As the atmospheric CO₂ further declines, the vigorous plant growth can no longer be supported, and the decaying vegetation becomes incorporated in to the soil, and eventually that material is again sequestered further in the sediment.

Add to that [artificial] deforestation.

And the fact that a growing, respiring (major output: CO2), animal population, on top of industrial sources... don't help plants out that much.

And, the loss of much of the ocean's plankton. I am not sitting on either teams bench at the moment.

Yep... where sadly, the majority of the planet's O2 is put back into circulation.

That's right... not plants... but in photosynthetic plankton.

Its not choosing a side. Its choosing an honest issue. Scientifically proven logic versus the science of conveniently chosen politics.