Global warming sticky

[HyperionX]

Ok, Bumblefuck, you listen and you listen good. Current environmental data shows a correlation between the following:

1. Rising industrialization
2. Increasing Atmospheric CO2 levels
3. Increasing Global temperature.

Now, 1 & 2 correlate alot better than 1 & 3 based on what we know. HOW-FUCKING-EVER, we don't have a causal relationship, and we don't know all the effects. Your own link on "Global Dimming" proves that they're still trying to figure out what's going on with the planet's atmosphere, and that we don't know the whole story.

Ok 'tard, there's something known as the Greenhouse Effect. And it very adequately explains the connection between 2 and 3.

Moreover, the global dimming effect shows that we should be getting cooler, but we're not. What does that mean? The Earth is trapping more of the heat from the sun that before. Any idea what could be causing it? I think you do.

No, that means that the combination of anthropogenic warming, cooling, and long-term climate trends is getting screwy in ways we don't fully know.

And where did you get this from? Your ass? Did you even read the article on global dimming? It's coming primarily from soot and other aerosols in the air, aka our fault too. It's not natual either. Look, the climate is not "screwy," there are no known "climate trends," just global warming by human causes. ALl known evidence points to this. Are you getting this at all?

Last, there are no other know methods for which the Earth could be warming up, or have been shown to be false as the current time period. Leaving only the greenhouse effect as the only plausible explanation for 2 & 3.

Well, there's the Milankovitch cycle

Irrelevant.

, long-term sunspot cycles,

Bullshit. If there's global dimming, no amount of sunspot cycles will explain global warming to any degree.

changes in deep-sea chemistry...

Pure bullshit. I never even heard of this, and you have no sources. In fact, the only time I ever heard of anything remotely like this is when a methane hydrate bursts, release methane into the air cause global warming. Well right now that's not happening.

But you knew that already, right?

I do. I know for a fact that you just pulled out some old, irrelevant, or just plain nonsensical claims in a desperate attempt to save your argument. Look, all non-anthropogenic causes have been rejected. I believe SirNitram demostrated that there's a virtually total scientific concensus on this, with effectively no research papers disputing GW in recent years. You're running of excuses, there's just nothing lying that can explain any of this.

Goddamn it's like going back to elementary school.

Have you even BEEN out of elementary school? I mean, I have a degree in this, but what's your education beyond pulling out news articles?

Degree? What degree would that be? I just saw you confuse scientific theory with "law," which means you absolutely do not a degree in any field of science.

For example, SO2 has a COOLING effect on the atmosphere, and may be contributing to global dimming. SO2 comes largely from coal burning, which is the primary power-generation fuel of the third world. Should we expect it to balance out the CO2-related increases? Will CO2 levels continue to increase?

No and yes respectively. It's pretty obvious that SO2 isn't balancing out CO2 productions, and CO2 will continue to increase if we burn coal.

If its so obvious, there wouldn't be any controversy. Fact is we don't know how the climate will develop as the third world industrializes and exploits different fuel sources.

What controversy? What "we don't know?" Are the future coal sources going to be super-ladened with sulfur? Hell no. We know what SO2 is, where it comes from, and approximately how much we could potentially produce. Nothing here will reduce global warming, especially if we continue to dump CO2 into the air.

Yes, the old cop-out. We don't know what'll happen so let's do nothing...

Sorry, but we do have an pretty damn good idea of what's gonna happen and that's rising sea levels, major climate change (this place get's dryer, that place get's wetter, hotter overall), more violent weather, etc. This is the weakest of excuses and it's shameful that you're pulling this one.

Christ on a cracker, kid! You expect us to get alarmist with a "OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT!!!111ONEONEONE" before we have it figured out? Right now earth's climate is changing.

Oh great, the even dumber arguments of "we don't know what to do" and "let's wait till we know fo' shur," and "my opponent's an alarmist!!!":roll: It's obvious what we need to do, reduce GHGs (building more efficient cars, factories, go nuclear or whatver), and we know for sure that it's probably negative. Hell the rising sea levels alone are irrefutably bad enough. The only true thing you said is that we do know Earth's climate is changing.

It appears that human pollution may have something to do with it, but it doesn't all add up. For example, the most significant temperature increases in the 20th century happened before 1940, yet more pollution was produced 1970-2000 than in the previous seven decades.

No. The most significant warming happened from 1980 to 2000. They were about the same net warming as the 1900-1940 just in half the time. Remember, this is on top of global dimming, i.e. we should be cooling right now, but we're not. Predictions of future warming only point up.

Sounds like there might be something else going on, eh?

No. The non-anthropogenic are so small as to being irrelevant. In fact, models without CO2 emissions point to little or no global warming at all (see El Moose's link). In short, the number of plausible excuses for global warming are about as rare as Saddam's WMDs: They just don't exist. Seriously, they don't.

[CaptainChewbacca]

*sigh*
And you wonder why people think you're an idiot.

And where did you get this from? Your ass? Did you even read the article on global dimming? It's coming primarily from soot and other aerosols in the air, aka our fault too. It's not natual either. Look, the climate is not "screwy," there are no known "climate trends," just global warming by human causes. ALl known evidence points to this. Are you getting this at all?

There's no known climate trends? At all? Guess all that dendrochronology, ice core sampling, and pollen dating doesn't count for anything. Read up on the Younger-Dryas event to see how paleoclimatologists do there work.

Bullshit. If there's global dimming, no amount of sunspot cycles will explain global warming to any degree.

I refer you to the "Maunder Minimum" as an example of how sunspots can severely effect climate change.

Pure bullshit. I never even heard of this, and you have no sources. In fact, the only time I ever heard of anything remotely like this is when a methane hydrate bursts, release methane into the air cause global warming. Well right now that's not happening.

So, because you havn't heard of it, it isn't true? Where did you study earth sciences again? Climatology? Atmospheric science? Sudden glacial melting can put a serious whammy on the north-atlantic halocline and radically alter the convective processes of the ocean, which can lead to regional fluctuations up or down from average temperatures.

I do. I know for a fact that you just pulled out some old, irrelevant, or just plain nonsensical claims in a desperate attempt to save your argument. Look, all non-anthropogenic causes have been rejected. I believe SirNitram demostrated that there's a virtually total scientific concensus on this, with effectively no research papers disputing GW in recent years. You're running of excuses, there's just nothing lying that can explain any of this.

Yes, there's general scientific consensus that the climate is heating up, though there's no consensus on the cause.

Degree? What degree would that be? I just saw you confuse scientific theory with "law," which means you absolutely do not a degree in any field of science.

I got a bachelors in geophysics and one in hydrology, with a Minor in atmospheric science. Its too bad you didn't read, or you'd have noticed I was pointing out the difference between a theory and a law in contemporary scientific debate, and that Global Warming is only a theory and not a law. You probably don't have the attention span to do all that reading, though. Enough about me, though, what's your educational backround?

What controversy? What "we don't know?" Are the future coal sources going to be super-ladened with sulfur? Hell no. We know what SO2 is, where it comes from, and approximately how much we could potentially produce. Nothing here will reduce global warming, especially if we continue to dump CO2 into the air.

So, you know that sulfur is a large component of coal, right? And that burning coal produces SO2 as a waste product? Because if not, man, I don't even know why I'm bothering.


Good job trying to get the rest of the board on your side by calling me a "creationist", though. That was a good try at a red herring. Too bad they know better.

[CaptainChewbacca]

P.S.

Everyone's opinion of you.

HAVE A NICE FUCKING DAY

[HyperionX]

*sigh*
And you wonder why people think you're an idiot.

And where did you get this from? Your ass? Did you even read the article on global dimming? It's coming primarily from soot and other aerosols in the air, aka our fault too. It's not natual either. Look, the climate is not "screwy," there are no known "climate trends," just global warming by human causes. ALl known evidence points to this. Are you getting this at all?

There's no known climate trends? At all? Guess all that dendrochronology, ice core sampling, and pollen dating doesn't count for anything. Read up on the Younger-Dryas event to see how paleoclimatologists do there work.

I wasn't talking about all time, I was talking about right now. Climate trends was in quotation marks. And I know what the Younger Dryas events was, it was a sudden return to ice age. But of course, nothing like that (unless we provoke one with the melting of Greenland) is happening right now.

Bullshit. If there's global dimming, no amount of sunspot cycles will explain global warming to any degree.

I refer you to the "Maunder Minimum" as an example of how sunspots can severely effect climate change.

Once again, if we have global dimming, how do sunspots increase temperatures? This isn't an area of debate, this is physics. If you have global dimming then the world can only get cooler, unless you have an increasing greenhouse effect.

Pure bullshit. I never even heard of this, and you have no sources. In fact, the only time I ever heard of anything remotely like this is when a methane hydrate bursts, release methane into the air cause global warming. Well right now that's not happening.

So, because you havn't heard of it, it isn't true? Where did you study earth sciences again? Climatology? Atmospheric science? Sudden glacial melting can put a serious whammy on the north-atlantic halocline and radically alter the convective processes of the ocean, which can lead to regional fluctuations up or down from average temperatures.

And that's "chemistry"? I think you're out of your field here.

Anyways, enough big words like you know what you're talking about. Right now, the only thing coming out of the ocean is proof that global warming is for real. But of course you must've known that. Now, show me any piece of evidence at all that some "deep-sea chemistry" is at the moment creating global warming.

I do. I know for a fact that you just pulled out some old, irrelevant, or just plain nonsensical claims in a desperate attempt to save your argument. Look, all non-anthropogenic causes have been rejected. I believe SirNitram demostrated that there's a virtually total scientific concensus on this, with effectively no research papers disputing GW in recent years. You're running of excuses, there's just nothing lying that can explain any of this.

Yes, there's general scientific consensus that the climate is heating up, though there's no consensus on the cause.

Oh really? Here's the article itself. Still gonna claim the same?

Degree? What degree would that be? I just saw you confuse scientific theory with "law," which means you absolutely do not a degree in any field of science.

I got a bachelors in geophysics and one in hydrology, with a Minor in atmospheric science. Its too bad you didn't read, or you'd have noticed I was pointing out the difference between a theory and a law in contemporary scientific debate, and that Global Warming is only a theory and not a law. You probably don't have the attention span to do all that reading, though. Enough about me, though, what's your educational backround?

Ok, let's see. This is what you said: "WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW FOR SURE! If it was a proven fact, there wouldn't be any controversy. That's why its called a 'Theory'."

This what Darth Wong has to say on a theory and fact: http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article1

In short that's the number one argument by creationist again evolution. This is also the same argument you've made against GW. So don't feel offended if I don't fucking believe a word you say about your educational background.

As for me, at least I am in college now, something I have major doubts whether you ever attended.

What controversy? What "we don't know?" Are the future coal sources going to be super-ladened with sulfur? Hell no. We know what SO2 is, where it comes from, and approximately how much we could potentially produce. Nothing here will reduce global warming, especially if we continue to dump CO2 into the air.

So, you know that sulfur is a large component of coal, right? And that burning coal produces SO2 as a waste product? Because if not, man, I don't even know why I'm bothering.

And SO2 is somehow going to magically prevent global warming. Don't make me laugh, I know what SO2 does and the most it's gonna do is probably acid rain. You've got a lousy strawman going on here by pointing out what you said. I'm wasting my time here.

Good job trying to get the rest of the board on your side by calling me a "creationist", though. That was a good try at a red herring. Too bad they know better.

<creationism>IT'S A THEORY! NOT A "LAW!!!111"</classic creationism>
Read my fucking sig (yes, it's a real quote). This is right out of the creationist's pocketbook what you're doing.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its also out of analytic thinking. Continental Drift graduated from theory to law in the mid-70's and caused a paradigm shift in geology because it turned everything upside down. That's why I still call global warming a theory, because it isn't solidly founded yet.

If you want, you can find the other members of this board I've met. A couple of them go to the University I graduated from, UC Davis. I've already been "tested" by the folks on this board, my credentials aren't in question. You, on the other hand, are going to a university "somewhere" and majoring in "something".

Lastly, yes, altering salinity levels in a fluid body IS chemistry.

Come back when you've got more than "You're wrong! Look at my link!" to back you up, because I'm going to my poker night and tomorrow I won't care about you anymore.

[Max]

[QUOTE=Pon]The term "global warming" would insinuate that the global temperature is rising and it isn't. Also, geothermal vents are partly to blame for the melting of the polar ice caps. When you can see steam rising up from within the ice then that tells you something.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to segue or anything, but I'm debating this on another site, and was hoping someone can help me with a link, or just some facts to show this guy. Maybe something to make him feel real dumb, as I'm tired of going back and forth with him.

[Lord Zentei]

The term "global warming" would insinuate that the global temperature is rising and it isn't. Also, geothermal vents are partly to blame for the melting of the polar ice caps. When you can see steam rising up from within the ice then that tells you something.

I don't mean to segue or anything, but I'm debating this on another site, and was hoping someone can help me with a link, or just some facts to show this guy. Maybe something to make him feel real dumb, as I'm tired of going back and forth with him.

We've already seen a few links already, but notably Xero posted a link on the first page that you may find useful:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs

[HyperionX]

Its also out of analytic thinking. Continental Drift graduated from theory to law in the mid-70's and caused a paradigm shift in geology because it turned everything upside down. That's why I still call global warming a theory, because it isn't solidly founded yet.

WTF is this bullshit? Continental drift is not a law, it's still a theory, and always will be, just like every other scientific theory. This is why I don't think you have 2 degrees. I don't you even passed high school science class.

If you want, you can find the other members of this board I've met. A couple of them go to the University I graduated from, UC Davis. I've already been "tested" by the folks on this board, my credentials aren't in question. You, on the other hand, are going to a university "somewhere" and majoring in "something".

You're credentials are irrelevant. Only the ability to make a logically correct argument matters. Your use of credentials borders on an appeal to authority, and in fact if you actual hold the degrees you claim to have I would claim that you're intentionally acting dumb. If you must know I'm attending college at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign majoring in Computer Science, but of course that's irrelevant too.

Lastly, yes, altering salinity levels in a fluid body IS chemistry.

I was thinking of more in line with thermodynamics and not chemistry, but whatever.

Come back when you've got more than "You're wrong! Look at my link!" to back you up, because I'm going to my poker night and tomorrow I won't care about you anymore.

Concession accepted.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The computer science undergrads are so adorable!

Who's my big strong programmer? Yes you are! Yes you are! Who's the master of the google engine?

mplsjocc, geothermal melting of glaciers has always happened and is independent of any global warming process. When a glacier is melted by a volcano or a vent, its called a yokolaup.

[HyperionX]

The computer science undergrads are so adorable!

Who's my big strong programmer? Yes you are! Yes you are! Who's the master of the google engine?

Honestly, do you always act this immature when you lose a debate?

[Surlethe]

The computer science undergrads are so adorable!

Who's my big strong programmer? Yes you are! Yes you are! Who's the master of the google engine?

Honestly, do you always act this immature when you lose a debate?

The irony is killing me.

Be honest. You just conceded all of his points except for your continual semantics whoring.

[HyperionX]

The computer science undergrads are so adorable!

Who's my big strong programmer? Yes you are! Yes you are! Who's the master of the google engine?

Honestly, do you always act this immature when you lose a debate?

The irony is killing me.

Be honest. You just conceded all of his points except for your continual semantics whoring.

I hope you were talking to CaptainChewbacca. Except for various semantics he lost every point.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I lost nothing but time, son.

Nothing but time.

[Xero Cool Down]

The term "global warming" would insinuate that the global temperature is rising and it isn't. Also, geothermal vents are partly to blame for the melting of the polar ice caps. When you can see steam rising up from within the ice then that tells you something.

I don't mean to segue or anything, but I'm debating this on another site, and was hoping someone can help me with a link, or just some facts to show this guy. Maybe something to make him feel real dumb, as I'm tired of going back and forth with him.

An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf




Also, when quoting, you have to put "....." around the name.

[Xero Cool Down]

Unlike you I actually went out and got the info. I assumed that since it was about 5 seconds away from you too I guess you could find it too. I was wrong.

I have the data from the IPCC which lists solar irradiance as a cause for change in the global temperature, which I consider a far more reliable source than what you have linked to. It may be that there is less warming due to it than there has been in the past, but it still affects the global temperature. You implied that it had no effect at all.

You insinuated that GW right now is not entirely due to humans because it happened before. That whole claim is blatantly false even if certain aspects of it are true.

I certainly did, because global warming and cooling clearly has happened in the past, and the graphs showed that the global temperature was starting to rise long before we started producing large amounts of greenhouse gases. I have said that the unnaturally rate and degree to which the temperature has started to rise over the last few decades is due to humans.

Blips on a line. The whole line was heading downwards. Now it's a massive shift upwards. Those are not "trends."

Those "blips on a line" are what scientists use to draw conclusions from the data they have gathered, and the data showed the temperature was increasing, as I have already said, before we started pumping out greenhouse gases.

You've repeated claimed that we're not the sole cause, which is false.

We are not the sole cause, which is evident from the assesment by the IPCC.

You did said it wasn't soley us doing it with absolutely no justification whatsoever, and that it wasn't decided. It's almost the same thing as denying it completely. Look, it has been decided, no if's or but's, and it's entirely our cause. Accept it.

My justification is a report compiled by credible scientists which does show that global warming is not solely caused by human production of greenhouse gases.

You've repeated disputed it, question if we're the sole cause, or make the claim that it may be possible that it could be something else. Nothing is further from the truth.

You have presented no evidence that we are the sole cause, while I have that we are not, so shut up or put up.

[Xero Cool Down]

As to the link you posted, I'd like to note several things about the report.

1) "Global dimming" has nothing to do with how much radiation is hitting the planet, only how much is hitting the surface. We know that man made pollutants such as sulfur compounds will reflect infrared radiation, and that the dramatic decreases that this report says are happening have only happened over the last several decades. Since the automobile has become so popular we have been pumping out these sulfur compounds along with CO2, so it would make sense that in areas of heavy pollution there would be less solar radiation able to penetrate the atmosphere to the surface. There is no evidence that these decreases were happening before the 1960's, so you cannot say that the planet should be cooling rather than heating up as the trend showed in the IPCC report. If we were not pumping out these compounds it would very likely be heating up at a much faster rate.

2) These reports have been discredited or ignored by the vast majority of high ranking climatologists. As the article says, one even called it "bullshit." Until a signifigant number of scientists agree about it, I take it with a grain of salt.

3) The Guardian, unlike the IPCC, is not a credible source. Like popular science and other news sources it reports pseudoscience and speculation as absolute fact in order to have a story. While you may rely entirely upon these sources people that can actually interpret data for themselves like CC and me do not. When I ask for you to provide information to back up your claims I don't mean google up the first website that agrees with you.

[Xero Cool Down]

Honestly, do you always act this immature when you lose a debate?

He's not being immature, he's mocking you. I don't blame him, you're completely wrong and incapable of putting up any evidence that is even slightly credible, the very marks of stupidity which have earned you your title.

[HyperionX]

Unlike you I actually went out and got the info. I assumed that since it was about 5 seconds away from you too I guess you could find it too. I was wrong.

I have the data from the IPCC which lists solar irradiance as a cause for change in the global temperature, which I consider a far more reliable source than what you have linked to. It may be that there is less warming due to it than there has been in the past, but it still affects the global temperature. You implied that it had no effect at all.

Bullshit. I never said no effect at all. Obviously the sun's output will affect temperatures on the Earth, however the actually amount is very minor if not negative in the last few decades. Also, the data IPCC doesn't state what you claim. This is what that report actually says:

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the
last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies
consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50
years. These studies include uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and
natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance), but do not account for the effects of other types of
anthropogenic aerosols and land-use changes. The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over
this period and cannot explain the warming; whereas most of these studies find that, over the last
50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are
comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming.

You insinuated that GW right now is not entirely due to humans because it happened before. That whole claim is blatantly false even if certain aspects of it are true.

I certainly did, because global warming and cooling clearly has happened in the past, and the graphs showed that the global temperature was starting to rise long before we started producing large amounts of greenhouse gases.

Like I just said, that's blatantly false. The facts on the ground as of right now clearly state that global warming is primarily due to GHGs. What happened previously do not explain the current events. Also, the precise relationship between the amount of GHGs and global temperatures is not that important. A lot of natural variation occurs, and in fact a lot of the things we dump in the air like SO2 can cause a cooling effect masking the global temperatures. It's very possible that we should be even warmer than right now except for things like SO2 we make, causing global dimming and cooling the planet. It's also possible that they're was a blip upwards at that same time. However, the ultimate conclusion is exactly the same: a general increase in GHGs is causing a general increase in temperatures, well above and beyond what has been possible for the last 1000 years, and no natural causes can explain this.

I have said that the unnaturally rate and degree to which the temperature has started to rise over the last few decades is due to humans.

You've always implied that humans were only partially responsible, which you are not conveying here.

Blips on a line. The whole line was heading downwards. Now it's a massive shift upwards. Those are not "trends."

Those "blips on a line" are what scientists use to draw conclusions from the data they have gathered, and the data showed the temperature was increasing, as I have already said, before we started pumping out greenhouse gases.

Like I just, natural variations. As of right now that kind of global warming is already leading to global cooling. In fact, here's another IPCC report, which came out a few month later: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

Going to page 8 you see just how small solar irradiance as an effect on warming is now. Going to page 9 you see:

Natural factors have made small
contributions to radiative forcing over the
past century.
The radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for
the period since 1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm−2,
most of which occurred during the first half of the 20th
century. Since the late 1970s, satellite instruments have
observed small oscillations due to the 11-year solar cycle.
Mechanisms for the amplification of solar effects on
climate have been proposed, but currently lack a rigorous
theoretical or observational basis.
Stratospheric aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions
lead to negative forcing, which lasts a few years. Several
major eruptions occurred in the periods 1880 to 1920 and
1960 to 1991.
The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major
natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is
estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the
past four, decades.

You've repeated claimed that we're not the sole cause, which is false.

We are not the sole cause, which is evident from the assesment by the IPCC.

Which is blatantly false again. I said before that you can't fucking read, which is apparently from the fact that the report says nothing of what you claim. You just look at a graph and said "I think this shows what I want to believe" which is ridiculously without have any understand of what the words and graphs are suppose to mean. The actual tone and actual words of the report are far from what you claim.

You did said it wasn't soley us doing it with absolutely no justification whatsoever, and that it wasn't decided. It's almost the same thing as denying it completely. Look, it has been decided, no if's or but's, and it's entirely our cause. Accept it.

My justification is a report compiled by credible scientists which does show that global warming is not solely caused by human production of greenhouse gases.

Read above.

You've repeated disputed it, question if we're the sole cause, or make the claim that it may be possible that it could be something else. Nothing is further from the truth.

You have presented no evidence that we are the sole cause, while I have that we are not, so shut up or put up.[/quote]

Read above, and crawl back to your cave. The only idiot that hasn't "put up" is you.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

WTF is this bullshit? Continental drift is not a law, it's still a theory, and always will be, just like every other scientific theory. This is why I don't think you have 2 degrees. I don't you even passed high school science class.

Isn't continental drift gone? We have plate technotics now, according to my texts. They say it's different from CD, and that CD was wrong? I'm confused.

[HyperionX]

As to the link you posted, I'd like to note several things about the report.

1) "Global dimming" has nothing to do with how much radiation is hitting the planet, only how much is hitting the surface. We know that man made pollutants such as sulfur compounds will reflect infrared radiation, and that the dramatic decreases that this report says are happening have only happened over the last several decades. Since the automobile has become so popular we have been pumping out these sulfur compounds along with CO2, so it would make sense that in areas of heavy pollution there would be less solar radiation able to penetrate the atmosphere to the surface. There is no evidence that these decreases were happening before the 1960's, so you cannot say that the planet should be cooling rather than heating up as the trend showed in the IPCC report. If we were not pumping out these compounds it would very likely be heating up at a much faster rate.

Then we are also one of the mitigators of global warming. Exactly how does that change the fact that GHGs are causing a net increase in warming? Actual I don't see how your argument follows at all. If it is the case that only after 1960 we made a lot of sulfur compounds in the air and causing cooling, wouldn't the warming in the first of the 1900s make more sense because we're warming slower than we should as of right now?

2) These reports have been discredited or ignored by the vast majority of high ranking climatologists. As the article says, one even called it "bullshit." Until a signifigant number of scientists agree about it, I take it with a grain of salt.

"High-ranking climatologists?" This isn't a religion fool, there are no ranks. And you're source for this claim? I'm taking your own claim with a grain of salt, especially considering that the IPCC report itself which you take in so high a regard considers global dimming as real right here:

The radiative
forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is positive with a small uncertainty range; that from
the direct aerosol effects is negative and smaller; whereas the negative forcing from the indirect
effects of aerosols on clouds might be large but is not well quantified.

3) The Guardian, unlike the IPCC, is not a credible source. Like popular science and other news sources it reports pseudoscience and speculation as absolute fact in order to have a story. While you may rely entirely upon these sources people that can actually interpret data for themselves like CC and me do not. When I ask for you to provide information to back up your claims I don't mean google up the first website that agrees with you.

Then use the IPCC report. Both say the same. Please, no more of these lousy ad hominems attacks on my sources. They're your sources too.

He's not being immature, he's mocking you. I don't blame him, you're completely wrong and incapable of putting up any evidence that is even slightly credible, the very marks of stupidity which have earned you your title.

Mocking? As in flamebaiting or trolling? I think you two both ride the clueless bus. Neither one of you have presented any evidence whatsoever, and you alone lack serious reading comprehension problems. Like I said, there's a large group of people (mostly conservatives with a vendetta of sorts) who don't like me. Possible I'm being confused with Hyperion too. Who the fuck knows, it's like the reelection of Bush: A democracy only works if the people actual know WTF is going on.

[Kuroneko]

Isn't continental drift gone? We have plate technotics now, according to my texts. They say it's different from CD, and that CD was wrong? I'm confused.

Care should be taken as to in what sense the labels are used. As a descritpive term, continental drift is really nothing more than the observation that the continents have been, are, or will be moving, and thus is not 'gone'. However, it is also the name of Wegener's original theory, which has been overturned because the mechanism that enabled continental movement was not acceptable. In that particular sense, continental drift is 'gone'.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Isn't continental drift gone? We have plate technotics now, according to my texts. They say it's different from CD, and that CD was wrong? I'm confused.

Care should be taken as to in what sense the labels are used. As a descritpive term, continental drift is really nothing more than the observation that the continents have been, are, or will be moving, and thus is not 'gone'. However, it is also the name of Wegener's original theory, which has been overturned because the mechanism that enabled continental movement was not acceptable. In that particular sense, continental drift is 'gone'.

Plate tectonics and continental drift are used interchangably in colloquial geology. The mechanism is bad, you're right, but the fact that continents move is an observable reality. That's why its "law" and not "theory" and why I used it as an example of the difference between the two terms. Continental Drift and tectonics have become the "Grand Unified Theory" of geology and explain almost everything that we used to "not know why" at the beginning of the 20th century.

I'll let hyperion keep ranting and claiming I'm not a scientist, though. Its kinda entertaining, like when you shake 2 bugs in a jar and watch them fight.