[Craig W. Thomson]

It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.

Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.

[Craig W. Thomson]

If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Yes, I am not a bad writer:

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

Are YOU good at anything?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."

I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.

[Bored chemist]

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "

That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.

Oops; typo
It should have been
"Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
"No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
1"FALSE.
2 The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.""

Sorry for the confusion.

It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.

Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.

"Screw you."
I very much doubt you are my type.
"First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone"
Nobody said you were- I'm just concerned that you might do it by accident.
" because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree."
Nope, you have repeatedly claimed to bean expert on entropy- because you have read one book four times.
"secondly, if people want to check that claim,..."
As I have asked before, who cares what your qualifications are, and why?
What matters isn't what you learned at college- what matters is what you post here and so far you haven't covered yourself in glory.
"That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, "
It's not as if that's been disputed.

"...who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree."
Again so what?
It hasn't stopped you messing up badly here.
"What are your credentials?"
The important ones here are that I generally post stuff that people accept is correct because I can back it up with evidence.
"What's your last name?"
Why would that matter- especially since I have already explained why I post under a pseudonym?
"Where did you go to school?"
Cheshire or later OX1 4AJ
And I'd like you to explain why you thought that was worth asking- not least because there's no way you can verify it.

"Poser, you lie."
What deliberately false statement do you think I have made?

"You haven't been right about squat in this form,"
I presume you mean forum.
And it's clear that I have been right about rather a lot of things.
Please point out a few times where you think otherwise  (other than trivial ones) so I can comment on them.
" I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. "
Well, since I am, that just shows that you don't recognise reality. That's more your problem than mine.

"You're just another internet nobody "
Everybody on the internet is a nobody because it's practically impossible to prove your identity.
"pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have,"                       
Why would I bother?   
As I have said, qualifications are unverifiable here so they are meaningless.
I am, on the other hand, well enough qualified to earn  a living as a scientist.
" trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet"
We covered your failure to understand the word troll earlier.
Also I asked you why you think I'm a sock puppet.
For that to be the case there would have to be a puppet master.
Who do you think that is?

If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Yes, I am not a bad writer:

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

Are YOU good at anything?

Well, I'm a published writer.
I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson

(Please don't waste time trying)

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."

I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.

No, just learn to understand physics.
Do you understand, for example, that when 4 subatomic particles interact there is no friction?

[Bored chemist]

By the way,
You forgot to address any of the 127 mistakes you made.
Pleas try harder to do so.

[jeffreyH]

Well back to the subject at hand. Data is everything but you also have to understand that the accuracy of the data can never be 100% and all of the factors that skew the data must be understood. Here is a page that discusses the ice core data and some of these issue surrounding data accuracy.

http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html

I would be interested in Alan's view of this page or anyone else for that matter. Even Craig if he has something reasonable to say.

[jeffreyH]

You can find the ice core data here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html. With respect to my previous post the most recent data is likely to be the most accurate. If we look at the graph for the last 2000 years it is methane that stands out more prominently then CO2. Although the last two gases are recorded in parts per billion that does not take away from the fact that methane increase has outstripped that of CO2. At that level I am unable to say what effect this increase would have.

[agyejy]

You can find the ice core data here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html. With respect to my previous post the most recent data is likely to be the most accurate. If we look at the graph for the last 2000 years it is methane that stands out more prominently then CO2. Although the last two gases are recorded in parts per billion that does not take away from the fact that methane increase has outstripped that of CO2. At that level I am unable to say what effect this increase would have.

A brief discussion of methane can be found here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

The basic point is that there is so much less methane it accounts for less than 30% of the observed warming. Also, the following graph is very promising:



as it shows that the methane concentration may have leveled off. As long as a natural source of methane like melting permafrost or clathrates don't start releasing massive amounts of methane we might be able to reverse that trend soon.

[jeffreyH]

In the atmosphere methane, carbon dioxide and water vapour are linked together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

"Troposphere

The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001; however, increasing emissions of methane over time reduce the concentration of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere.[18] With less OH˚ to react with, the lifespan of methane could also increase, resulting in greater concentrations of atmospheric methane."

"Stratosphere

Even if it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane can usually only last 12 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth’s next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor."

"Reaction with free chlorine

Methane also reacts with natural chlorine gas in the atmosphere to produce chloromethane and hydrochloric acid (HCl). This process is known as free radical halogenations.

CH₄ + Cl₂ → CH₃Cl + HCl"

This balance is what human activity is disturbing.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson

False:

See the I.D.?

I posted that for a different troll a couple of years ago when he questioned my identity.

At least he had a real name and a real master of physics degree.

You're just a sock puppet.

[jeffreyH]

If it is correct the levelling off of methane is a positive sign

[Bored chemist]

I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson

False:

See the I.D.?

I posted that for a different troll a couple of years ago when he questioned my identity.

At least he had a real name and a real master of physics degree.

You're just a sock puppet.

Well, you just proved my point about three things
The first is that you are not good at getting things right- your "argument is vacuous here and it presumably was when you employed it earlier.
You have also proved my point that it isn't practical or possible to prove who you are on the web and you also proved that you don't understand what a sock puppet is.
If I'm a puppet, who is the puppeteer?

[Bored chemist]

Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?

Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.

I knew that several weeks ago. Why do you think I'm still arguing with you?

You lie about people and identities just like you lie about climate change.

You're just like every other liar--suspicious that everyone else is lying.

[Bored chemist]

Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?

Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.

I knew that several weeks ago. Why do you think I'm still arguing with you?

You lie about people and identities just like you lie about climate change.

You're just like every other liar--suspicious that everyone else is lying.

How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.

[Craig W. Thomson]

How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.

There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.

How long have you had this cowardice problem, trolling people anonymously?

[Bored chemist]

How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.

There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.

How long have you had this cowardice problem, trolling people anonymously?

"There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity."
Nobody suggested that there was.
This is silly.
There is a difference between what I said and what you claim I said.
That's straw-manning and you really should know better.

What I said was that nobody  prove who they are on the net- which is why it's pretty much pointless to worry about anyone's real ID.
That's not the same as saying you are lying about your identity.


Do you really not understand the difference?


Now, since you keep steadfastly refusing to answer legitimate questions - like why did you get those 127 things wrong- and you steadfastly keep asking pointless questions even after they have been answered, it' pretty clear that you are the troll.

Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?

You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.

[Bored chemist]

Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?

You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.

You are a twit, aren't you?
You forgot to check what the other reasons might be.
The "thank you" feature is new so I probably posted something near 8000 times before anyone "thanked" anyone on this site.
So, it's probably at least as realistic to simply compare totals- where I outpace you about 3 to 1.

However the fact that I'm still here after 8185 posts suggests that, whatever my style might be, I haven't been banned yet.

[Bored chemist]

Wherever he is, let's try.
There are no perfect records of past temperature or past CO2 content of the atmosphere.

However we can, today, make measurements of the spectroscopic properties of  CO2.
Those properties indicate that it would act in in a way that has become known as the "greenhouse effect".
There is little or no doubt that temperatures are currently rising.
There is no doubt that mankind has added roughly a third to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last century or two- and much of that addition has been recent.

Setting aside the issue of proving that the temperature rise has been due to the excess CO2.

How could you explain that the additional CO2 would not give rise to a temperature increase?

Unless you can disprove the observation that CO2 absorbs IR there's no way round the fact that more CO2 will give rise to more trapped heat.