A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence

[Foxfyre]

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.



Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

We KNOW the planet has been much warmer in the past. We KNOW that as recently as 800 years ago the temps worldwide were at least 1.5 degrees warmer. We KNOW that man had no ability to affect climate change then.

Therefore, what is happening now logically happens independent of mans influence.

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!

One tiny correction in your thesis here. I would reword it thusly:

We THEREFORE must allow for the possibility, even probability, that what is happening now is happening mostly independent of man's influence.

The truth is we don't have any CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that humankind is not affecting the climate any more than the 'warmers' have any CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that humankind is affecting the climate. And even if humankind was affecting the climate, there is no way we are going to reverse what is happening without eliminating two thirds or more of the world's population, and I don't think the most rabid warmer has any stomach for that.

The best we can do is point to the proponderance of credible evidence that supports natural cyclical phenomena more than it supports humankind's affect.

We should continue to monitor and study and learn as much as we can about climate, of course, as it is our best means to anticipate and prepare ourselves for what is coming.

We should NOT be establishing national or world policy based on dubious speculation however, most especially when it hands over authoritarian powers to take away our choices, options, opportunities, and liberites whenever or however they choose.

 

[Si modo]

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.



Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

We KNOW the planet has been much warmer in the past. We KNOW that as recently as 800 years ago the temps worldwide were at least 1.5 degrees warmer. We KNOW that man had no ability to affect climate change then.

Therefore, what is happening now logically happens independent of mans influence.

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!

Uh oh, you're going to make some circuits short out with that.

 

[wirebender]

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know no such thing. Do describe the mechanism by which a CO2 molecule, or a molecule of any gas other than water vapor might capture and retain energy. The fact of an absorption spectrum tells us that energy is absorbed by gasses and the nearly instantaneous equal and opposite emission spectrum tells us that all energy absorbed by the molecule was thus emitted. The emission spectrum is proof that no energy is retained.

Now feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe a gas molecule can "trap" energy.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

We know historically that atmospheric CO2 levels have been over 5000ppm with no runaway greenhouse effect and levels have been over 3000ppm during glacial periods.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

Considering the fact of the Roman and Medieval warm periods which were warmer than present with lower CO2 levels, and far higher historical levels during colder periods, how could one earnestly suspect a trace atmospheric gas with no ability to capture and retain energy?

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

Done and done. Now do you have some observed proof that establishes an unequivocal connection between the activities of man and the changing global climate or not?

 

[asterism]

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

Prove this:

"We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year."

 

[konradv]

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year....

Really?...Where'd you dig up that little piece of info?

Why do you post to thread when you obviously know so little about the topic. That factoid has been stated and cited repeatedly. Perhaps you should read with comprehension, instead of filtering everything through your political bias.

 

[konradv]

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.



Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

Prove this:

"We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year."

Here's a start. Googling volcanic and CO2 concentration will get you more.

Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2

 

[Si modo]

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year....

Really?...Where'd you dig up that little piece of info?

Why do you post to thread when you obviously know so little about the topic. That factoid has been stated and cited repeatedly. Perhaps you should read with comprehension, instead of filtering everything through your political bias.

There's that infamous Komrad logic. You made the claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

Logic should be your friend, not your enemy.

 

[konradv]

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.



Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

There IS no logic in what you say.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

You obviously don't know much about logic. I blame Spock for making it seem to be anything that sounds smart. Your analysis is faulty in that we know that CO2 absorbs energy and when re-emitted has a 50% chance of heading towards earth, thereby warming it. You faulty use of that Latin phrase only applies when two situations have no relation to one another. This case is different in that we KNOW that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

 

[Si modo]

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

There IS no logic in what you say.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

You obviously don't know much about logic. I blame Spock for making it seem to be anything that sounds smart. Your analysis is faulty in that we know that CO2 absorbs energy and when re-emitted has a 50% chance of heading towards earth, thereby warming it. You faulty use of that Latin phrase only applies when two situations have no relation to one another. This case is different in that we KNOW that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

I made no analysis. You have equated correlation to causation. There IS no logic in that.

 

[wirebender]

Your analysis is faulty in that we know that CO2 absorbs energy and when re-emitted has a 50% chance of heading towards earth, thereby warming it.

So you believe that an object that is warmed passively (that is no heat source of its own) can further warm its source of heat? Excess energy with no work input? Free energy? Perpetual motion? I am laughing in your face.

Do you believe that you could set an electric heater capable of an output of 1000 watts per square meter in your home and then set a surface in front of it that would reflect some of the heat produced by the heater and the net result would be that your heater would then output more than 1000 watts per square meter? If that is so, why then haven't engineers designed heaters that would work on such a principle?

Your heart puts off energy in the form of heat. Do you believe the heat from your heart can warm your lungs and result in them having a temperature greater than your body temperature?

 

[percysunshine]

I am starting to think that the global warming threads should be placed with the birthers and the truthers under the conspiracy theory thread.


Science left this debate when the East Anglia fraud wes disclosed.

 

[Old Rocks]

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year....

Really?...Where'd you dig up that little piece of info?

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions.

In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.

Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate

 

[Old Rocks]

There IS no logic in what you say.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

You obviously don't know much about logic. I blame Spock for making it seem to be anything that sounds smart. Your analysis is faulty in that we know that CO2 absorbs energy and when re-emitted has a 50% chance of heading towards earth, thereby warming it. You faulty use of that Latin phrase only applies when two situations have no relation to one another. This case is different in that we KNOW that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

I made no analysis. You have equated correlation to causation. There IS no logic in that.

Same ol' Si bullshit. Yap-yap, but no data. Some scientist.

 

[Si modo]

You obviously don't know much about logic. I blame Spock for making it seem to be anything that sounds smart. Your analysis is faulty in that we know that CO2 absorbs energy and when re-emitted has a 50% chance of heading towards earth, thereby warming it. You faulty use of that Latin phrase only applies when two situations have no relation to one another. This case is different in that we KNOW that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

I made no analysis. You have equated correlation to causation. There IS no logic in that.

Same ol' Si bullshit. Yap-yap, but no data. Some scientist.

Yup, basic logic is bullshit to you. I know. Things haven't changed a bit.

 

[konradv]

I made no analysis. You have equated correlation to causation. There IS no logic in that.

Same ol' Si bullshit. Yap-yap, but no data. Some scientist.

Yup, basic logic is bullshit to you. I know. Things haven't changed a bit.

I did not equate correlation to causation. CO2's ability to absorb energy isn't correlation, it's reproducible scientific fact. The rise in CO2 since the advent of the IR and the overwhelming emissions by humans over volcanoes is fact. From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. There's no correlation involved. Just using scientific FACT to create a logical syllogism. Try and find the flaw, if you can. Many have tried. None have succeeded.

 

[Si modo]

Same ol' Si bullshit. Yap-yap, but no data. Some scientist.

Yup, basic logic is bullshit to you. I know. Things haven't changed a bit.

I did not equate correlation to causation.
....

Yes, you did.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

And, you do it again.

....

From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. ....

When you can comprehend even the basics, you may be better prepared for this subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem I think is the refusal to factor in all the other components that warm and cool the Earth or affect the climate.

It's like my college logic class. If you focus on only one thing:

The glasses are on the table.

The glasses are on Foxfyre.

Therefore, Foxfyre is a table.

 

[konradv]

Yup, basic logic is bullshit to you. I know. Things haven't changed a bit.

I did not equate correlation to causation.
....

Yes, you did.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

And, you do it again.

....

From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. ....

When you can comprehend even the basics, you may be better prepared for this subject.

You're an IDIOT. Check out the difference between facts and correlation. I have correlated nothing, but you insist on repeating the same false statement. Typical of deniers, though. They don't care about the science, since their stance is really political.

 

[Si modo]

I did not equate correlation to causation.
....

Yes, you did.

And, you do it again.

....

From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. ....

When you can comprehend even the basics, you may be better prepared for this subject.

You're an IDIOT. Check out the difference between facts and correlation. I have correlated nothing, but you insist on repeating the same false statement. Typical of deniers, though. They don't care about the science, since their stance is really political.

Where to start....

Ummmm, of course facts and correlation are different. Is that a gottcha? I can't tell. Really.

I knew you were lacking in even the basics, but I was seriously mistaken in how very remedial you are in those basics as I assumed you had at least an inkling of what a correlation is. And, as I never said YOU correlated a thing, your reading comprehension skills are also in question.

I could go on with the flaws in that short post of yours, but I am confident that is enough. You are your own enemy, but your playing at this subject, you do no favors for your views. I would say you also do no favors for science, but I am confident that no one would mistake you for one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, you did.

And, you do it again.

When you can comprehend even the basics, you may be better prepared for this subject.

You're an IDIOT. Check out the difference between facts and correlation. I have correlated nothing, but you insist on repeating the same false statement. Typical of deniers, though. They don't care about the science, since their stance is really political.

Where to start....

Ummmm, of course facts and correlation are different. Is that a gottcha? I can't tell. Really.

I knew you were lacking in even the basics, but I was seriously mistaken in how very remedial you are in those basics as I assumed you had at least an inkling of what a correlation is. And, as I never said YOU correlated a thing, your reading comprehension skills are also in question.

I could go on with the flaws in that short post of yours, but I am confident that is enough. You are your own enemy, but your playing at this subject, you do no favors for your views. I would say you also do no favors for science, but I am confident that no one would mistake you for one.

Yep, ol' Si could go on and on, and still never say a god damned thing.