Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.
All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.
And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...
OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?
But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..
- ocean acidification isn't data[/quot
Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.
More bullshit...there isn't the first proxy study that could support such a claim...not nearly enough resolution...but then bullshit is all you have...isn't it?
The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.
More bullshit...as you have already demonstrated...you can't come up with the first piece of observed, measured, quantified empirical data to support the claim...all you have is failed computer models...
The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.
And yet more bullshit...no proxy study supports the claim...not nearly enough resolution...you are nothing more than a useful idiot parrot spouting what you have been told to spout without regard to whether you can support the statements.
It is not and you have no evidence that it is.
Of course it's true...you just wish it weren't.
Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.
Doesn't really matter since CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.
Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.
And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the whole steaming pile to support the AGW hypothesis...I am afraid that it is you who doesn't have jack shit...and are a f'ing idiot for being so thoroughly duped...
Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.
that is all climate science has...not the first shred of actual evidence of causation.
You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.
Sorry crick..that statement is a bald faced lie...but it has been well established that you are a bald faced liar without the first shred of anything that resembles actual character...you are a useful idiot..nothing more.
I named my empirical science. Where is yours?