Climategate, another Story that won't Go Away

[IanC]

you're building strawmen again. no one, to my knowledge is saying that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas. especially the initial portion which has a large effect while furthur additions have less and less impact.

Comment On The Science Paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth

unfortunately the climate models don't actually describe what is actually happening in the atmosphere. here is a paper that uses real data rather that model projections to describe how clouds change the flow of energy to space. it is especially telling that the measured relative humidity has been going down for most altitudes even though the models say it should be going up.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf

and as an added bonus, here is a quick article on why back scattered IR can't heat the oceans.

As a result of the consequent cascade effect bringing forward the timing of the change of state of multitudes of water molecules, the increased evaporation results in an increased net flow of energy from water to air . The rate of evaporation always increases in proportion to the supply of extra energy to water molecules at the surface or to molecules of air that are in contact with the water surface so that no warming of the ocean by the air can occur.

When the air is cooler than the water, evaporation can slow down (especially if the air is humid) because the transfer of energy from water to air could be inhibited by the reduced capacity of the air to carry it as water vapour with it’s attendant latent energy but evaporation still occurs continuously (in the absence of saturation) because of the density and pressure differentials between ocean and air and also because of the processes of wind and convection which make the reduced vapour carrying capacity of cooler air less significant than it’s continuing ability to accept evaporating water molecules.

Crucially it does not matter whether the water or the air is the warmer because the latent heat required can be taken from either. The evaporative process will always draw it’s latent heat from the most readily available source whether it be water or air. The size of the temperature differential between air and water combined with the rate of movement of both air and water within the region of interaction dictates the rate of evaporation and the density and pressure differential dictates the direction of energy flow which on Earth is always continuous at variable rates from water to air.

Thus direct solar heating of the air will cause increased evaporation as will warming of the water surface by increased downwelling infra red radiation onto the water surface from, say, extra human CO2. The so called ocean skin theory therefore fails because despite any warming of the ocean skin the evaporation rate increases to compensate for it and there is no net reduction in the ‘normal’ energy flow from ocean to air.

Our Saviour - The Hydrological Cycle by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists

 

[IanC]

the Mar 15 & 17 threads at Climate Audit show the initial attempts of 'hide the decline'. by the time MBH98 hockey stick graph made IPCC the technique was fully polished

 

[edthecynic]

everyone understands CO2 as a blanket or a greenhouse but few easily understand the water cycle as a heat pump to release latent heat above the clouds.

I took all the bullshit out of your post which left the above.

Adding up the Greenhouse Effect: Attributing the contributions | Climate Change

Finally, all of this further reinforces the importance of feedbacks on climate, and that the very popular claim of “water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas” is a bit misguided, even if it is the largest source of infrared absorption in the current atmosphere.
Removing all of the water vapor from the atmosphere (and not replenishing it) would trigger a snowball Earth as well, but the non-condensable greenhouse gases (those which don’t precipitate from the atmosphere under current Earthlike temperature and pressures) such as CO2 would still be able to support a surface temperature of about 10 K higher than it otherwise would be. If you remove the CO2 and other GHG’s however, then you’d also lose a substantial part of the water vapor and cloud longwave effects, resulting in a near collapse of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. A significant water vapor greenhouse effect would not be sustainable without the “skeleton” provided by the non-condensable greenhouse gases, although it is obviously a significant amplification factor, both for the total greenhouse effect and its change in the future. It’s thus like the “skin” on a human or animal which needs the skeleton to hold it up, but provides the extra form and protection that we need to survive. This forcing-feedback distinction also makes CO2 the fundamental driver of global climate change (at least insofar as alterations to the optical characteristics of the atmosphere are concerned). See for example, Richard Alley’s AGU talk which focuses on CO2 as the largest control knob of climate change over geologic timescales. The water vapor is just dragged along with the temperature change, but then substantially amplifies any forcing to help provide the full magnitude of the temperature fluctuations; this is also a reason cold climates tend to be much drier than warmer ones.
All of this is moreso academically interesting than anything. Obviously we don’t live in a world where we are plucking out CO2 all together and then adding water vapor, or having a world where you can have clouds without water vapor, etc…but it should help to put into context the primary (water vapor, clouds, CO2) and secondary factors to the greenhouse effect, and put into perspective the important distinction between a forcing and a feedback.

Wow! It looks like this post shut the deniers up!

you're building strawmen again. no one, to my knowledge is saying that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas. especially the initial portion which has a large effect while furthur additions have less and less impact. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735

"To my knowledge" is one of those disclaimers that allows you to say anything that isn't true. Deniers have habitually said CO2 does not drive global warming. First it was the Sun, then the PDO, then water vapor, etc., everything except CO2, which deniers say is too small a percentage of atmospheric gasses to be an influence.

1. GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2 - Global Warming ...
   
   Apr 29, 2007 ... GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2 ...
   www.[B]globalwarming[/B]awarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html - Cached
   
   Show more results from globalwarmingawarenessblog.com
   
   
2. Global warming is not caused by CO2
   
   Global warming is not caused by CO2 Earth discussion. ... Even if CO2 is not fully to blame for global warming, we still need to cut down on emmissions for ...
   Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums › Other Sciences › Earth - Cached - Similar
   
3. Global warming caused by CO2 not supported by facts « 22MOON.COM
   
   Apr 22, 2008 ... Global warming caused by CO2 not supported by facts. Global Cooling? by Dennis Avery. The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate ...
   rashmanly.wordpress.com/.../global-warming-caused-by-co2-not-supported-by-facts/ - Cached - Similar
   
4. Cold Facts on Global Warming
   
   The GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its ..... Is the global warming theory false? Or should older measurements not be trusted? ...
   brneurosci.org/co2.html - Cached - Similar
   
5. Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing ...
   
   telegraph.co.ukNov 12, 2009 ... A Polar Bear in the Arctic, global warming: Climate change 'sceptic' Ian ... a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not," he added. ...
   www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html - Similar - Add to iGoogle
   

 

[westwall]

I took all the bullshit out of your post which left the above.

Adding up the Greenhouse Effect: Attributing the contributions | Climate Change

Finally, all of this further reinforces the importance of feedbacks on climate, and that the very popular claim of “water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas” is a bit misguided, even if it is the largest source of infrared absorption in the current atmosphere.
Removing all of the water vapor from the atmosphere (and not replenishing it) would trigger a snowball Earth as well, but the non-condensable greenhouse gases (those which don’t precipitate from the atmosphere under current Earthlike temperature and pressures) such as CO2 would still be able to support a surface temperature of about 10 K higher than it otherwise would be. If you remove the CO2 and other GHG’s however, then you’d also lose a substantial part of the water vapor and cloud longwave effects, resulting in a near collapse of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. A significant water vapor greenhouse effect would not be sustainable without the “skeleton” provided by the non-condensable greenhouse gases, although it is obviously a significant amplification factor, both for the total greenhouse effect and its change in the future. It’s thus like the “skin” on a human or animal which needs the skeleton to hold it up, but provides the extra form and protection that we need to survive. This forcing-feedback distinction also makes CO2 the fundamental driver of global climate change (at least insofar as alterations to the optical characteristics of the atmosphere are concerned). See for example, Richard Alley’s AGU talk which focuses on CO2 as the largest control knob of climate change over geologic timescales. The water vapor is just dragged along with the temperature change, but then substantially amplifies any forcing to help provide the full magnitude of the temperature fluctuations; this is also a reason cold climates tend to be much drier than warmer ones.
All of this is moreso academically interesting than anything. Obviously we don’t live in a world where we are plucking out CO2 all together and then adding water vapor, or having a world where you can have clouds without water vapor, etc…but it should help to put into context the primary (water vapor, clouds, CO2) and secondary factors to the greenhouse effect, and put into perspective the important distinction between a forcing and a feedback.

Wow! It looks like this post shut the deniers up!

you're building strawmen again. no one, to my knowledge is saying that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas. especially the initial portion which has a large effect while furthur additions have less and less impact. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735

"To my knowledge" is one of those disclaimers that allows you to say anything that isn't true. Deniers have habitually said CO2 does not drive global warming. First it was the Sun, then the PDO, then water vapor, etc., everything except CO2, which deniers say is too small a percentage of atmospheric gasses to be an influence.

1. GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2 - Global Warming ...
   
   Apr 29, 2007 ... GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2 ...
   www.[B]globalwarming[/B]awarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html - Cached
   
   Show more results from globalwarmingawarenessblog.com
   
   
2. Global warming is not caused by CO2
   
   Global warming is not caused by CO2 Earth discussion. ... Even if CO2 is not fully to blame for global warming, we still need to cut down on emmissions for ...
   Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums › Other Sciences › Earth - Cached - Similar
   
3. Global warming caused by CO2 not supported by facts « 22MOON.COM
   
   Apr 22, 2008 ... Global warming caused by CO2 not supported by facts. Global Cooling? by Dennis Avery. The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate ...
   rashmanly.wordpress.com/.../global-warming-caused-by-co2-not-supported-by-facts/ - Cached - Similar
   
4. Cold Facts on Global Warming
   
   The GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its ..... Is the global warming theory false? Or should older measurements not be trusted? ...
   brneurosci.org/co2.html - Cached - Similar
   
5. Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing ...
   
   telegraph.co.ukNov 12, 2009 ... A Polar Bear in the Arctic, global warming: Climate change 'sceptic' Ian ... a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not," he added. ...
   www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html - Similar - Add to iGoogle
   

No ed it isn't. To my knowledge is merely an admission that no one can know everything. Something the cultists don't sem to believe. I find it amazing that you will attack a sceptic for using a simple admission while ignoring the fact that EVERY single prediction that the cultists make allways has a "could", or a "maybe" or a "possibly". They never come right out and say, "if X occurs then Y will certainly follow". They ALLWAYS hedge their bets with could. That is how con men get away with their crimes for so long, "well your honor I never claimed it would make money, I just claimed it could".

 

[Trakar]

No ed it isn't. To my knowledge is merely an admission that no one can know everything. Something the cultists don't sem to believe. I find it amazing that you will attack a sceptic for using a simple admission while ignoring the fact that EVERY single prediction that the cultists make allways has a "could", or a "maybe" or a "possibly". They never come right out and say, "if X occurs then Y will certainly follow". They ALLWAYS hedge their bets with could. That is how con men get away with their crimes for so long, "well your honor I never claimed it would make money, I just claimed it could".

You desire religion and political philosophy, science and nature don't deal in certainties.

 

[IanC]

No ed it isn't. To my knowledge is merely an admission that no one can know everything. Something the cultists don't sem to believe. I find it amazing that you will attack a sceptic for using a simple admission while ignoring the fact that EVERY single prediction that the cultists make allways has a "could", or a "maybe" or a "possibly". They never come right out and say, "if X occurs then Y will certainly follow". They ALLWAYS hedge their bets with could. That is how con men get away with their crimes for so long, "well your honor I never claimed it would make money, I just claimed it could".

You desire religion and political philosophy, science and nature don't deal in certainties.

actually Westwall wants climate science to go back to scientific principles. Trakar- did you get a chance to look at the timeline for the progression of 'hide the decline' at climate audit? it shows how the discordant data was discarded, then how instrumental temps were spliced in, and then the final polished version appeared in the IPCC with no admissions of what had happened. but if challenged they knew they could point to the 'fine print' in previous referenced papers. was it fraud? maybe not in a court of law but it was certainly deceptive practise. are you sure these are the scientists that you want to defend?

 

[westwall]

No ed it isn't. To my knowledge is merely an admission that no one can know everything. Something the cultists don't sem to believe. I find it amazing that you will attack a sceptic for using a simple admission while ignoring the fact that EVERY single prediction that the cultists make allways has a "could", or a "maybe" or a "possibly". They never come right out and say, "if X occurs then Y will certainly follow". They ALLWAYS hedge their bets with could. That is how con men get away with their crimes for so long, "well your honor I never claimed it would make money, I just claimed it could".

You desire religion and political philosophy, science and nature don't deal in certainties.

Nice try oltrakarfraud. I DEMAND good science. You folks are the ones with the "tenets" of AGW. Tenets is a religious term, not a scientific one. You want religion? I give you AGW and it's high priests after all, just like back in the middle ages when only the priests could tell the common folk the mind of God, the claim is that only climatologists can tell us what they are seeing or saying....just like the priests of old.

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."



Expert credibility in climate change

 

[Trakar]

No ed it isn't. To my knowledge is merely an admission that no one can know everything. Something the cultists don't sem to believe. I find it amazing that you will attack a sceptic for using a simple admission while ignoring the fact that EVERY single prediction that the cultists make allways has a "could", or a "maybe" or a "possibly". They never come right out and say, "if X occurs then Y will certainly follow". They ALLWAYS hedge their bets with could. That is how con men get away with their crimes for so long, "well your honor I never claimed it would make money, I just claimed it could".

You desire religion and political philosophy, science and nature don't deal in certainties.

Nice try oltrakarfraud. I DEMAND good science. You folks are the ones with the "tenets" of AGW. Tenets is a religious term, not a scientific one...

Tenet - from the latin root tenēre which means "to hold" - : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession.

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are:
1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error.
2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain.
3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

It is perfectly acceptable to speak of scientific tenets, modern economic tenets, or even the tenets of skepticism.

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Expert credibility in climate change

And you feel this quote supports your position, how? Again, the quotes and references you supply seem to be at odds with your position and assertions.

 

[westwall]

You desire religion and political philosophy, science and nature don't deal in certainties.

Nice try oltrakarfraud. I DEMAND good science. You folks are the ones with the "tenets" of AGW. Tenets is a religious term, not a scientific one...

Tenet - from the latin root tenēre which means "to hold" - : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession.

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are:
1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error.
2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain.
3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

It is perfectly acceptable to speak of scientific tenets, modern economic tenets, or even the tenets of skepticism.

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Expert credibility in climate change

And you feel this quote supports your position, how? Again, the quotes and references you supply seem to be at odds with your position and assertions.

I am not the one making the assertions, you are. You have asserted that man is causing GW by injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. I am reminding you that all of the observed phenomena that you claim supports your theory has been observed in the past (and the not so distant past for the vast majority of it) with no influence by man.

It is up to you to PROVE what you are saying. I can show quite clearly that the same things have happened in the past without mans influence, thus following the Principle Of Uniformitarianism, it is most likely that the observed phenomena today are likewise NORMAL AND NATURAL.

You are asserting otherwise. So prove it.

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

 

[IanC]

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are: 1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error. 2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain. 3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

wow! climate science doesnt measure up to those yardsticks.

 

[westwall]

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are: 1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error. 2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain. 3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

wow! climate science doesnt measure up to those yardsticks.

That's the truth. It doesn't pass a single one of them. Keith Briffa (a leading light in the AGW religion) famously admitted he couldn't reproduce his own results! That alone should have sent up red flags all over the world but the cultists ignore that and claim those of us who demand a return to rigorous scientific protocols are "anti-science".

Lunacy personified!

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice try oltrakarfraud. I DEMAND good science. You folks are the ones with the "tenets" of AGW. Tenets is a religious term, not a scientific one...

Tenet - from the latin root tenēre which means "to hold" - : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession.

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are:
1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error.
2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain.
3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

It is perfectly acceptable to speak of scientific tenets, modern economic tenets, or even the tenets of skepticism.

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Expert credibility in climate change

And you feel this quote supports your position, how? Again, the quotes and references you supply seem to be at odds with your position and assertions.

I am not the one making the assertions, you are. You have asserted that man is causing GW by injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. I am reminding you that all of the observed phenomena that you claim supports your theory has been observed in the past (and the not so distant past for the vast majority of it) with no influence by man.

It is up to you to PROVE what you are saying. I can show quite clearly that the same things have happened in the past without mans influence, thus following the Principle Of Uniformitarianism, it is most likely that the observed phenomena today are likewise NORMAL AND NATURAL.

You are asserting otherwise. So prove it.

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

Yes, there have been times in the past when there were massive injections of GHGs from causes not related to mankind. And they caused very rapid warming, warming that caused both major and minor extinctions. So what you are claiming is that because mankind is the primary cause of the present massive injection of GHGs, that the result will be differant. What you claim is that the physics works differantly when mankind is involved. And then you claim to be a scientist.

So how does the Principle of Uniformatiarnism work for periods such as the Permian-Triassic boundry? How about the end of the Cretecious? How does Uniformitarianism explain the banded iron formations? Where are we seeing those being deposited today?

You throw that term around in contexts that leave me doubting that you have any idea of it's history or what it actually means.

 

[westwall]

Tenet - from the latin root tenēre which means "to hold" - : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession.

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are:
1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error.
2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain.
3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

It is perfectly acceptable to speak of scientific tenets, modern economic tenets, or even the tenets of skepticism.



And you feel this quote supports your position, how? Again, the quotes and references you supply seem to be at odds with your position and assertions.

I am not the one making the assertions, you are. You have asserted that man is causing GW by injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. I am reminding you that all of the observed phenomena that you claim supports your theory has been observed in the past (and the not so distant past for the vast majority of it) with no influence by man.

It is up to you to PROVE what you are saying. I can show quite clearly that the same things have happened in the past without mans influence, thus following the Principle Of Uniformitarianism, it is most likely that the observed phenomena today are likewise NORMAL AND NATURAL.

You are asserting otherwise. So prove it.

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

Yes, there have been times in the past when there were massive injections of GHGs from causes not related to mankind. And they caused very rapid warming, warming that caused both major and minor extinctions. So what you are claiming is that because mankind is the primary cause of the present massive injection of GHGs, that the result will be differant. What you claim is that the physics works differantly when mankind is involved. And then you claim to be a scientist.

So how does the Principle of Uniformatiarnism work for periods such as the Permian-Triassic boundry? How about the end of the Cretecious? How does Uniformitarianism explain the banded iron formations? Where are we seeing those being deposited today?

You throw that term around in contexts that leave me doubting that you have any idea of it's history or what it actually means.

There have also been massive temperature swings of 15 degrees that lasted hundreds of years ABSENT ANY FLUCTUATION IN THE CONCENTRATION OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

Until you can rationalise that little fact away your theory is built of a house of cards.

 

[IanC]

Tenet - from the latin root tenēre which means "to hold" - : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession.

The most fundemental/foundational tenets of science are:
1) The identity of measurements are demonstrable and amenable to estimation of error.
2) The elimination of extraneous factors that can affect measurements are certain.
3) Meaningful results are repeatable by independent duplication of efforts.

It is perfectly acceptable to speak of scientific tenets, modern economic tenets, or even the tenets of skepticism.



And you feel this quote supports your position, how? Again, the quotes and references you supply seem to be at odds with your position and assertions.

I am not the one making the assertions, you are. You have asserted that man is causing GW by injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. I am reminding you that all of the observed phenomena that you claim supports your theory has been observed in the past (and the not so distant past for the vast majority of it) with no influence by man.

It is up to you to PROVE what you are saying. I can show quite clearly that the same things have happened in the past without mans influence, thus following the Principle Of Uniformitarianism, it is most likely that the observed phenomena today are likewise NORMAL AND NATURAL.

You are asserting otherwise. So prove it.

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

Yes, there have been times in the past when there were massive injections of GHGs from causes not related to mankind. And they caused very rapid warming, warming that caused both major and minor extinctions. So what you are claiming is that because mankind is the primary cause of the present massive injection of GHGs, that the result will be differant. What you claim is that the physics works differantly when mankind is involved. And then you claim to be a scientist.

So how does the Principle of Uniformatiarnism work for periods such as the Permian-Triassic boundry? How about the end of the Cretecious? How does Uniformitarianism explain the banded iron formations? Where are we seeing those being deposited today?

You throw that term around in contexts that leave me doubting that you have any idea of it's history or what it actually means.

Old Rocks- are you not doing exactly the same thing you are accusing Westy of? You are ignoring the reasons why GHGs were released into the atmosphere and blaming the GHGs for what happened. Why do you think GHGs are the cause rather than the symptom? So far, the temp increases are easily within normal natural fluxuation. The earth has many built-in stasis mechanisms that return the climate to conditions normal to the overall set of natural factors. The scientists that claim CO2 is the thermostat have been shown to be incorrect in their modelling and their predictions. When do we go back to analyzing data for insight rather than distorting data to fit obviously incorrect theories?