Evolution vs. Anthropogenic Global Warming

[code1211]

I find the inability of you guys to extrapolate, empathize and or even think outside the box amazing. It fascinates because there is lots of evidence, should we ruin the earth as we did rivers, streams, and many landfills to prove we can do it? Or should we help as we did for acid rain? There is enough evidence to sink the Titanic, but if the mind cannot accept something it does not want to accept. Has nothing to do with reality as proving the earth is not flat to those who believe it so is like .... oh, did you hear the moon is made of cheese.

As was once said on the floor of parliment,"The right gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests and his imagination for his facts."

Our rivers and streams are cleaner today than they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Much cleaner.

So is the air.

Acid rain was a provable, very straight line bit of logic. We were putting sulfur into the air. The rain is dilute sulfuric acid. The sulfur is combining with water and oxygen and this is what is creating the sulfuric acid. Since the water and the oxygen is in the air, we will stop adding sulfur and that will eliminate the sulfuric acid.

It worked.

CO2 into the air is a bit different.

We are putting carbon into the air. Carbon is combining with oxygen creating CO2. At this point, the logic becomes less clear. There may or may not be a connection between this and anything. Global Climate is changing, but seems to change out of sync with the very constant rise of CO2. CO2 has always been an effect of changing temperature, not a cause.

Can rising CO2 be the cause now. Causes happen before effects. That is one of the defining charachteristics of causes. Effects happen after and as a result of causes. Again, a defining charchteristic. Saying that an effect can cause a cause is saying that the future can cause the past. This does not happen in real life.

The period of warming that we now enjoy started years before the Industrial Revolution and the resulting rise in CO2. That should present a problem for the thesis, but is conveniently ignored.

Warming caused by a rise in CO2 has not happened for 5 million years. This has not happened during the recent period of alternating glaciation and interglacials. Cooling has always started at the peak of the CO2 cycle and warming has always started at the lowest point of the CO2 cycle.

The logic of CO2 warming collapses in the real world. The example of Acid Rain does not apply since the example of acid rain existed in the real world and was the result of real world cause effect.

Of course real scientists in programs like this say just the diametrically opposite of what you claim. The physics of GHGs were established with Tyndal and Arrnhenius. In 1858 and 1896.

Teachers' Domain: Global Warming: The Physics of the Greenhouse Effect

Earth's relatively stable and hospitable average temperature is the result of a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect. The presence in the atmosphere of naturally occurring compounds, known as greenhouse gases, maintains Earth's temperature. This video segment adapted from NOVA/FRONTLINE describes how human activities are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and explains what effect this might have on global temperatures.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. For related theoretical issues, see the essay on Simple Models of

The last article is from the American Institute of Physics.

There were many things proven and believed in the 1800's that have been discredited today. Superiority of whites, inferiority of blacks especially but really anybody not British, missing link skeletons, faked skeletons, miracle cures, bleeding as a remedy of almost anything... you probably get the point.

To use the parlance of the AGW science, the "trick" is to prove it.

Go ahead.

Start with the warming that started before the start of the Industrial Revolution and complete with the cooling over the last 8 years in spite of the highest CO2 ever recorded in the history of the unverse (apply heavy reverb to the last few words).

You might want to address the start of the cycle of Ice Ages, the relation of Ice Ages to CO2 variations, the impact that CO2 had on the beginning of the cycle of Ice Ages and whether or not ocean currents like those interupted by the joining of North and South America or the Gulf Stream or the Japan Current have a stronger or weaker effect on the climate than CO2.

When that has been completed, please explain how Dr. James Hansen still has a highly respected reputation within the AGW community in spite of being unable to predict anything that has to do with climate.

This stuff is like kids clapping for Tinkerbell. If you really, really believe, Tink won't die.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There were many things proven and believed in the 1800's that have been discredited today.

Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[slackjawed]

I wasn't sure what the point of the thread was? Given that global warming and evolution are denied by the same people, some similarity must exist. Can you find it? The Scopes Trial should have settled at least one of the debates. After all a majority of Americans still don't believe in that theory. Theories in America are much weaker than conspiracies. Another oddity of our culture. Given that fact it would seem majorities in America are not very reliable determinants of the correctness of a theory. Oh sorry, theories are merely theories, and until hell freezes over debatable. Of course most Americans have never looked in a mirror nude so surely there is a reason they see no resemblance to any other species?

But back on a serious track, anyone old enough to see the results of lake, river, and ocean pollution as well as landfills that will be toxic forever knows that man can ruin the earth in all sorts of ways. And while the jury is still out on the effect man's wasteful use of materials has on this rather small planet, why not consider the positives of a Green world. Seems the sensible thing to do.

Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

More Proof of Global Warming: Scientific American
Science news videos from Scientific American

Facts About Global Warming: Do You Know the Truth?
Scientific Proof of Global Warming : Planetsave

11 Facts About Global Warming | Do Something

The 400,000 year view on global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

But we will be all be dead regardless of who is right - oblivion comes too soon for genuine care.

Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind (9781583228678): Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books


"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

Scopes was convicted of teaching the theory of evolution, which remained illegal in Tennessee for several years. The scopes trial did much more to keep the argument going than to resolve it. ImO that is because issues of science can not be settled in court. The creationists have been able to use the scopes trial to say that the court decided in favor of the bible, which it did. The scientists were left with the argument that science should not be settled in court.
All science should be decided by robust and open debate. Governments should not politicize science. the global warming theory has been politicized. The debate has been influenced for political and financial reasons. This gives the doubting side the ammunition to argue the validity of the theory, just as creationist did with the theory of evolution.

That is another way the two issues resemble each other.

 

[Si modo]

What percentage would you think were a match? From even a basic viewing and reading of conservative media and writing, I would say 80% or even 90%, I may even go higher. I'm not sure what cave you live in but that connection is obvious.

I live in a cave surrounded by scientists during the day.

You are talking out of your ass.

You live in a cage surrounded by scientists?? I knew it!!! You're a lab rat. Does it bother you too much when the guys and gals in the white coasts put the electrododads on your head and zap you?

Can you even read?

Wow. It only has four letters. I'm not sure if stupidity can get any more profound. It reminds me of Jake, rdean, zona, and jay canuck.

 

[Toronado3800]

If you seal up to two fish tanks, with a regular atmospheric mix in one, and a CO2 heavy mix in the other, which ends up warmer?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If you seal up to two fish tanks, with a regular atmospheric mix in one, and a CO2 heavy mix in the other, which ends up warmer?

Neither, because I set them both in the freezer

 

[Toronado3800]

Climate: 2009 Caps Hottest Decade on Record - ABC News

this whole temperature discussion is out of control.

My article is but a little one but one I dug up after hearing on tv the other day.

If the temperature record folks lose all their data then we're left with guessing the effects of greenhouse gasses on the environment. I know what I think they do thanks to small scale experiments. It seems lots riskier to ignore it than to simply be decent environment stewards.

 

[midcan5]

A closed jug is not a living planetary ecosystem, with literally billions of variables and compensatory mechanisms.

LOL You make an excellent point, the other day I dropped an apple in our kitchen and it went up proving science cannot be done in kitchens. Thanks for your brilliant insight.

[So if a small malignant cancer appeared on your small toe, you would then consider carefully the complexity of the whole system and decide given the vast variability of prognosis and outcomes not to do anything?]


Hansen is rather interesting, thanks for info.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way -- by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman

 

[Si modo]

A closed jug is not a living planetary ecosystem, with literally billions of variables and compensatory mechanisms.

LOL You make an excellent point, the other day I dropped an apple in our kitchen and it went up proving science cannot be done in kitchens. Thanks for your brilliant insight.

[So if a small malignant cancer appeared on your small toe, you would then consider carefully the complexity of the whole system and decide given the vast variability of prognosis and outcomes not to do anything?]


Hansen is rather interesting, thanks for info.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way -- by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman

Idiot.

 

[code1211]

If you seal up to two fish tanks, with a regular atmospheric mix in one, and a CO2 heavy mix in the other, which ends up warmer?

Do you have actual data from such an experiment in which one of the containers had 1 100th of one percent more CO2 than the other?

That is the difference between the CO2 content of the air today vs. the content of pre-industrial Earth.

Don't be afraid to provide the link.

 

[Oddball]

A closed jug is not a living planetary ecosystem, with literally billions of variables and compensatory mechanisms.

LOL You make an excellent point, the other day I dropped an apple in our kitchen and it went up proving science cannot be done in kitchens. Thanks for your brilliant insight.

[So if a small malignant cancer appeared on your small toe, you would then consider carefully the complexity of the whole system and decide given the vast variability of prognosis and outcomes not to do anything?]


Hansen is rather interesting, thanks for info.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way -- by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman

Sometimes, your wealth if purposeful numbskullery is truly astonishing.

 

[The T]

If you seal up to two fish tanks, with a regular atmospheric mix in one, and a CO2 heavy mix in the other, which ends up warmer?

Nevermind that it is NOT a fair exercise seeing those would be 'controlled', and they exclude other factors that do NOT take external factors into consideration that would simulate the EARTH itself.

Ain't buyin' it.

 

[Old Rocks]

You damned fools did not 'buy' evolution until it became irrefutable.

Today, you do not 'buy' AGW, in spite of the fact that the physics backing it was done before the 'Origin' was published.

You are no differant today than you were yesterday. You cloak your willfull ignorance in semantics, and I am talking to you, Si Modo, and use what you consider to be 'humor' to deny the reality that is so obvious.

Do I hold you fools in contempt. Damned right I do.

 

[Si modo]

You damned fools did not 'buy' evolution until it became irrefutable.
....

LMAO! Yeah, those damn scientists accepting a theory until the point that it is falsified. How dare they.

.... Today, you do not 'buy' AGW, in spite of the fact that the physics backing it was done before the 'Origin' was published.

You are no differant today than you were yesterday. You cloak your willfull ignorance in semantics, and I am talking to you, Si Modo, and use what you consider to be 'humor' to deny the reality that is so obvious.

Do I hold you fools in contempt. Damned right I do.

Irrespective of your hissy fit, science tends to be picky that way - there is a clear logic of scientific discovery, definitions actually have meaning (semantics, as you say), etc.. I really don't know what your reality is, but I prefer the reality of the current state of the science when evaluating science.

 

[code1211]

You damned fools did not 'buy' evolution until it became irrefutable.

Today, you do not 'buy' AGW, in spite of the fact that the physics backing it was done before the 'Origin' was published.

You are no differant today than you were yesterday. You cloak your willfull ignorance in semantics, and I am talking to you, Si Modo, and use what you consider to be 'humor' to deny the reality that is so obvious.

Do I hold you fools in contempt. Damned right I do.

Okay, let's play your silly game.

Evolution predicts that any species will adapt to the local environment or die out. It also predicts that succeeding generations will be similar, but may change gradually or in mutations producing slight variations from the "original" or preceeding version of the same species.

Finally, the changes are so predictable that entire industries have sprung up that do nothing else than change existing species through the scientific application of known relationships to produce species which are needed or more highly desired. Thoroughbred horses or dogs, Pioneer Corn and all the rest. Real results in the real world.

The cause effect relationship of the science that backs up the theory of Evolution is observable and reproducable, provides the basis for accurate prediction of effects from specific causes and is reliable with or without a majority vote among scientists.

AGW predicts that CO2 is the primary forcing factor on our climate and that increased CO2 in the Atmosphere will cause warming due to the Greenhouse Effect. It also predicts that reducing the amount of CO2 in the air will stop warming and cause cooling.

In stark contrast to the science behind evolution, real world examples are just the opposite of these predictions made by the science behind AGW. In every example of nature, the rise and fall of temperature is the cause, not the effect, of the rise and fall of CO2.

The only businesses that have sprung up are wealth re-distribution schemes that are government driven by idiots with no stake in the game except for the driving ambition to sit in an office with a packed schedule of meetings.

The science of AGW has never, that is, never, not one time, not a single example, never, made an accurate prediction of climate change. Even the predictions counter the other predictions. Chris is fond of citing MIT as a predictor of dire consequence. MIT changes its prediction for the next 100 years every 2 or 3 years.

The cause effect relationship of the science that backs up AGW is not ovservable or reproducable. This science does not provide the basis for accurate prediction of effects from this one specific cause that they demand is the primary cause. This science is only proven by a majority vote of scientists and political hacks whose incomes depend on garnering grant money to do research.

The only similarity I can see between these two sciences is the lab coats.

 

[Polk]

I believe releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is bad.

Then you should be VERY upset about water vapor and NF3, which are both FAR more powerful and efficacious greenhouse gases than the one vital to all life on the planet, CO2.

But, since neither of them is a product of evil capitalistic man's evil combustion fetish, they're either not ever mentioned or they are minimized.

Every religion needs a devil, and CO2 is the AGW devil. Evil industrial capitalistic man are the demons.

You "believe" releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is "bad" due to conditioning and mostly emotionalism.

Uhh...

Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.

Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

 

[Polk]

There has been no warming since 2001. Statiscally, where any climate change is measured, there has been cooling.

That's simply not true.

An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.

In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis.

Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com

 

[Si modo]

I believe releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is bad.

Then you should be VERY upset about water vapor and NF3, which are both FAR more powerful and efficacious greenhouse gases than the one vital to all life on the planet, CO2.

But, since neither of them is a product of evil capitalistic man's evil combustion fetish, they're either not ever mentioned or they are minimized.

Every religion needs a devil, and CO2 is the AGW devil. Evil industrial capitalistic man are the demons.

You "believe" releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is "bad" due to conditioning and mostly emotionalism.

Uhh...

Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.

Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

The physical properties of water do indeed make it a more powerful greenhouse gas, and your article does not dispute that. Yes, as temperature rises, more water vapor will be in the atmosphere. Unless one can attach causation of a rise in temperature to CO2 in the atmosphere, water still remains a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, both directly and indirectly. Physical properties don't lie.

 

[code1211]

There has been no warming since 2001. Statiscally, where any climate change is measured, there has been cooling.

That's simply not true.

An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.

In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis.

Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com

Two quick observations:

Chris and Rocks would be quick to point out that Statisticains are not climatologists and therefore there insights are invalid.

MSNBC? 'Nuff said.

 

[code1211]

I believe releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is bad.

Then you should be VERY upset about water vapor and NF3, which are both FAR more powerful and efficacious greenhouse gases than the one vital to all life on the planet, CO2.

But, since neither of them is a product of evil capitalistic man's evil combustion fetish, they're either not ever mentioned or they are minimized.

Every religion needs a devil, and CO2 is the AGW devil. Evil industrial capitalistic man are the demons.

You "believe" releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is "bad" due to conditioning and mostly emotionalism.

Uhh...

Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.

Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Many of these articles are laying out ideas without mentioning the scales being discussed. For instance, Water vapor is just shy os 5% of the air. CO2 is just shy of 4 100's of 1% of the air. In other words, water vapor is about 1000 times more plentiful than is CO2.

1000 times more plentiful.

How much more powerful is CO2 as a GHG than is water vapor? Based on this imbalance of volume, which GHG has the greater net effect?

We also know that the increase of CO2 has a reverse geometric effect on the rise of temperature where in, to achieve the same incremental increase of temperature in the future, the amount of CO2 acting on the light in the future must double.

So, if there was no CO2 in the air, I think I have heard, the climate would be 13 degrees cooler. A mathematician reading this can probably figure this out. The first degree increase above the base temperature, 13 degrees less than right now, required a given amount of CO2 to be in the air to accomplish the rise. The next degree required twice that amount and so on. The factors across 13 degrees should be something like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096.

So, according to this thinking, whatever the incremental increase was between temperature degree "sign posts", it has required consistantly increasing CO2 factors to make it occur. So the doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial levels to 560 ppm will provide the same impact on the increase of temperature that the previous increase from 140 ppm to 280 ppm provided.

This assumes that there were no other factors that impacted climate whatsoever. Like the other 97% or so of the GHG's present in the air, and all of the other factors from sunspots to black top. That is, from very powerful natural factors to not so powerful man-made factors.

Nature is not a stagnant system. There are examples everywhere of a local eco system changing. The alarmists constantly proclaim the dire consequence about to occur raising as proof that trees are growing higher on mountains than in the past. That the permafrost is melting and bugs are flying in hoards above the previously pristine frozen tundra. They decry this as evidence of the world ending.

To the contrary, the world is not ending, it is changing. Trees "eat" CO2. This is a change to the equilibrium that alarmists cherish. Bugs are annoying little biting pests to you and me, but they are food to birds. They are also made of Carbon. So are the trees. So are the plants native to the plains of Siberia. We can look forward to fat Siberian birds living in newly reborn species of trees in an area formerly good only for gulags.

The natural equilibrium is not stagnant. It is adjusting as I write this. It will continue to adjust. And you know something else? There is nothing that I can do to stop it.