Turns out that even the skeptics agree, the earth is warming abnormally

[bigrebnc1775]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4695995-post1.html

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, it's not clear. There is just as much empirical evidence for my observation as there is for yours.

No there isn't. You've presented none. All you've done is conjecture.

And more importantly there is history backing mine. We can go back over 10,000 years and see the correlation between warming and the later CO2 rise.

The reason why I don't claim that my "theory" is the only possible correct one is because, unlike you and your group, I realise that correlation does not equal causation.

So you're telling me that there is no known causal link between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air?

No, there isn't. There are a lot of suppositions and assumptions but so far there is no peer reviewd literature that addresses the time lag between onset of warming and the hundreds of years later rise in CO2. Go study that and become famous.

I didn't ask you if there was literature addressing the time lag (which, BTW, there is. It is well known that Co2 and global warming (or lack of warming) can be both causes and effects of one another, and many positive feedback mechanisms are known to exist. For example, as the Earth warms, ice melts, releasing Co2 (and other GHG's) into the air, causing more warming, and more melting. When Co2 increases come after temperature increases, or vice versa, we know that if there is a causal link between the two, its the temperature causing the Co2 change.

The RECENT warming trend, on the other hand, started at the same time as the recent uptick in atmospheric Co2. On geological time scales the rate of Co2 and temperature increases is astronomical, and it would be hard to find a spot in the climate record that indicated these two values have ever risen this quickly with one another in the past.


I asked you, in a slight rephrase

Is there a known causal link between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air?

Yes, or no?

 

[westwall]

No there isn't. You've presented none. All you've done is conjecture.



So you're telling me that there is no known causal link between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air?

No, there isn't. There are a lot of suppositions and assumptions but so far there is no peer reviewd literature that addresses the time lag between onset of warming and the hundreds of years later rise in CO2. Go study that and become famous.

I didn't ask you if there was literature addressing the time lag (which, BTW, there is. It is well known that Co2 and global warming (or lack of warming) can be both causes and effects of one another, and many positive feedback mechanisms are known to exist. For example, as the Earth warms, ice melts, releasing Co2 (and other GHG's) into the air, causing more warming, and more melting. When Co2 increases come after temperature increases, or vice versa, we know that if there is a causal link between the two, its the temperature causing the Co2 change.
The RECENT warming trend, on the other hand, started at the same time as the recent uptick in atmospheric Co2. On geological time scales the rate of Co2 and temperature increases is astronomical, and it would be hard to find a spot in the climate record that indicated these two values have ever risen this quickly with one another in the past.


I asked you, in a slight rephrase

Is there a known causal link between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air?

Yes, or no?

Which physical law allows this? CO2 either has an effect or it doesn't. If it does both then you have a non falsifiable hypothesis and that is called a what??????

And I highlighted the blue section because yet again you are arguing that correlation equals causation. CO2 doesn't operate the way you say it does because you want it to. You have to prove that it operates that way. There is no empirical data to support that theory. There has never been a lab experiment done that shows a 100 or even a 1000ppm increase in the atmospheric content of CO2 will increase the temperature. None. There are plenty of stupid experiments showing the Ideal Gas Laws at work, but not what I just described.

 

[Vast LWC]

You'd have a point if we were actually saying the climate isn't changing.

But we're not. So you don't.

Paulitician was actually saying that, thank you very much.

And the point still stands, as there is a large body of evidence that supports the theory that said warming is man-made.

You can say that you don't agree with said evidence, that is fine.

But to assert that because you find fault with evidence that other people find convincing, and then accuse them of being involved in some sort of large-scale scam because you have a difference of opinion, in an area where they clearly have a benevolent reason to believe what they do, is clearly lunacy.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is still o proof only theory held for political reasons that climate change is caused by human activity.
Here is the disclaimer from the USGS Site....your link..
USGS Global Change Science

The earth's surface does not exist in a static, unchanging "natural" condition interrupted only by the work of humans, but instead it is a dynamic system of which humans are a part. Knowledge about changes to the Earth's surface and the underlying processes that induce them has enormous impact on how society responds to these changes and, ultimately, the cost of responding to change. USGS Global Change Research activities strive to achieve a whole-system understanding of the interrelationships among earth surface processes, ecological systems, and human activities. Activities of the program focus on documenting, analyzing, and modeling the character of past and present environments and the geological, biological, hydrological, and geochemical processes involved in environmental change so that future environmental changes and impacts can be anticipated.
I am still waiting for your solution.

Wait, I'm sorry...

You want me to come up with a solution to GLOBAL WARMING? Really?

Hey, I know I seem to think alot of myself when I'm arguing on these boards, but jeez, I'm not superman!

 

[westwall]

You'd have a point if we were actually saying the climate isn't changing.

But we're not. So you don't.

Paulitician was actually saying that, thank you very much.

And the point still stands, as there is a large body of evidence that supports the theory that said warming is man-made.

You can say that you don't agree with said evidence, that is fine.

But to assert that because you find fault with evidence that other people find convincing, and then accuse them of being involved in some sort of large-scale scam because you have a difference of opinion, in an area where they clearly have a benevolent reason to believe what they do, is clearly lunacy.

Please point to that evidence then. And remember computer models are not data.

 

[westwall]

There is still o proof only theory held for political reasons that climate change is caused by human activity.
Here is the disclaimer from the USGS Site....your link..
USGS Global Change Science

The earth's surface does not exist in a static, unchanging "natural" condition interrupted only by the work of humans, but instead it is a dynamic system of which humans are a part. Knowledge about changes to the Earth's surface and the underlying processes that induce them has enormous impact on how society responds to these changes and, ultimately, the cost of responding to change. USGS Global Change Research activities strive to achieve a whole-system understanding of the interrelationships among earth surface processes, ecological systems, and human activities. Activities of the program focus on documenting, analyzing, and modeling the character of past and present environments and the geological, biological, hydrological, and geochemical processes involved in environmental change so that future environmental changes and impacts can be anticipated.
I am still waiting for your solution.

Wait, I'm sorry...

You want me to come up with a solution to GLOBAL WARMING? Really?

Hey, I know I seem to think alot of myself when I'm arguing on these boards, but jeez, I'm not superman!

I think he's refering to the ever present solutions that all consist of bankrupting the western world to enrich a very very few people. If you have a better idea then we are all ears.

Of course you first have to prove that what is occuring isn't natural. So far there isn't a shred of physical evidence to support the theory, and the correlational evidence that did exist ended ten years ago, just a lot of computer models that are so incredibly poor that they can't recreate the weather that occured 3 days ago. And that with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved.

If you can't recreate the immediate past when you have perfect knowledge of all the variables that go into the climate, how on earth do you trust any prognostications they make for 50 years in the future?

And BTW the prognostications they made 25 years ago are 300% off in the observed effect and that with CO2 levels far higher then even Hansen predicted they would climb to.