In case you didn't get the message

I didn't I know. I explained why I didn't. You didn't learn. See, the OPs data is errored. Why do I need to supply anything? Hoosier just pointed it out, and has pointed it out on several threads here. You all can't seem to figure that piece out. The claim is yours and hence it's you who is to provide data. And again, to date, the data is errored and wrong. I think scientists call it psuedoscience. See that?

 

Flat earth thinking seems somewhat like heroin, it's addictive. Or maybe it's like some hardwired world view. Give up your 6000 year old world and you are left floating in space, de-anchored, lost. You can't argue with emotional need.

 

CO2 levels do not prove AGW exists. It would be like blaming it on rising levels of cellphones.

 

If warming follows from CO2 rise then of course it does. The record on that correlation is massive.

 

I have nothing against science.
In relation to the Earth, it's a very new practice, and the data collection is dynamic, and I respect all who try their hardest.

The problem with it is... in relation to the Earth... it's brand new.

Posting charts of CO2 levels/climate/etc... from hundreds of thousands of years ago, based on brand new techniques of collecting that data, while fun for you... and profitable for many.... is anything but "evidence" to most others.

Go ahead and claim you can tell how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 400,000 years ago... by chipping away at an iceberg.
Then answer this... with all the freezing, melting, freezing, melting.... how has that data been proven to reflect reality.
This brand new thing we call "science" is just "best guesses".
There isn't a track record of validity long enough to take any of it seriously.

If you can get someone to tell us, in 400,000 years, what today's CO2 level is.... then call me convinced.

Until then, you can get on your knees, cry about the sky falling, and bow to these "findings" all you want while insulting those who don't fall for it.
While those who don't fall for it are snickering at your crying... and enjoying life.

It's your 400,000 years..... don't waste them with cult-like hysteria. Enjoy them

I'm just trying to get past the new 6 inches of snow that fell here over night. On March 28th.
In the middle of a winter that broke a 130 year record for cold/snow.

 

Correlation is not causation. Thanks for proving my point.

 

You should stop thinking the earth is flat. You'll fall off.

 

You do appreciate of course that there isn't a single Peer review study that has 'empirically' (important word) linked human CO2 emissions to the current warming phase. Its all climate model based guesswork. There is no argument that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas . Its the significance of an increase from 280PPM to 400PPM (or 0.012% extra by atmospheric volume) thats the point in question. So far the impact on global temperature of this miniscule fraction has yet to be even discerned against natural background variation much less quantified in its effect.

Based on our current state of knowledge here the policies being proposed are analagous to a a man in a blacked out and crowded room swinging a sledgehammer in order to kill a fly that might not even be there. A lot of innocent people are going to get injured or killed that way

 

Not in and of themselves. CO2 levels are just one part of a massive mountain of evidence that proves AGW exists, evidence which you have no knowledge of, nor any desire to learn about.

 

Utter and complete nonsense. Every scientific law is a model. If you don't believe in models, you don't believe in science. Further, every scientific model is based on empirical evidence. If it wasn't, nobody would use it and it wouldn't be science.

Actually, there is a whole neighborhood in Denierville that argues just this very thing. (Google: "Sky Dragon Slayers"). jc456 on this very forum is one of them. So them's the fleas that your dog is lying with.

Not all that much in question:

Completely false. It's absurdly easy to see our effect against natural variation. Unless, of course, you're a denier and prefer to stick your head in the sand.

 

Sorry but I only wish to debate posters who have intellectual integrity

 

Sorry, you missed it. Correlation does not prove causation, but it does exist where there is causation. In this case, however, the causation is proven by basic physics, including quantum mechanics. So that's what you're arguing against.

 

I think what you meant to say is, that after your last humiliation by me, you only debate idiots who are dumber than you.

Good luck with that.

 

I just don't feed desperate extremists who will corrupt anything and everything in order to bolster their faith as the 'fiddled' example you provided illustrates

Who's got that kinda time

 

yeah but he's called in an overused cliche' so therefore he must be right even if he doesn't understand it...

 

so what you're saying is because you don't understand the science as how data is collected it can't be true, and because you don't know it, no one does...apparently you're smartest person on the planet...

I see the problem here, you think weather is climate...I guess you don't know very much after all...

 

I guess if you can't read, that might be what you see.. sure.
I said it is new in relation to what they are studying, and there is no proven record of 100's of thousands of years.
You pretending there is, is sheer ignorance.

When there is, I will be the celebrate the falling sky... right along with you.

Making claims about what I think does nothing for the validity of your doomsday AGW religion.

Though.... sticking to what I actually say would mean you couldn't attempt those lame insults.
Silence is hard for some, I guess.

Have a nice weekend, Chicken Little.

 

I'd love to see your math on this. Or did you just make that up?

 

The current atmospheric CO2 level is around 400 PPM with pre industrial levels estimated to have been around 280 PPM . This means a rise of 120 PPM doesn't it ? Ergo 120 PPM equates to 0.012% extra of atmospheric volume.

This is simple math so why are you having difficulty with this ? You do realise I hope that the term PPM means parts per million ?

 

It isn't even proven that the earth is warming on a climate scale as most of the argument is weather related, let alone that carbon output is the driver of the weather or the climate. The causation you allege is not proven by any science as of yet.

 

Genesis thinking has survived through a blizzard of evolutionary science. Apparently denialists are simply emotionally invested in a Genesis like view of climate. Like their fundamentalist brethren they seem to have a need to proselytize their ignorance. They rely on meaningless stock phrases about as meaningful as "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." This savage joy in completely de-anchoring from reality is interesting to observe. And they find folks like themselves on these forums, throwing out the same stock silly phrases, accompanied by pseudo knowledgeable posturing about how 2+2=3. The sheer ignorance connected to such arrogance really makes you wonder about the evolution of the human mind.

It kind of reminds me of that Bertrand Russell quote: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.”

 

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit"-"correlation does not prove causation"-"the 2nd law of thermodynamics"-"empirical evidence"-"garbage in garbage out"....yeah they have their catch phrases believing that if they repeatedly insert them into the discussion it will impart some intelligence and legitimacy into their illogical rants, deluding themselves into thinking they understand the science...but their fantasy is exposed when they get tripped up by grade school data graphs and basic science...

 

Sorry, you've been lied to.

Ocean Heat Content: rising.


Global surface temperature: rising.


Global sea level: rising.


Arctic sea ice extent: collapsing.

Sorry, you've been lied to again.

Attanasio, Alessandro, Antonello Pasini, and Umberto Triacca. "Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 3 (2013): 515.

Smirnov, Dmitry A., and Igor I. Mokhov. "From Granger causality to long-term causality: Application to climatic data." Physical Review E 80.1 (2009): 016208.

Kang, Jian, and Rolf Larsson. "What is the link between temperature and carbon dioxide levels? A Granger causality analysis based on ice core data." Theoretical and Applied Climatology (2013): 1-12.

 

With Pacific Decadal Oscillation models indicating we are coming off a high and headed into the 30 year cooling cycle.

While weaker than in the past, we are passing Solar Maximum in Cycle 24.

All related to the first two which are still weather related more so than climate

That is pretty much what all AGW cultist posts are so I am used to it.

 

What models? Published where?

Because everything I've seen on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation indicates that (a) it's decadal, not 30-year; and (b) it's in the Pacific, not in the entire globe. Show me some evidence. Because I think you've been lied to.

A) So what? Your original argument was that it's not warming. And now you're saying it IS warming, but it's the Sun? Smevins, meet smevins: one of you two guys is completely and totally wrong. Care to tell us which one it is?

B) Solar cycles last 11 years. Climate is based on averages of 30 years or more. When you remove the 11-year cycle, solar activity has been declining since about 1960, as the world has been warming. In other words, you've got nothing.

I showed you a graph that goes back 11,000 years and indicates unprecedented warming that occurs right when the Industrial Revolution begins.

False. Weather is what happens in a day, a week, or a decade. Climate is what happens over 30 years or more. Here's what's happening to sea level over 130 years:



That's climate, not weather.

And yet you have not one shred of evidence to back up a single word you say. You lose.