The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

And we all know how well the Dinos made out.

We are currently in the thick of the sixth mass extinction of life on earth; with species disappearing about 1000 times faster than ever witnessed in human history.

 

They did pretty good ruled the earth for around 140 million years us around for only 100,000 ?


Btw I didn't know meteors are now considered part of man made global warming, good to know

 

There was a minor mass extinction toward the end of the Jurassic period. During this extinction, most of the stegosaurid and enormous sauropod dinosaurs died out, as did many genera of ammonoids, marine reptiles, and bivalves. No one knows what caused this extinction.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/mesozoic/jurassic/

So you want humans to go the way of the dinos. Fair enough.

 

I love how you use science when you like it, and ignore science when you don't.

So convenient! That way anyone can just make up their facts.

 

That would be the left and their justification for murder or their misuse of the term pedophile for example...we use all the science available and don't have a made up mind ..


All good scientist should be skeptics.

 

They were more focused on eating each other than on building a meteor shield.

That may be, but it's either the will of Allah or evolution in action, take your pick. If we kill ourselves off, it's just proof we weren't fit to survive. It'll all happen after all of us are dead, so what's to worry about?

 

The very definition of the AGW dogma.

 

Again my answer is the base line of natural causes until proven otherwise. Again you have no evidence to present that proves it's not natural.

 

Ok a few questions

1 what was the temperature in the tropics during the Jurassic? (There is some evidence that although the poles were ice free and had forests the tropics may have been desert)
2 What was the sun doing? Was it in a "Maunder minima" during that time
3 What were the seas doing? All evidence suggests very high sea levels with large coastal inundation

And finally

Were the fauna and flora adapted to the higher temperatures?

 

They are but they are not denialists

 

Skepticism is no longer allowed in AGW.

 

The base line is natural causes until evidence of otherwise. You did not answer you question as to what you think the cause of the current warming is. You also never gave me a straight defense as to why you think the sun warms the earth. The best I have heard from you is some shaky correlation means causation argument.

 

As I said current warming is natural until proven otherwise. Also as I said the sun warming the planet is too obvious to need scientific study or evidence. It's kind of a given to normal people. No sun no life on Earth, just a frozen planet. If you care to argue that feel free. Give it a shot.

 

You do realize humans just got here don't you? In the context of human history we have been here about five minutes out of millions of years.

 

You cannot assume something is true without evidence. Until other evidence is provided I am willing to accept that it is most likely true that natural patterns explain the warming trend but is still uncertain and unscientific until evidence of the cause is provided.

Second, there is no such thing as proof in science because in the real world it is hard to prove something 100% true. You can however present a lot of evidence and maybe show that something is more like 93% likely.

Again, calling something obvious doesn't win the debate as this is basically a circular reasoning fallacy. You are basically saying that you are assuming this is true without good evidence because everyone does so and you feel that it is obvious. Well people once thought it was just obvious that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. They were wrong. Intuitive "obvious" beliefs are often wrong when it comes to science and you need solid scientific evidence.

I am not questioning that the sun warms the earth but your reasons for believing this. I see that you have a double standard where science that doesn't conflict your political agenda is assumed true but that which conflicts is held to an extremely high standard of evidence, perhaps so high that you will never be convinced no matter what evidence is presented.

Again, What good evidence do you have that the sun is warming the earth? What do you believe is causing the recent 2 F of warming? Also, what would convince you that CO2 is the main cause of our recent warming?

 

First two questionsons have been answered. Third question has a simple one word answer. Evidence. So far all I see is very biased opinion based on trying to prove a hypothesis true by zealots. Science works by trying to prove a hypothesis wrong and you see none of that from the agw crowd. In fact they have a habit of throwing dissenting opions in the trash and those that have them under the bus.This is psuedo science at best and politics mixed with religion at worst. Throw in some mass hysteria and you have the agw hypothesis-agenda.

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans account for nearly 100% of all new accumulations in the atmosphere. And the only models that even get close to replicating the warming we currently observe are the ones that include CO2's greenhouse effect. The evidence is everywhere. Multiple researchers and institutions using different techniques with different inputs confirm this almost on a daily basis. Even scientists that skeptics cite like Curry and Christy unequivocally say AGW is real. This evidence is staring you in the face and you reject it without even a second thought? And then on the flip side the only natural mechanisms that's even remotely realistic at this point is the Sun which has been dimming for 60 years now. When will the cooling start? We are now 1.0C warmer than when the Sun started dimming. That means we have to cool 1.0C before we even get back to THAT point and with each passing decade we just get further and further away from it.

 

Scientists have been trying to prove that human produced CO2 does not warm the Earth for a very long time and no one has been able to present a convincing argument. There are some convincing arguments that say the climate sensitivity is less than the current consensus, but none say the sensitivity is 0 or negative.

 

You have not given any solid evidence for the sun warming the earth. The best you have done is "its obvious", "everyone believes it", and "its hotter when the sun is up." I have already refuted all of these arguments in previous posts. Can you at least admit that you are just assuming this is true or having faith in the science you were taught?

You never answered my question as to what specifically is causing the recent warming, the best you have done is "something natural." Specifically what is it? Is it the sun? Solar rays and clouds? The moon? What is it?

Now you say that evidence will convince you that CO2 is causing global warming. Well, so if I only give you a mere correlation which is a little bit of evidence then thats going to convince you? Is there any example of evidence that you can think of that would convince you?

 

M

Man's contribution to naturally occurring C02 is around 3% I believe and naturally occurring co2 varies by much more than that over earths history. Evidence fail.

 

You can't seem to grasp the fact that climate is a natural phenomenon until proven otherwise. To prove man's C02 contribution is a major contributor to climate change you must first disprove all other potential causes. Climate so called scientist have taken the exact opposite approach so I'm not holding my breath to be convinced by them.

 

Just because all forest fires were all caused by nature before humans came along doesn't mean that any forest fire that happens today should be assumed to be natural. Without any evidence you can't make any definite claim one way or the other. We can make an educated guess that its probably natural since that is what happened most of the time before but we can't be sure without hard evidence. You demand evidence for my position even though you refuse to tell me what evidence you even want but you refuse to present evidence for any of your positions and even refuse to tell me which natural phenomenon is causing this warming. Its a politically motivated double standard.

 

Yes. You are correct. That is the figure the IPCC stated more than a decade ago. But, something has clearly been lost in the interpretation if you are using this as your argument. I'll explain. Let's use that 3% figure. So if all emissions are 100 ppm/yr then natural is 97 ppm/yr and anthroprogenic is 3 ppm/yr. Before humans absorbtions were about 97 ppm/yr because they were balanced with emissions. Fortunately nature has a builtin buffer that helps regulate imbalances, but it's not perfect. As a result nature has only been enable to increase absorbtions by 1%. Note that all absorbtions are natural because humans are not yet extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Also note how impressive this feat is since nature has accomplished this even though humans have removed some of Earth's carbon dioxide sinks. Anyway, this leaves a 2 ppm/yr imbalance with humans responsible for nearly 100% of that. Now, do the math. Assume a baseline of 300 ppm before humans. At 3% of the total emissions how much of the current 400 ppm is attributable to humans? When we get to 500 ppm how much will it be? These are not trick questions. 5th grade math is all you need to answer these questions.

By the way, did you get this from the Watts Up With That blogger or some other blog site?

 

Clever. Construct a hypothesis that is not falsifiable...or at least very difficult to falsify. No matter how many natural mechanisms are eliminated you'll always claim there is another that hasn't been tested. How about if I turn this around on you. To prove the Sun's contribution is a major contributor to climate change you must first disprove all other potential causes.

 

Your baseline is an assumption. Earth has had much less and much more C02 in the atmosphere long before man entered the industrial revolution. Our contribution is a tiny fraction of Earth's naturally occurring C02 and the truth is still this point in time we really have no idea what Earth's C02 level would be if we didn't exist so even the 3% estimate is just a guesstimate.