Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

That's why I gave you the post number. Are you incapable of looking it up yourself since you haven't even been bothered to read the thread's last few pages to know the subject?

Nono be specific. Are you saying the CO2 emissions caused by humans are the primary source of climate change?

Yes or no?

 

I haven't started making an argument yet. Still waiting for your link????

Well I didn't join this one till just now and I'm not interested in having yet another teddy toss with a guy who doesn't understand the first thing about climate enough to go searching out your posts for a single link. Maybe you are the one guy on this forum who can prove the world's climate scientists are wrong and you and whatever websites you get your information from are right and telling us the truth.

If you had any integrity you'd just repost the link but apparently you know it comes from a unreputable source so you are scared to. Even a graph with the time period when CO2 was 17 to 18 times higher would be good.

I don't have to prove my case because you are arguing with the vast majority of the world's scientists not just me. I am willing to have a discussion if you are really interested but if you are just going to do the usual deflection, strawman attack the poster thing......yawn.

It is not my belief it is the overwhelming truth according to the evidence.

Let's set up the discussion right here from the start. [/QUOTE]

 

My link asking you if you think humans are causing glaciers to form and to melt?

You can just go look back at post #522 or just reread this post.

 

I gave you the post where the link is. Are you incapable of counting posts?

Says the person who can't even count to the post where the link is even after its provided.

Nope I'm just the guy who holds your beliefs accountable. And so far all you are proving is your bleief in your own pseudo intellectualism should trump facts to support your argument.

That may work on those other forums but not here

If you had any sense you would find the post I gave you that provides you the link you seek. You think I'm here to serve you because you are too lazy to read the thread you entered? Sorry sweetheart that doesn't work here. You've been given the post where the link is. If you are simply too lazy or scared to find it when its only a page away that's your problem.

Ah here comes the pseudo intellectualism in full swing. So painfully predictable.

LOL You haven't even proven that.

Then why not simply be specific? Do you, that's you, believe that humans are the primary source of climate change and that source is human produced CO2?

Its a very simple question to define your belief. Are you going to answer it now or are we going to have more stalling techniques instead?

 

No, I'm not interested enough to go look. Just post it and I'll have a look. I don't need to go back and read the thread. I get the gist from this page. It is nothing I haven't seen before.

Impress me and post your link or a graph.

I am saying that THE CURRENT warming trend is initiated and caused by CO2 emissions from human activity which is also bring into play other factors such as methane clathrates from melting permafrost, water vapour and other positive feedbacks that are resulting from those increased CO2 emissions.

Clear enough.

I have to go to dinner but if you post your link and a supporting graph, I'll continue when I get back.[/QUOTE]

 

No see its your job to do her work for her even when you tell her where to go. Haven't you been listening? All the scientists support her! Supporting what we are still waiting on

 

Sorry babe I'm simply not interested in holding your hand because you are too lazy to read the thread you've entered. We can just chalk that up to you being too lazy to move your mouse a few times for the link that's already been provided in this thread.

So let's start there. Where is your statistical evidence that proves CO2 produced by man alone is primarily responsible for climate change?

No claiming all the scientists agree with you, just provide the actual science that supports your claim and I'll be happy to take a look.

 

No, I'm not interested enough to go looking and I pretty much know what the source is going to be.

So what do you think is causing the current warming?

 

Not so much lazy as bored. I asked you what is causing the current warming in your opinion?

 

Actually, I am willing to play this game with you but it is going to have to wait until tomorrow or whenever I get time. And before you go claiming victory and accusing me of deflecting because I went out for dinner, know the last guy who did that ended up looking like a complete moron.

Usually when they start with the personal attacks and repeating the same old sentence over and over you know they have run out of ideas.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you have anything new to prove that those stupid scientists just don't have a clue what they are talking about and you have the facts to prove them all wrong.

If you are honest about having a discussion rather than regurgitating stuff from WUWT, post your link as a starter. I'm not wasting my time reading your old posts

 

Why so belligerent. Can't just have a rational discussion?

I post graphs and data supporting all my statements on the climate threads I've been on. What's stopping you.

Tell you what, just tell me the source and show a graph and we can go from there.

Your claim was that it was cooler than this when CO2 was 17 or 18 times higher remember?

That's your claim. I don't care what came before. This is what you said to me.

Now prove it!

 

Its already been posted and you've been told where it is.

Its ok. I knew you weren't intellectually curious enough. Its much easier to draw an unsupported conclusion based on your own personal bias. A sure sign of a scientist.

I have no interest in impressing someone too lazy to find the link after being told where it is after its already been posted in a thread they joined.

Nope. Just lazy. Or scared.

I'm sure its a number of factors as its been throughout the millions of years of history.

I'm simply not stupid enough to believe humans are the primary cause especially when Co2 is claimed to be the culprit.

Come back at any time and post your evidence. I'll go through it and quote it directly when I respond

 

Nobody is trying to cure AGW. There are many looking to prevent some of the worst possible scenarios and to limit the harm created by AGW.

Why does the fact that glaciers melted millions of years ago mean that humans are incapable of melting glaciers today?

If you dont want to answer that question, then please answer the following: Do you think it is possible that you will ever be convinced that humans are almost certainly responsible for most of the current warming trend?

 

Why does the fact that humans were incapable of being the cause of something millions of years mean that they are also incapable of being the cause of something today?

 

What’s your educational background?

 

Quit misstating the assertions of others. Try a straight up debate.

 

So, I asked you for a link to your claim that the Earth was cooler when CO2 levels were 17 to 18 times higher than today (that's 6 and 8,000 PP). Apparently you do not understand the difference between a link and a quote because you provided a quote to back up your claim not a link and that quote was full of the kind of language climate change denier sites like to use to ridicule climate scientists and claim some outlier data point means there is no such thing as AGW, period.

I'm just trying to figure out if you are worth spending any time on and whether or not you can even understand what the science is saying or if this is going to turn into another one of the threads on this forum where you start repeating the same thing over and over and attacking the poster instead of the argument being made.
but whatever, I said I would engage in this and I will.

I actually already know the period you are talking about. I just wanted to see the website you were getting your information from so that I could see the source of your argument but you refused to back up your claim so I'll just carry on and answer you anyway.

So, clearly the website you are sourcing, whether it is JONO or WUWT or one of their subsidiaries, is referring to the Ordovician period 444 million years ago or so. The website is likely referencing Pilmer's misrepresentation of Berner's GEOCARB modelling. So first of all even Berner himself said that there is so much uncertainty in the data from that long ago that his work should not be taken as a strict measure of climate back then.

But let's grant you that CO2 levels were somewhere between 2,400 and 7,000 PPM back then. And let's even grant you that there was a brief period of very brief glaciation back then which actually does not appear on the graph but whatever. We have to ask ourselves what other factors in orbital mechanics or solar activity were at play which you do not in saying that what was happening in the Ordovician proves that those stoopid climate scientists have it all wrong and you are the one true guy who is clever enough to peruse fossil fuel industry funded websites and figure it all out.

Here is a graph for you to peruse from the last 400 million years or so including the actual GEOCARB data your website is referencing:


Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2). The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice.

The first thing you notice is that GEOCARB is using both CO2 proxies and radiative forcing from the sun in Wm^2 together. The second is that there periods of documented glaciation happened outside the Ordovician.

So here's a question for you. What do we know about solar irradiance of main sequence stars over time from studies of nuclear modelling? Here's another what was happening geologically at the time? Where were Milankovitch cycles at affecting orbital mechanics? The questions just go on and on.

So, you can't really take what we infer from proxies and modelling 400 million years ago as a good model of what is happening now although, of course sites like WUWT or JONO will take any piece of research they can find and try to twist it to convince people like you that there is no correlation between CO2 and the warming we are experiencing today.

Here is the correlation between temperature and CO2 over the last 400,000 years according to Vostok ice core proxies:



Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

And before you say CO2 lags temperature, know it's not the first time I've heard that dodge either.

Here is the famous Keeling curve for industrial era CO2 taken from Hawaii:



Here is a NASA projection of CO2 over the last 800,000 years:



In conclusion, taking data with high uncertainty from proxies occurring millions of years ago actually tells us very little about the warming that is occurring today. Nobody is claiming that CO2 is the only driver of climate. What we do know is that when CO2 levels are very high the climate is generally warmer during those periods with the possible exception of the Ordovician for reasons we don't fully understand but probably have to do with geological activity and a dimmer sun. But there is no question that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and creates the well-documented greenhouse effect that we have known about for decades.

I always love this one because it is such a cool demonstration. Iain Stewart demonstrates CO2 absorbing infrared:

 

Please do not mispresent the truth. You were given the post number where the link was already posted. You are simply too lazy to read it and think everyone else should cater to you entering late into a debate without even having the intelligence to read the thread you are entering. Doesn't work that way.

More pseudo intellectualism and bloviation. This is going to be easy.

lol Sure you did.

And you have the ability to find it since I gave you the post number where it is.

Its not like its hidden little lady. Its right there for everyone to see you are simply too lazy to look up the post number.

Really not interested in you regurdigtating website info pretending you already knew it. I'm still waiting for your evidence that humans are the pimary source for climate change through their CO2 production as you have claimed.

So far you are all talk which is what I expected.

Well then by means show us a graph that doesn't capture that period. That makes perfect sense! LOL

Oh we do! So you are only interested in looking at other factors than CO2 being the primary source of climate change when the data doesn't fit your religious beliefs. Such delicious hyporacy.

You mean the graph that doesn't show the time period I referenced. Got it.

You are making my argument and are too myopic to even realize it. You want to blame CO2 production by humans for the current climate change and dismiss every other factor you just laid out for climate change now while you want to use the exact same factors to combat my evidence when CO2 was far higher than it is now and take my exact argument that CO2 is not the primary factor when you attack earth's history of far higher CO2 production.

How does that make sense in your head to only hold other factors accountable for climate change when CO2 levels were far higher than they are now when humans weren't around while simultaneously blaming CO2 production by humans now as the primary source for climate change?

Can you even justify that in your head much less to the rest of us here?

So let's review what you've put forth. You don't cover the time period I mentioned in your graphs. In fact you don't even go back farther than 800,000 years on a planet that is over 4 Billion years old. You dismiss my website without actually reading where the data came from making nothing but assumptions and only now when CO2 levels were far higher in the past during an ice age do you want to dismiss CO2 as the factor even though that is your argument now. Do you even hear yourself?

You are literally a CO2 skeptic as the primary source for climate change skeptic when its higher in earth's past during an ice age but a true believer in human CO2 production as the primary cause for current climate change and somehow that makes sense in your thought process. Unbelievable.


I am still waiting for your proof that humans are the primary producers of CO2 for the CURRENT CLIMATE change as you so emotionally put it and the proof that CO2 is the primary reason for climate change but I'm not sure which face I'm debating. The one that is skeptical of CO2 as the primary source for climate change millions of years ago or the true believer now with no evidence whatsoever that belief is true?

 

Why would I want to go back and read a whole thread of this kind of nonsense. Do you think you are uttering something brilliant that I haven't seen before?

I asked you for a LINK to prove your claim. Clearly you do not comprehend the difference between a link and a quote.

At any rate, your refusing to back up your claim with a LINK is noted.

Ad hominem - it is clear you are yet another climate change denier who used personal attacks and insult when they cannot back up their claims with a simple link.

This is not the first argument I have had with a denier who thinks he is smarter than the world's climate scientists.

Why do you think I'm a lady?

I've already provided evidence. You are just choosing to ignore it after being unable to back up your own claim.

LOl, you are the one doing all the squawking after refusing to back up your claim.

I said the graph doesn't show actual glaciation in the Ordovician which is the basis of the denier claim. Just as I thought, you can't even read a graph or understand basic science so I am wasting my time on an amateur who is going to resort to personal insults and ad-hominems because he can't back up his claims or make a reasonable argument.

I don't have religious beliefs and it's spelled hypocrisy. And no, if you put on your reading comprehension hat you will see that what I said was that no one is claiming that CO2 is the only driver of climate - the question is what is driving climate today. Deniers always try to make the claim that CO2 either is or isn't the only factor in changing climate. Real science takes into account all these factors. I asked what you think is driving climate in the industrial era? I also asked you several questions regarding what was going on 400 million years ago to highlight the uncertainly of modelling climate back then as opposed to now. So far you are refusing to answer any of these questions and seem to be just tossing out insults and deflections.

I also asked you in another post what you think is driving today's climate if not CO2. You have so far refusing to answer and I'mstill waiting.



You mean the graph that doesn't show the time period I referenced. Got it.

Well yeah, because I understand the other forcings that cause the climate to change and how they are acting in today's climate. To which I put the question again, What do you think is driving the warming we are seeing today?

If you can't answer that and are just trying to make a case that because something happened 400 million years ago it is the same climate conditions as today - that's not very logical is it. You want to take one example, a highly distant and uncertain example at that and make it proof for something that is happening now.

And you clearly have no idea about the other factors that drive climate to change.

Go back and read the graph of GEOCARB it covers the period you mention. the other graphs, which you have not even made comment on were to try and show you the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 800,000 years for which we have more accurate proxies for. Of course you will not address these because you have no answer as to why CO2 and temperature over this period is so closely linked. So you go back to 400M years ago and insist that this proves something about today. Do you even know how to read a graph or follow a discussion? I haven't dismissed your website because you refuse to post a link. I can only go by the language it uses and much like you, it is not trying to make a serious scientific argument but to deflect with loaded, emotional language and ridicule. That is how you know that it is denier BS. Real scientific discussion do not have to use ad hominem and insult to make a case.

I'm not emotional and asking for proof is an unscientific and rather obtuse mistake. It is rather like asking for proof of gravity or relativity. We deal with evidence in science and the preponderance of facts. I've already started providing you with evidence you just refuse to address it - just as you refuse to address any of the questions I have asked or to provide links to your claims.

I don't have two faces. I understand that there are other causes for climate change historically such as Milankovitch cycles and solar activity and that these have interacted together in different ways to effect climate over the history of the Earth.

The question is what is causing today's climate change I'll ask again, if not CO2 what is causing today's climate change? Unicorns? Fairies? The Sun? Orbital Mechanics?

If you can't put forth a logical argument on this then you are basing your entire argument, if you can even call it an argument on uncertain GEOCARB proxies from 400M years ago.

I'll ask one more time and wait for a response. What is causing today's climate warming if not primarily CO2 from human industrial activity? I posted two graphs for you to observe and base an argument on. One from NASA, one from Vostok Ice cores and a graph of the Keeling curve for CO2.

Again, taking this EVIDENCE into account, what do you think is causing the warming we are seeing today if not CO2?

I'll wait for your response to the question and I'll keep asking till I get a response.

 

In addendum:





Time evolution of global temperature, CO2 concentration and solar activity. Temperature and CO2 are scaled relative to each other as the physically expected CO2 effect on the climate predicts (i.e. best estimate of the climate sensitivity). The amplitude of the solar curve is scaled as derived from the observed correlation of solar and temperature data. (Details are explained here ). This graph can be created here and you can copy a code that can be used as a widget in any website (as in my home page), where it is automatically updated every year with the latest data. Thanks to Bernd Herd who programmed this.

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans). Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the average temperature for the period 1901-2000. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm). While there is a clear long-term global warming trend, each individual year does not show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others.1 These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Image Reference: NOAA/NCDC2

So again, if it is not rising man-made CO2 levels as documented from different sources including the Keeling curve measured at Hawaii, what is causing the current warming trend we are seeing?

Is it possible that with such a strong preponderance of empirical evidence that CO2 is associated closely with the current warming that the gigatonnes we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are having no effect?

This beggars the imagination and is illogical.

I'll ask again, what is causing the current warming we are seeing if not the closely linked rise in man-made CO2?


Morning Mist in the SawtoothsPHOTO OF THE DAY»How Two 1950s Kids Playing on the Railroad Tracks Found a National Treasure

 

Well, for starters, humans were not around millions of years ago and nor was anyone pouring CO2 into the atmosphere via fossil fuels. Yet, CO2 levels rose and fell as did O2 and the temperatures of earth increased and cooled at rates equal to what we see today. Logic would then tell us that if it was happening in the past without humans involved and it is still happening today then the causes would be almost the same.

Why is this so hard to understand? You (Scientists and the scientific community) have no evidence that humans are the major cause of global warming or climate change. Why not focus your rage on cleaning up plastic in the oceans which is having a very deter-mental effect on sea life? That would be a worthy discussion and cause for humanity to tackle.

BTW, the United States last year, led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-led-entire-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions-in-2019

2017 as well.

https://www.instituteforenergyresea...ion-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-in-the-world/

Global carbon dioxide emissions increased in 2017, despite the Paris Accord—a pact made by almost 200 countries to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The United States was one of the few countries that decreased its carbon dioxide emissions in 2017. In fact, it had the largest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. China and India both increased their carbon dioxide emissions, together contributing about half of the increase in the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Countries have targeted the generation sector as the most effective means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, replacing coal-fired generation with renewable energy. However, globally, the generation sector has not made progress in moving toward decarbonization over the past 32 years.

See, we don't a silly agreement to lower CO2, we are already doing it and the majority of all those countries in the accords, failed to meet their requirements and reduce their footprint. So what good is that agreement, then?

 

The exact same things that have been causing warming and cooling trends over millions of years long before humans walked the earth. That is what is causing the current warming trend.

Earth has had periods of high CO2 levels long before man walked the earth and even high levels of O2. Study the evolution of insects and Dragonflies for your first clues.

Did man cause the rise in CO2 or O2 back then? Of course not, humans were not even around. So what caused increase/decrease in CO2/O2 and in temperatures? The exact same things that have been causing it for millions and millions and millions of years.

It's not a mystery, it's Geology and other sciences. It's putting logic and facts in front of theory. But studying climate is never a waste of time unless it is used political fear-mongering and taxation.

 

Provide some support for the bolded claim. We have seen a 1 degree Celsius increase over the last 100 years.

So when in the past, and what is the proof, that the same rate of warming happened previously?

 

Once again, I am talking millions of years. Earth has been around a long time. Not just the last 100 years.

Look up and study The Eocene period.