[quote=kscott13;484081]Yes - of course global warming (and cooling) is a natural phenomena.

That does not however disprove the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are currently impacting upon global climate

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

no it wasn't caused by it thats just stupid! its only to show you how at a time of massive industrial revolution temp was very happy to drop by itself showing how CO2 emissions couldn't be the driving force behind climate change..

So - during which time of massive industrial revolution did this temperature drop happen?

And anyway, how does this prove that CO2 emissions couldn't be the driving force behind climate change?

Apparently Princess Diana died in a car crash. She wasn't mauled by a tiger. Does this prove that being mauled by a tiger could not possibly be a "driving force" behind premature death?


Besides as our wise correspondent Mr SuperDinoYoshi has told us:

Tell me, Mr SuperDinoYoshi - do you happen to know what year Mr George Stephenson invented the steam engine?

Why don't you Google that - then have another look at your graph.

Then come back and tell us WTF you are talking about?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

About 1945 it started dropping right until the 1970's.

Because during the industrial revolution CO2 was increasing sharply yet the temp was dropping. Therefore the CO2 wasn't affecting the temp change it was happening by itself.

..explain.

Nope, understood your post, just pointing out the the activity of the sun can also have a warming effect, solar flares for example.

What information to you have to support that?
This graph seems to contradict you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

It shows a general increase over the whole of the 20th C, with an anamolous period of rapid rise followed by rapid drop around the 1940s.

I am not saying that this proves that AGW is occurring - but it certainly doesn't not support the idea that it is not occurring.

There are a lot of factors which may force global climate.
Anthropogenic emissions are one of them
However, just because other forcings are occurring - that does not mean that the impact of anthropogenic emissions are insignificant

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

?!?! I'm not sure you did understand his post. Nobody is denying that the activity of the sun can also have a warming effect, solar flares for example.

MannieD had posted:
Warming is the result of many factors. So even though there is an increase in CO2, one of the other factors could have a cooling effect.

He is acknowledging that other factors may have a warming effect.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

...........oops

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

If you had read my post earlier you would know that isn't the case.

Basically the point is that the Industrialization of the world had no effect on temperature. Co2 didn't show itself to have any dramatic effect on temperature then, so why would it now? In fact, why don't you guys show us one climate change that has occured in the past which can be attributed to Co2?

Wow, this again? No wonder nobody can defend your position in any debate on Climate Change.

I just have to ask, what changed since 1990? Back then the IPCC had graphs that included all of the mentioned temperature changes, but now they have switched to hockysticks. (First Mann's, whose was shot down, Now 12 replacements) What new information just warranted this change? Immagine if you had a history book, and then the next edition of it ommitted several chapters, as if they hadn't occured. There should at least be some justification.

Its true, all of these different forcings are coming into play. Chaos theory would tell you that in such a system, making bold claims that our Co2 is responsible for a given amount of climate change to a tenth of a degree, are laughable. In fact they are, you don't trust your weatherman to tell you what temperature it will be next saturday to a tenth of a degree, but you think we make predictions of what the temperature will be like across the whole world in 100 years?

As for anthropogenic emissions not being insignificant, the only way we can really guess is by looking to climate history. Our emissions are Co2, which have never been shown to have a significant effect on climate, and in the Industrial Age our Co2 emissions didn't have a significant effect on climate.

Unless the physics have changed, it would make more sense to wager that they still don't have that much of an effect on climate, but seeing how things like gravity are always being disproved, maybe you are on to something.

Why do you insist on being so silly about this?

You have posted a link to a graph that does not contain enough information to be understood - then you insult MannieD when he points this out? If you are trying to demonstrate a point - at least try to get your sources straight.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P