I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

If that's true, why then was the sea level higher during the Byzantine period, as you keep insisting? How did sea levels drop between then and, say, 1900?

More magic?

 

There are always fluctuations. You can't stop them as they are natural.

 

How can you dare to doubt?

Sooner or later the famous sentence "In God we trust" will be substituted by "In CO2 we trust", so, infidel, repent!

Jokes a part, being an EU conservative environmentalist [I know this is incredible from an American perspective, but in continental Europe environmentalism is not political oriented, not that much, so ... also a conservative can declare to be environmentalist] I have pondered a lot the matter of "Global Warming" and what I have found out is a "Global Pollution" which is not the healthy, but that probably cannot affect in a so drastic way global climate.

And with a certain curiosity I have noted that [as actually I said years ago] environmentalists are realizing that methane can be a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 [this is why in Germany they are concerned about cow's farts: it seems that they are a very serious source of methane and greenhouse gas ... Germans guys, because of all the beer they drink, produce their own methane ... but this is an other tale].

Now, seriously:

our planet has known periods well warmer than the one in which we are living [when the CO2 was really high in the atmosphere and the polar ice caps were substantially absent ... there were the dinosaurs on Earth], and to say all we are living in a period of "pause" in the long glacial ages cycle.

So, personally, I'm more interested to solve the problem of pollution than to deal with the "Global Warming", overall why, since the record in 2003, it's a decade that here, in Northern Italy, summers are not that sunny and hot as usual [damned Global Warming, among the Alps it causes a Local Cooling!].

 

Right. It's magic. It "just happens". There is "no explanation".

All of which is Denierspeak for "I don't know, therefore nobody else could possibly know either."

And you guys sit there and wonder why you've lost the argument, and why nobody believes you.

 

That probably is the best you can do. So, do you think the rise in oceans during the Byzantine era was caused by man?

 

They're "debating the controversy", like their creationist cousins.

 

You mean unlike the 'science is settled' stuck in the mud anti science AGW crowd? Science is never settled especially in a system that is so little understood.

 

I hate to tell you this but there are still more unknown unknowns than knowns .

 

And I hate to tell you this, but this isn't one of them.

 

No, it was caused by global cooling, which was caused by Milakovitch cycles. When the globe cools, sea level goes down. When the globe warms, sea level goes up. It was cooling throughout the Holocene, right up until the point where we started burning coal. Then suddenly it got a lot warmer, a lot faster.

Any idea why that was?

 

So, seas were higher than now during the Byzantine era because of global cooling? Whodathunk?

 

I think climate changes, with or without man. It has always changed, and it will always change, until we become another Mars.

The current science that is pushing co2 driven climate change is not honest science. For they disregard the other factors besides co2, and they know that climage change is a very complicated thing, driven by more than just co2. But the IPCC dictated that funds go to just look at co2. And ignore the rest of this very complicated issue.

This is more of a study in human psychology than it is in climate change. Which explains the hysterics.

We are in an interglacial period, that science says should have already ended. Any warming is natural, and then the next ice age comes. Warming has always been beneficial to the human species, and we ate better. We got healthier. We even grew in height. It's the cooling periods that are devastating on humanity.

Perhaps the co2 is helping to keep the next ice age at bay. Who knows? But one thing that we do not know is what causes ice ages. If you do not know that, to make claims about co2 and climate change is utter arrogance, another problem in human psychology.

 

Seas were higher in the Byzantine period that they were in 1800. Whether they were higher in the Byzantine period than today is doubtful.

 

How do you know? You do understand unknown unknowns.

 

You won't back up that crazy claim; you just keep repeating it. Denierism 101; "Sheer repetition turns lies into truth". Now, the real science. The beauty of it is how such completely independent disciplines all converge on the same result.

We _know_ sea levels were 1.35 meters lower 2000 years ago. In multiple spots, the Romans built very precisely engineered fish holding tanks on their coastline, designed so the top edge was about 20cm over the highest tide level. Those tanks still exist, except they're well under the waves now.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X04003516

We can determine when the sea levels began rising by ancient eclipse records. Ancient astronomers were very good, recording lunar and solar eclipses down to the minute after sunrise/sunset, being they had water clocks that were that accurate.

We know how many seconds ago those lunar and solar eclipses would have happened.

Earth's rotation rate is controlled by two factors. There's a constant slowdown due to tidal friction, and there's a variable factor due to sea level. A higher sea level means less ice at the poles and more water at the equator, so the earth spins more slowly in accordance with conservation of angular momentum.

If you do the math, those ancient eclipse records only match earth's rotation rate if the sea level rise has mostly occurred in the past century.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/351/1695/165.abstract

Hoosier, will of course, ignore this all and keep spouting the same debunked nonsense. He'd be purged from his cult if he didn't.

 

Actually, if you did anything other than ridiculing people and never looking anything up you might learn something.

http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/237.pdf

 

No, but I do understand knowns. And every time you claim that we just don't know what we do in fact know, you simply display your own ignorance.

 

It's that you don't know what you don't know.

 

Got any proof to back up that ridiculous assertion?

 

Poor Debater thinks hypothesis is fact.

 

Certainly. It's been around and widely discussed for years. I'm surprised you haven't read about it.

Would you like the details?

 

Sure, I've read about it. A hell of a lot about it. Almost every paper published in formerly reputable science journals. And in my expert opinion the vast majority of it is psuedoscience. It is not based on any sort of sound science.

Go ahead and give me the details, chicken little. Tell me how you came to the conclusion that the sky is falling.

 

Oh, you're an expert? What are your qualifications?? And what do you consider to be "sound science"?

But that's not what you asked for originally. You asked for evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Is that what you're interested in, or is it something else?

 

What makes me an expert is the extensive research I've done, my knowledge, and my understanding.

That statement is a falsehood. You are certainly living up to your screen name. I love your sense of humor.

 

Research in what field? And where did you study?

I'm also wondering why you ducked my question about your standards for sound science. Do you actually have any?

Me:

You:

Me:

You:

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What false statement do you think I made? Exactly what evidence were you asking for?