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

Yet you went to the trouble to post a quote when I asked for the link but are now refusing to post the LINK I asked for. You are playing games and refusing to post sources for your claim. You make the claim it is you job to back it up and show your work not mine. Why would I want to go back over this thread and read your inane posts?

If you make a claim, back it up.

{quote]Your choice was to not look up the post. No one forced you to be lazy. You chose to be lazy then got emotional when someone didn't repost the same link that's already been posted.[/quote]

I'm not lazy. Why would I get emotional over your silly refusal to post a link? Do you think I care that much? Hate to tell you but I don't. Nor do I care enough to go looking through your posting history. If you had any integrity, you would just post the link I asked for instead of the quote.

But of course, you are showing you have no integrity. And it appears to be you getting nasty and emotional. As I said, I simply don't care what you think or to waste my time going through your posting history.

I didn't dismiss it. I even went out and researched it for myself and posted a graph of the period in question - which I new roughly about from discussions with more informed people than your self. Remember I posted this graph from the actual GEOCARB study itself:



And then I gave you a detailed analysis of the uncertainties in the data as voiced by the authors of the study themselves who stated this should not be taken as an absolute measurement. And then I even pointed out for you that the glaciation in question happened during periods of decreasing CO2 concentration much after the period 400 million years ago when CO2 levels were as high as you claimed.

You apparently are unable to understand this which is the problem with people who have no science background but are trying to make a flawed political argument with nastiness and logical fallicies.

So the guy quoting actual climate science based on the vast majority of the world's climate scientists and the vast majority of the world's scientists in general is a "flat-Earther but the guy quoting fossil fuel industry propaganda that generally only plays on climate denier blogs like WUWT and JONO is telling the truth?

Right. Your lame dodges and ad hominems are the first sign that someone doesn't know what they are talking about and trying to make personal insults and deflections to deflect from the fact. This was obvious from the language in the very first quote you provided.

People with a scientific background simply do not talk that way. People who get information from denier blogs like Anthony's always do.



You're right. That was my mistake.

You do know that we can actually see the human footprint from studying the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere Carbon 12 to 13 and 14 , right? I guess not:

"This is possible because carbon atoms occur in heavy and light forms, or isotopes, and measuring the relative amounts of each can reveal the source of the carbon. Using carbon isotopes in this way is not a new idea, but it requires extremely precise -- and expensive -- measurements. The new instrument, developed by NIST chemists Adam Fleisher and David Long and based on a technology called cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS), promises to dramatically reduce the cost of those measurements. They described the instrument's performance in The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters.

"Measuring carbon isotopes is an extremely useful technique, but until now, it has found limited use because of the cost," said Long. "Lowering the cost will open the way for new applications, especially ones that require testing a large number of samples."

The key to these measurements is carbon-14, a radioactive (yet harmless) isotope of carbon that is formed in the upper atmosphere. That carbon-14 finds its way into all living things. Unlike regular carbon, carbon-14 is unstable, with a half-life of 5,730 years. When living things die, they stop incorporating carbon into their bodies, and their carbon-14 starts to decay away."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170913193108.htm

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Anthropogenic_carbon_emissions

"Abstract
At the station Kollumerwaard (Netherlands), for monitoring tracers in the troposphere, air is sampled in sixteen containers for off-line 13C, 18O and 14C isotopic analysis of CO2. The timing of the sampling is chosen such that CO2 variations correlating with pollutants like CO and CH4 are optimally covered. The 14C measurements enable us to discriminate between biospheric and fossil fuel contributions to background atmosphere CO2. Results during the first year of operation show that the δ13C values for the anthropogenic CO2 are significantly more negative than generally assumed (values ranging from -30 to -58 ‰ VPDB), which clearly indicates the importance of natural gas consumption in the Netherlands. We compare these experimental values with results from a detailed study of CO2 emission estimates from combustion of fossil fuels and the corresponding δ13C values. As an important side result, the method produces reliable values for the regionally averaged ratio CO : fossil CO2 (results ranging from 0.5 to 1%), a direct measure for combustion quality."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079194697811469

You'd make a terrible detective wouldn't you? I asked you what you thought was causing the current warming. Of course, you refuse to answer and put up yet another deflection to try and hide the fact. The fact is we know most of the major forcing that create climate change outside of normal variability. These include solar irradiance, volcanic activity and a series of orbital cycles known collectively as Milankovitch cycles which include the obliquity and eccentricity of the orbit and the precession of equinoxes. All these effect the surface area in Wm^2 that is exposed to solar radiation. So, Einstein, the question is are any of these elements actually effecting climate today. We can measure all these factors.......Can you?

Ironically, the authors of the original GEOCARB study on which you based your original quote to me on CO2 400 million years ago actually stated in their study that the sun was orders of magnitude dimmer at the time as is natural for main sequence stars like ours. They said that right in the study, which I am thinking you never actually read put just pulled it off a blog without understanding it at all.

At any rate, We know the sun is actually reaching a Maunder minimum in solar activity over the last two decades and MIlankovitch cycles are heading towards a long term cooling trend. There is no evidence that volcanic activity is increasing or that Geophysics are changing in any significant way. Yet, we have this correlation between man made fossil fuels and warming:



ge
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climate-change-0

This data is from NASA and NOAA among other sources. This is the best argo buoy, satellite and Earth station data we have.

Now if you went to detective school or were zippy like Lucas Davenport, what would be your first guess about what is causing the warming we are seeing.

I think it would work with most rational people who inform themselves as to what climate science is actually saying and look at the real world data and changes we are seeing all over the world.

Little internet people who get their jollies going hahaha at all those stoopid scientists out there who don't know nuffin about climate - probably not.



[quoteYou call me the ametur when you post a graph that doesn't even cover the time period of the evidence I posted. Right.[/quote]

I don't know what you are talking about. I've posted graphs and articles over all the time periods we are discussing and even pulled up the quote whatever denier blog you got your information from was studying.

I am getting the impression you cannot read a graph or understand scientific information at all. Which was my impression of you from the start. An amateur who is either taken in by fossil fuel industry propaganda or has some ulterior motive for throwing disinformation from blogs to try and mislead people to this site.

Either way your style of posting is completely transparent to me.

We don't know exactly what the cause of the cooling was during the period in question. We do know that it was a period of high geological activity and that the sun was dimmer as shown in the GEOCARB study the blog you copied your quote from was referencing. It may have been that all the Milankovitch forcings were headed towards a cooling trend which over rided the forcing from CO2.

Ironically, this may happen again in 40,000 years or so which will very like cool the Earth from the human caused warming we are seeing today. Of course, that won't help us out of our current situation very much.

Your mistake is in seeing CO2 as either the only cause of warming or cooling and making your argument a zero sum, is or isn't deflection. It really shows your lack of scientific knowledge or acumen. Nothing wrong with that but you should try to inform yourself better before coming onto a site like this and trying to win an argument through logical fallacies and insults.

It makes you look stupid.

I literally don't. I'm trying to provide you information so you can make an informed opinion one way or another rather than just parroting fossil fuel industry climate denier nonsense.

Actually your the one who is quite predictable. All this is in the denier handbook. Did you know that Exxonmobile scientists have come out and admitted that they knew emissions were going to cause huge problems decades ago but the big wigs made then suppress the data? So the fossil fuel scientists have come out and admitted they misled the public - but you still don't believe them.

Have to leave this for now as I'm busy and can't post more than 16,000 characters apparently.

But I'll finish the rest of your post later.

 

After you answer the question of whether you think humans could.

 

It's your fantasy, explain yourself. It's also pretty lame to come up with a fantasy about Mars when you admitted your entire thread is just a theory you can't prove.

You posted a lot of fake news in here. lol

 

Yes, the supposed Greenhouse Effect which supposedly "heats" the Earth via "greenhouse gases" violates thermodynamics. Two main arguments arise out of this theory.

[1] The Magick Blanket Argument is all about the one-way insulator. It magickally allows heat through the atmosphere and to the surface, yet it does not identically allow heat back through the atmosphere and into space. If it actually were super challenging for heat to escape into space because of Greenhouse Gases, then it would also be super challenging for heat to enter into the atmosphere to begin with because of Greenhouse Gases. It would need to work both ways. This argument also makes a few false equivalence fallacies, such as falsely equating "heat" with "thermal energy", a "non-energy source" with an "energy source", and a "closed convective system" with an "open convective system".

[2] The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument is a claim that about 1/2 of all photons act as magick superballs, continually bouncing back and forth between the Earth's surface and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, all while the sun keeps adding in more photons that behave in this manner. This argument denies the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

The 1st LoT states that one cannot create energy out of nothing. It takes energy to raise the temperature of Earth, and the dissipation of energy cannot be ignored.

The 2nd LoT states that entropy cannot decrease in any system. AGW peddlers are attempting to warm the surface while cooling the upper atmosphere. This is decreasing entropy, as it is attempting to make heat flow backwards (from cold to warm).

The SB Law states that radiance is proportional to temperature (as the other parts of the equation are constants). By not letting the photons escape, this theory is attempting to decrease radiance while increasing temperature, in direct violation of the SB Law.

Simple.

Unlike Earth's atmosphere, a greenhouse is a closed convective system. The closed (but transparent) roof (and walls) allow for sunlight to heat the greenhouse and everything within it, yet the greenhouse also reduces heat (the "flow of thermal energy") by limiting convection to the outside air. Heating by the greenhouse to the outside air is thus decoupled, much like what happens when you wrap a blanket around yourself.

Heat is not "slowed" or "trapped", but simply reduced. It still flows from hot to cold all the same.

 

You expected him to answer a question that is based on an undefined buzzword ("climate change"). You have yet to define what "climate change" is, nor describe precisely how, for example, a tropical climate "changes" into a tundra climate.

Define "global warming". Yet another meaningless buzzword.

YOU are the one making a circular argument here (which makes this an Inversion Fallacy ("projection") on your part), and worse off, you are making a circular argument which commits the circular argument fallacy, as you are using a circular argument ("Earth is warming") as a proof (that "Earth is warming"). Your argument is taking the logical form (A->A)->A. In other words, you are using the conclusion of your circular argument as a proof that your conclusion is true. This is what a fundamentalist does. Further evidence that the Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.

 

Once again, just answer the question instead of dodging.

Do you think it is possible for humans to go to Mars and change the climate there?

 

The fact that a greenhouse is a closed convective system just means that the greenhouse process is less prone to be impacted by other variables. It does not mean that it suddenly stops working as soon as you increase the scale of the effect to the size of a planet.

You also take the "main arguments" to some very massive and unnecessary extremes. There is no Magic Blanket that prevents all heat from escaping into space. Some does. But as you increase the amount of greenhouse gas, the ability to absorb thermal energy increases and thereby limits the ability of the thermal energy to escape into space.

Similarly, the notion of a "magic bouncing photon" is utterly simplistic. The photons are going to largely pass through a transparent medium (the atmosphere) and then they will get absorbed into surfaces where that energy turns into radiative energy. The photons are not going to keep bouncing (except to the extent that they hit a reflective surface). They are going to be absorbed, turned into heat energy, and that heat energy will radiate back into the air.

Tell me something, if you think the Greenhouse Effect is non-sense, how would you explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being roughly 4x further from the Sun?

 

The Earth is warming because there are a whole host of indicators, including temperature measurements taken across the planet and across multiple decades, that indicate the Planet is warming. That isn't a circular argument.

 

This description does a much better job of addressing the nonsense you've posted here.

But if you think you are still right and every other scientific textbook is wrong, then I encourage you go out into the world and help educate others to the truth. You have not convinced me though.

 

I'm not your little friend and there is no double talk. You either don't have the comprehension skills to understand what I'm saying or you are desperately trying stupid tactics to deny. But here is what I am saying:

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and is one of the primary drivers of what scientists have determined and established through experimental evidence over more than a century, is known as the greenhouse effect. CO2 levels have been closely associated with changes in climate over the history of the Earth. There are other factors that determine climate in conjunction with CO2 such as orbital mechanics, solar activity and geological activity.

At periods in the Earth's past some or all of those other factors may have overridden CO2 as the main driver.

There is no evidence that any of these other factors are today. Milankovitch cycles are all heading for a long term cooling trend, solar irradiance has been decreasing for the last 2 decades while temperature has continued to rise and there is no evidence that volcanic or other geological activity is contributing to the current warming.

The connection between CO2 and the current warming we are experiencing is clear and visible due to empirical evidence from measurements all over the Earth:



I don't know how much clearer I can make that for you. A person of average intelligence should be able to understand what it is I am claiming without all the posturing and deflections.

You seem to be going through all kinds of mental gymnastics to make this into a he said, she said thing. What am I lying about? What I claimed is pretty clear. You are denying over and over that human caused CO2 is the cause of the current warming.

Again, WHAT IS CAUSING THE CURRENT WARMING THEN IF CO2 IS NOT THE CULPRIT?

If you can't answer that question, then you are just whistling in the dark and don't really have a good argument do you?

Go ahead, have a stab at it and I'll discuss the merits but you really have to come up with some explanation if you are going to deny the correlation from the NASA/NOAA graph I posted and all the other material I have provided for you.

And your inability to understand simple English or to comprehend the gist of my argument is telling of someone who doesn't understand the first thing about climate other than what he reads in some blog.

No, I am on record as saying that CO2 is a primary cause of THE CLIMATE CHANGE WE ARE EXPERIENCING TODAY IN THE MODERN ERA.

You are using some misinterpretation of GEOCARB study that you probably saw on WUWT or some other denier blog that you refuse to document or back up to say that what happened 400 million years ago proves that today's climate is not being primarily driven by CO2 levels, 36,000,000,000,000 tonnes a year into the atmosphere, from human industrial activity.

So if you stop making this all about me and trying to deflect with silly he said/she said dodges, that is the gist of the argument we are having.

Does this help you understand what is going on a little better?

I can eliminate those other factors and it is not my theory. It is the theory of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists and backed up by centuries of scientific study and empirical evidence.

Again, stop making this about me and conduct your argument on it's own merit.

You haven't shown anything of the sort other than some blog entry you quoted. And even if you did you are making the logical fallacy that what happened 400 million years ago is the same thing happening today. It is not even a strawman it is illogical.

The empirical evidence for this event being caused by anthropological industrial activity and the rise of CO2 levels not seen for 800,000 years is overwhelming and conclusive.

I asked you for a link so we could see where your claim came from. You refused and have so far refused to post anything to back up anything you have claimed. It is not my job to chase down your argument for you.

I am not using a strategy. I am trying to provide you information with which to support my argument.

I don't think you need to be a genius to see who is posting facts and data and who is resorting to ad-hominem and circular argument. Do you think that strategy will work?

All you would have to do is go back to the post and you can see the link. Why should I have to post it twice? Answer me that.

Again, just more ad-hominem and personalization. I called you a denier because you called me a flat-Earther despite the fact it is you who are arguing against almost the entire scientific community and even fossil fuel interests who are now admitting the truth of human induced climate change through fossil fuels and starting to build strategies to reduce emissions knowing that inevitable is coming.

Some are a little slower to grasp the inevitable truth, I suppose.

Again, circular nonsense argument with no merit. I don't know if calling me your little friend makes you feel like a big man or something but you should know the insults just roll off my back. I have had this argument with better than you before.

I am not using petty insults, you are. And you have provided nothing and refused to back up any of your claims. I've already provided you with reams of graphs, data and evidence and the only response is stupid insults and personalizations. This is just the usual tactics and the usual denier logic.

I'll ask again, If not CO2, what is causing the current warming trend we have been seeing over the period of the industrial era?

Answer the question and use a little more respectful tone and I would be quite happy to put the time into explaining how we can eliminate the other PRIMARY drivers of climate.

But you need to at least answer the question I have posed half a dozen times here just to show you have some understanding of what those other drivers are.

 

Psst. Hey Genius if I was refusing to post the link I wouldn't have given you the post where it was. You once again prove how lazy you are refusing to look it up when its already been posted in this thread not once but twice.

But no surprise you still can't admit your mistake. So typical.

Of course you are. If you weren't you would have looked it up in this thread when you were given the post.

LOL Do you even hear yourself?

Actually yes I do or you wouldn't be humiliating yourself each and every time you refuse to look it up when its been posted not once but twice in this thread and you've been told where

Actually if you had any integrity you wouldn't have come into a thread and demand everyone else accomodate you because you were too lazy or scared to look up the link even after the post was given to you where it was.

And every time you refuse to do it you only prove me right once again

Ah so you are going to lie about your posts. No problem I've dealt with many people like you and to beat you I only need to quote you:

I've already had this same discussion in 6 or seven other threads so I'm not going to waste my time chasing down a link - especially since just from the language of your quote I can tell it is coming from an unscientific and biased source.

But you didn't dismiss it right? LOL God the narcissism you are putting on display thinking no one is going to take the time to look up what you actually said and think you can get away with it is so amusing.

Which doesn't even include the timeframe of my evidence. And you think that helps you how? LOL

Yes you proved that you don't believe in CO2 being the primary cause of climate change with that face. Only that face changes when its the current timeframe and magically 5.25% of man made CO2 is somehow without proof the primary source of climate change.


I missed you.

When you quote zero evidence or anyone making the claim 5.25% of human based CO2 is somehow magically primarily responsible for climate change you bet.

People with an actual scientific background don't rely on belief that the science is settled. Nor do they dismiss large chunks of earth's history where CO2 did not conform to global temperatures.

Religious zealots of course, do.

If you actually knew what you were talking about your first link to disprove mine would have actually contained the timeframe I mentioned. But it didn't.

See the reason you are so easy to defeat is you never support your actual argument. Nowhere have you quoted anything that states yes 5.25% of human based CO2 (and that's from websites that support your flat earther theory) is magically primarily responsible for climate change.

And every time you run from supporting that flat earther belief I win.

LOL I never denied you can differentiate between natural and human based CO2. Your own links put human production at 5.25% of all CO2. The stupidity anti science belief is claiming that percentage is the primary source for climate change.

And I see you quoted me challenging you to prove it and of course you couldn't. Again. :

And nowhere does it specify what "significantly more negative" actually means in raw numbers. You would have to believe that human based CO2 is magically over 20 times more impactful on the earth than natural CO2 and even your own links don't make that claim. Go on, quote them where they do.

It would be helpful in the future if you actually read what you quoted next time.

For the perp I was chasing you bet

So you are going to lie again despite me proving you laughably wrong the last time you tried this BS. No problem, I'll quote myself again and this time I'm going to humiliate you with the screen capture of it.




Go ahead @EarthSky, deny I answered your question directly once again You've already misrepresented the facts at least 5 times on this one point alone. Deny it again I double dog dare you.

Great! Then show us where all of those factors are measured and can be proven to be dismissed all but your flat earther belief that only human based CO2 production or 5.25% of total CO2 on earth can magically be the primary source of climate change.

Go right ahead and prove it Earthboy! After all this is your belief we are talking about and you being such a self proposed scientist then it should come as second nature for you to do it shouldn't it?

And how does that change the reality that CO2 was far higher now and the temperature was in an Ice Age? Did you even think that far ahead or was it just another emotional outburst?

And another conclusion without proof. Boy you make a poor scientist.

LOL 1880? How much CO2 were humans producing back then? Are you even aware of basic history? The actual production of human based CO2 wasn't even significant until the 50s when mass production became commonplace in industry.

But go ahead, produce the CO2 numbers of human based CO2 for that period and prove me wrong

By the way if you actually could read your history you would have seen temperatures went down for 35 years between the 1940s and mid 70s despite this being a massive increase in CO2 production for the century.

Please don't tell me you were that clueless about this as well?

I've already answered that in this post alone as well as 6 other times. Even screenshot it for you so you couldn't lie again that I haven't answered it

Yes they would. And if they did they would know CO2 does not follow the temperature for the history of the planet not even in the 20th century. But religious zealots like yourself dismiss that as heresy against doctrine [/quote]

 

There's no reason to put yourself down like this. You can learn

How could you when you haven't even looked up the link I provided?

Yes its my fault you cannot prove your flat earther claim that 5.25% of all CO2 humans produce is magically primarily responsible for climate change despite you admitting in the past when CO2 was far higher we can't rule out other variables.

Yet somehow you pretend without evidence we can now. Unbelievable how primitive that thinking is.

Yes I will hold you accountable for your flat earth theories instead of trying to change the subject of you providing factual evidence of your beliefs

YES! Exactly! But somehow now those variables magically go away in the present for you despite no evidence to support that theory. Do you even hear yourself?

LOL I'm the one who rightly says we don't know the source of all climate change. You are the one claiming we know the primary source after admitting when CO2 was 14-17 times higher in earth's history there are too many variables to consider. And you call me stupid? LOL Don't get me wrong, its absolutely delicious watching you fall flat on both of your faces as you discuss this, one face admitting we don't know the primary cause of climate change while the other rants on that we do. But you are only embarrassing yourself further.

LOL Absolutely you do. One face admits we don't know the cause of climate change while the other one fanatically claims we do.

See if you actually were trying to provide an informed opinion you would be able to admit as I an the rest of the non flat earthers here say that we do not know the primary cause of climate change.

But you don't. You insist its man unless man isn't around and the CO2 levels don't conform to your belief system then its time to be skeptical

It really is amusing to watch you try though.

Is it now! If deniers are the ones who openly deny we do not know the primary cause of climate change then absolutely call me a denier! A heck of a lot better than being a true believer like yourself

#1 I never once said that human based CO2 did not cause emissions or pollution so please try at least this time not to lie about what I said.

#2 My only argument is that we do not know the primary cause of climate change. You admit we don't when CO2 levels were far higher yet now you somehow believe all those varabiles you pointed to for CO2 not following temps magically disappear now without a shred of evidence to support you.


This is where we differ. I admit the science isn't settled and you follow a true believer's path where the science is settled despite the fact it does not support your belief system yet you continue to claim it does without factual data to account for all other variables that impact climate other than 5.25% of CO2 by humans.

 

If you have the slightest inkling of how climate works, you can easily understand how atmospheric CO2 can be overridden by factors such as solar activity, orbital mechanics or geological activity (see, I've even given you a hint) or that they can work together in intricate ways to influence climate.

The question is, is that what is happening today?

"a number of factors" is not answering the question. In fact it is showing that you don't have a clue what those other factors are. Try that on a physics test and see what mark you get.

No I meant specifically what factors throughout those millions of years.

You say you are not stupid enough yet the worlds scientists who are actually qualified in the field and through training disagree with you.

What are the probabilities, do you think, that the vast majority of the world's scientists, economists, historians and world bodies disagree with you but that you are the clever one who got it right?

Yes, your argument hasn't changed. You still think what happened 400 million years ago is somehow relevant to today. And I've tried over and over to explain that there is nothing magical about it. Just because other climate factors like orbital mechanics and solar activity may have overridden high CO2 levels then doesn't mean they are today - especially when we can actually see the man-made footprint in isotopes of the CO2 from industrial activity and measure that up with the graph of temperature within a level of certainty that is almost undeniable - I say almost because some will try to deny what is right in front of them no matter how much empirical evidence you provide them.

You haven't answered the question. "Other factors" isn't an answer it is lazy, lame dodge. I want something specific that we can discuss for it's merit. Your the guy who isn't stupid enough to believe man-made CO2 is the culprit right?

The you should be clever enough to come up with something that is the culprit - or should we just agree that you don't have a clue?

And your reading comprehension seems to be failing you. What I am saying is that there is not evidence that any of the other factors that historically induce climate change on Earth appear to be factors in what is happening today.

I've actually quantified that on another thread but I am doing all the work here while all you are doing is spinning around in logic circles (or perhaps circles of illogical thinking is better) I want you to give me your opinion on what is causing the current warming if not human caused rise in CO2 so that we can discuss the merits or else admit that you don't have the faintest clue.

And "other factors" is not an answer. My kids can do better than that in physics.

You can educate yourself with this scientist who doesn't believe your flat earther beliefs.

I don't need to watch some denier with a graph on Fox to know it's BS but I actually will watch the part at 3:20 just to tell you why it is BS when I get back.

Lol, that's your problem. You believe anything the deniarati says because it fits your personal bias and lets you come to a site like this and regurgitate it to try and pretend you understand climate better that those stooopid scientists.

But that's okay, at least you posted something this time instead of just running around hurling insults and trying to play he said she said with circular logic.

 

LOL Fix your quotes if you want a response. And please the cherry picking you are doing to my reponses only proves you don't have the stomach for an actual debate.

 

Exactly! And you haven't proven that all the factors you want to blame for the past when CO2 did not conform to temperatures are not happening now and you claim I don't understand how it works?

LOL You can't dismiss all other factors with no evidence for the here and now then when the CO2 numbers go completely against you pretend only then should other factors be questioned

Yes it is because I'm not strupid enough to base a belief on a single factor that doesn't even account for 6% of one substance on this planet.

LOL Try claiming you know the primary factor when you can't even prove it and see how that works out for you chuckles

Then they should be able to say "yes we have accounted for all other natural factors and come to the conclusion only 5.25 % of CO2 is the primary source for climate change.

And they never do that

LOL You just ruined your own argument. Who cares what economists think about climate change? Of course you are referring to the morons in the IPCC who are not all scientists but heavily populated with political advocates which of course you wholly embrace for your dogma.

When you claim CO2 is the primary cause of climate change absolutely because it blows a hole right through that belief of yours

Can't you even see you are never actually claiming that all other factors that could affect climate change now have been accounted for a proven not to be the primary factor? Stop and breathe for a moment and answer that question. Do you understand that?

Sigh. Still making things up I see.

Ah the "scientist" who believes if an answer is unknown, its a lame dodge. LOL And you pretend to be a scientist with that belief system? hahahaha

Yes I am not the one stupid enough to say we have dismissed all other reasons for climate change and can point to 5.25 % of all CO2 and blame that as the primary cause. Yes, you are right, I am not that stupid to come to that conclusion.

LOL No Genius science does not require an answer if the answer is unknown. Just because you believe it is without being able to eliminate all other possibilities makes you a religious fanatic not a scientist.

Really! then name the "factors" that have magically disappeared without proof. Go ahead Earthboy, list them with proof from one of your flat earther articles

LOL yeah sure you have. Just admit you can't and move on ok?

I'm proud my kids know when an answer is unknown that doesn't mean the science is settled because someone has a belief it isn't. Your kids would do well to be curious instead of being religious fanatics where the answer must be what you believe.

HAHAHAHA Yeah you should be able to dismiss other scientistis who don't follow your dogma. I mean they must be wrong because you believe they are right?

God you are the epitome of Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola. Don't worry I don't expect you to be educated enough to know who that is.

You mean because he admits we don't have the answers does not mean we should stop looking for them. That's the difference between a rational person and a flat earther religious zealot who refuses to listen to actual science and holds onto a failed belief system they cannot prove has removed all other factors as primary causes except for 5.25% of CO2 on the planet.

 

As I said, I am not responsible for chasing down a link you refused to post. You are just refusing either because the source is so phony or just your belligerent attitude. Probably both. You were probably hard to potty train weren't you?

If you had any integrity you would just post the link and provide a graph to support your case as I have all through this thread.

You keep making it about me. Weird.

I'm not humiliated. You are refusing to provide the link I requested pure and simple and you have been unable to provide anything to back up any of your claims. In fact more and more it is just looking like you are here to troll rather than have an honest discussion.

Actually if you had any integrity you wouldn't have come into a thread and demand everyone else accomodate you because you were too lazy or scared to look up the link even after the post was given to you where it was.

And every time you refuse to do it you only prove me right once again [/quote]

I didn't demand anything. I asked you for a link to your claim so we could judge it on it's merit. You are refusing - pure and simple.

What narcissism? Are you pretending to be a psychiatrist now? No I didn't dismiss it. I even went and tried to research your claim on my own just for my own interest.

I don't know what you think I'm trying to get away with. You seem to have a persecution complex or some kind of paranoia about other people's intent.

Do you find this helpful in your dealings with others?

Well you never provided a graph or a link or anything but a single paragraph. That's why I wanted you to post something to back up your claim. Nobody can get a clear idea what you are talking about unless you do a better job documenting your claims.

The only period I can find in the last 500 million years that CO2 was that high and temp as low that you claim was in that graph of the last 500 million years. And you will notice that the periods of glaciation were when CO2 significantly dropped. That was GEOCARB data.

Are you saying that your time frame was longer than 500 million years? How long then, 700M? A billion? Lol, yeah we are going to have really certain measurements for that all right, lol.

You are developing a weird attraction to me. I must warn you I am straight with kids and a family but a nice guy like you will probably find someone, someday.

Where did you get the 5.25 figure. I know that is a denier meme from somewhere. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm to over 400ppm and that is all human activity as evidenced by the Keeling curve and other sources. Are you trying to minimize the rise of man-made gases or deny the science of the greenhouse effect again?

And you keep saying there is no proof even when I have provided a ton of it. Is why you are not a skeptic but a denier. There is literally no evidence I could show you no matter how compelling that would dent your denial. I don't know if you are a paid shill on this site or you have really been so blinded by all the fossil fuel industry propaganda that you actually believe what you are saying but either way, you seem to be on a mission to mislead yourself and other people.

Kinda sad.

I've provided all kinds of evidence. That you deny it all is your problem not mine.

I never said that the science is settled. What I said is that there is a vast preponderance of empirical evidence and that the vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement. As are most rational functioning minds not taken in by fossil fuel industry propaganda which even they are distancing themselves from as the effects of man-made climate change become more and more evident.

I'm not religious. Why are you making stuff about me all the time? Like I said, I'm spoken for and straight anyway.

Well, then be a man and post a graph of the timeframe you are mentioning and some LINK to back up your claim so we can judge it on it's merits. If you had any integrity you already would have done that without asking but it is becoming quite clear how you operate and what you are up to here - which is denial and deflection and personal insults when that doesn't work.

You haven't won anything. We are supposedly having a discussion about your claim that CO2 is not the primary cause of the warming we are experiencing.

But I'm glad to admit to yourself that you have no intention of seeking truth or knowledge and are only interested in winning a stupid argument and stooping to ridiculous tactics to try to win.

It's funny that you think you are winning something though. What do you get? Does PF give you a extra like or a award point or are you one of the own a lib crowd or something?

At any rate, this stuff just rolls off my back. But if your're getting your jollies.....by all means

Then why do so many scientists believe it? You should really write a paper to the IPCC quick to prove to all those scientists how stupid they all are before we do something idiotic like curb our CO2 emissions.

I've provided all kinds of evidence. I can't help it if you deny it all.

I do read what I quote. Why would human based CO2 be more impactful than natural?
That makes no sense.

Your lack of logic makes discussion difficult.


For the perp I was chasing you bet

I asked you for a specific not " some factor" as I said. I am still waiting. "Some factor" is not an answer. Come up with something and I will gladly try to document why we can rule out forcings that have been significant at some points in the past.

But I'm doing all the work here. You need to put some effort in because the deflections and lame insults are making you look stupid.

Why do you feel the need to try and humiliate me. Does this give you some kind of unfulfilled gratification. Were you the kind of guy who was humiliated in school and now you find you can get some kind of turnaround or redemption from the anonymity of the internet? Nobody can hurt you behind your computer screen so you can pretend to overcome your failings or something.

I don't feel humiliated at all. You just seem to be needing something more than a simple discussion of climate change on the internet.

Validation?

You haven't answered my question. What factors?

I never said that only human based CO2 is the primary source of climate change remember. What I said was that CO2 is historically a primary driver of climate and that human emissions are the primary driver of the change we are seeing now. You really do struggle with reading comprehension, don't you.

That may be part of your problem with the needing validation and to feel you have humiliated someone to get that.

And I'm waiting for you to come up with a factor that you think is causing the current warming trend. I don't need to prove anything to you or myself. We are supposedly having a fair discussion of climate change. You need to do something on your part besides all the emotional outbursts and attention seeking behavior.

Was it really higher in an ice age. Not from the GEOCARB study I linked. It looked like CO2 tanked and then the glaciation began about 300 million years ago.

Of course you still refuse to link to any data on that other than a paragraph from an obvious denier blog so, you're claim remains unsubstantiated and unproven until you post something to prove it.

Coming from the guy who can't post a single thing to back up any of his argument other than a denier blog and some guy on Fox news, lol.

 

Boy you are going to pull every denier meme out of the hat to try and win this and pretend you have humiliated me aren't you? A couple of decades of cooling is to be expected in the overall warming trend. We can even explain it:

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/#ixzz6ELjBB0uh

Try and put your big boy hat on and come up with a factor for us to discuss. I know you can do it if you try. I've even hinted at a couple for you. Now you can try to explain how the have created the warming trend we are seeing. You can even go to Fox News or WUWT to figure something out.

[/QUOTE]

Can you provide a Link for that or even a graph? That is not true for the 20th century unless you can provide some evidence otherwise. Temperature is certainly following CO2 for the duration of the 20th century and I've provided many graphs for you to prove that. And the dip in for a couple of decades came after a huge upward blip in the early 40's so you are measuring on a graph there, you are using a big warming event as your right axis:


It dipped in the early 1900's too but as you said industrial activity and the aerosols it created didn't really get going until the 50's or even 60's. The overall trend is clear no matter how hard you try to deny it.

So the science of climate change is religious doctrine. You are like the greatest hits of the denier era come on one, single cheap disk from K-tel.

What, as soon as I post some data do you run off to WUWT trying to find some factoid to show how stoopid all those scientists really are and then rush here to post it thinking you are zippy with something new all those scientists hadn't seen before?

Lol

Oops, gotta go for now. I'd say it's been fun but.....meh.

Your homework is to try to come up with a single tangible factor that is causing the current warming trend.
a ten year old could come up with "some factors."

 

It's why the temperature on the moon is a balmy 78 degrees.
Oh, wait.

 

So you know how you said that Earthsky was losing the debate because he fixed your grammar?

Well, you know how I know you recognize that you are losing...?

 

The number of times you have to say "lol" or "hahaha" in this post is also proof that you know you are losing the debate.

 

Well.... I'm no climate scientist, but your first assumption is incorrect.
The frequency of the suns light passes pretty easily through the earths atmosphere and warms the surface.
The energy radiated by the surface is different (infrared) and is more readily absorbed by CO2.

 

No kidding. Then you best go back to spreading fake news in political threads.

 

It isnt about years but about the knowledge and undetstanding used to interpret what is observed.

With or without man the earth will warm until the next ice age. This is beyond our control. Hell you guys act like the warming stops without our co2. So unless warming cooling cycles end the ice caps will be gone via natural cycles. We are told our co2 will make the inevitable warming faster . So instead of my great great grandkids experiencing the effects of climate change it will be my great great great great great grandkis experiencibg it. Regardless with or without co2 our progeny will experience it

No need for the hysterics or even concern. For it is inevitable.

Get it ? From the big picture it is the solution looking for the problem.

It does not matter if it takes 100 years for the caps to melt or 1000 years. For humans will have to experience it either way.

The greater problem is the next ice age not the warming. When the next ice age comes we will be looking at how great the warming was!

 

Still waiting for you to respond to the last two questions I posed for you on this debate thread.