Since you haven’t answered the question, I will answer it. Recent warming is within the range of natural variation as far as anyone knows. Moreover, there are numerous candidate drivers of the climate which are not very well understood. Thus, anyone claiming that recent warming can be ascribed to CO2 is starting the game with a strike against him or her.
Further, the evidence I have seen which ascribes recent warming to CO2 emissions is weak at best, as far as I know.
**brazil84 **will never leave something that obvious to get in the way of his FUD.
BTW his “as far as I know” reply is just weasel words. Answering a question by himself if beyond silly. Instead of him realizing that we are expecting to see an acknowledgment of the evidence presented so far we see only just evasion. I only see a naked effort to avoid checking the previously shown evidence in the guise of “getting an answer”, he is not worthy of a reply now.
I have started a pit thread about you here:
:shrug: I don’t bear the burden of proof on this point. As far as I know, recent warming is within the range of natural variation. If you have evidence or proof otherwise, please feel free to share it.
I don’t see why. You wouldn’t answer the question and still will not answer it:
Are you claiming that recent warming is NOT within the range of natural variation?
It’s a simple yes or no question, with no unfair assumptions (as far as I can tell).
What? Water vapour and C02 don’t occur naturally?
The isotope evidence shows that the recent increase in CO2 is not natural. (And this was already mentioned.)
It is your burden to show us that it is caused naturally, the evidence so far has dismissed the natural reasons, stomping your feet repeating that it is within the range of natural variation does imply that you know that there is a natural cause for the current temperature increase.
Not playing your game, you are the one that needs to stop weaseling, for “CAGW” there is a lot of issues that are not resolved, for AGW there is almost none. When you only return to FUD again and again regarding AGW you are demonstrating that the difference of it with CAGW is meaningless to you and it is still ok to return to discuss evidence that was investigated several times before and that in reality you are continuing to ignore.
Actually there have been times in the past when CO2 levels were far higher than they are now. Neverthless, I do not deny that it’s likely that mankind’s activities are raising CO2 levels.
That’s nonsense.
If you refuse to answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position, then our discussion is concluded.
Every time I see that coming from you it is the moment when all can see that you really have nothing else to say in defense of your FUD, better distract all with the “yes or no” trick.
All the evidence out there shows the majority of CO2 to be man made, and so is the current increase in temperature, the evidence I have seen so far shows that scientists already take into account the natural increases in the background. So AGW is still there, now CAGW does refer to the “what will happen as the result of that?” The problem from many deniers is that they jump to the defense of yahoos like lord Monkton that still want to deny AGW. I noticed that on the whole, it is meaningless to deny AGW when the current problem is: people that concentrate on the possible catastrophe when adaptation could be the best pragmatic solution.
<3
Yes they do. However normally carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere and converted to oxygen and biomass at a rate pretty steady with it it’s release.
Except the last century or so carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster then they can be reabsorbed.
Now it just so happens around this time these almost hairless apes figured out they could burn coal and oil (which happened to contain carbon that’d long since been sequestered naturally, and removed from the carbon cycle) for energy to make electricity and do mechanical labor.
I know statisticians warn us about correlation not necessarily meaning causation but I’m going to be so bold as to say I think there might be relationship here.
Interestingly water while a greenhouse gas also might be part of a cooling mechanism. There was an interesting Nova episode about this. See dust, soot, particulates and the like produced from things such as con-trails from jets, factories and the like tend to seed clouds. Water condenses around the dust. Now these clouds block out some sunlight reflecting potential heat back into space. This is called global dimming.
When 9/11 grounded the jets there was IIRC a 1 degree C temp rang increase over the country. Such a thing was unheard of. No con-trails seeding light reflecting clouds in the day, no contrail seeded clouds keeping the heat in at night.
Also pan evaporation levels have decreased indicating less and less sunlight making it through, 10% less in fact. The people who measured this are like my science heros. Everyday they’d check the water levels in pans of water to see how much they evaporated, just to see if evaporation rates changed. It just blows my mind someone would think to do that, then do that, then get someone else to take over. They’ve been measuring it since the turn of the century at least. That’s dedication.
Anyway the thinking is industrial soot and the like seeds clouds, which block sunlight, which mask some of the affects of increased CO2. As we clean up our sooty ways for health reasons we’ll loose that mask and start to feel the full affects of global warming.
Some links if you want to read more on it. While not reference level authority I think they might do better then my layman understanding and explanation of the phenomena
And a transcript of the episode:
You might be able to watch it online on the Nova website as you can a lot of their episodes, if you’re interested. I looked but I couldn’t find it.
This is incorrect on multiple levels. First of all, recent warming is far greater than any known natural variation. Second, it’s not even honest to say that it’s so “as far as you know”, since you have been informed in many previous threads of this fact. The best you can say is something along the lines that as far as you choose to believe contrary to the evidence, it’s within natural ranges.
Cite?
Nobody has made a convincing case to me. I’m open to considering whatever evidence or arguments are out there. “as far as I know” reflects the fact that it’s difficult to know what global surface temperatures were like hundreds or thousands of years ago.
(both graphs have their data sources cited)
Pretty interesting how CO2 data lines up with temperature increases.
You have got to be kidding me. You’re going to pull a one day statistic, however erroneous it may be, and somehow use that 24 hour period as proof of anything? Wow!
Why do you feel it’s erroneous? It’s based on weather measurements all over the lower 48, 5,000 data stations in fact. It happened right when the jets were grounded. It was the largest temperature swing in 30 years.
Are you claiming all these data stations were improperly calibrated?
If it wasn’t the jets what did affect temperatures all over the bloody country? Wow indeed.
But don’t take my word for it.
(quotes from the transcript link, first one modified to give credentials)
On the issue of data collection:
On magnitude:
Since you [chronos] have not given me a cite, I will quote to you from my analysis of this point on a blog I set up:
It’s not the temperature that’s unprecedented, it’s the rate of temperature change. Remember, we’re talking about global warming here, not global warmth.
(1) Cite?
(2) Do you agree that the rate of temperature increase in roughly the first half of the 20th century is approximately the same as the rate of temperature increase in the second half of the 20th century?