The truth of Global Warming

[Catawba]

Except that Co2 is a NUTRIENT. NOT a pollutant. It's only when concentrations exceeds a certain threshold that it starts to cause ACTUAL problems. Further, it's happened where Co2 levels have been far beyond 1000ppm of CO2...and I don't doubt there was natural fluctuations similar to the fluctuations seen today.

You are confusing toxicity with pollution. (see defintion of pollution)

 

[BmanMcfly]

You are confusing toxicity with pollution. (see defintion of pollution)

In that case, when you're calling co2 a pollutant, you mean that it is a beneficial pollution.

 

[Catawba]

In that case, when you're calling co2 a pollutant, you mean that it is a beneficial pollution.

You remember when you came up with the analogy using water? Remember how you noted that normally water is a life giving positive, but during floods it can wreak havoc?

Its the same thing with CO2. The earth has the capacity to sequester all the CO2 it produces which is a good thing, however, through our massive burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, we have increased the levels beyond what the earth can naturally process without heating up.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Except that Co2 is a NUTRIENT. NOT a pollutant. It's only when concentrations exceeds a certain threshold that it starts to cause ACTUAL problems. Further, it's happened where Co2 levels have been far beyond 1000ppm of CO2...and I don't doubt there was natural fluctuations similar to the fluctuations seen today.

Co2 in the atmosphere is 35% higher now than at the start of the industrial revolution.

 

[BmanMcfly]

You remember when you came up with the analogy using water? Remember how you noted that normally water is a life giving positive, but during floods it can wreak havoc?

So you admit that water is a pollutant that should be treated like CO2....

Ok, now what is the 'too much point'??? Respiratory problems start happening at over 1200ppm... by 2000ppm it's fatal.

Here's the catch, in 150 years we've managed to artificially increase CO2 levels by 40%.... now, before there starts to be problems it needs to increase up to 400%.

So, given your belief that there's peak oil since the 70's and we're on borrowed time with oil anyway, well, you should be happy, the price is going up on everything... most foods you eat travel 100's of miles.

Even though it's not really because of 'peak oil' but because of artificial scarcity through a lack of refineries... There are some SERIOUS implications to what you're calling for... especially when these calls are made on a global scale (though enforcement is primarily targeting the west, including europe and australia)

But how much have temperatures gone up in the past 150 years??? well... depending on the time of year between 0.4-0.8 degrees... which is actually a GOOD thing for the most part... you can grow more food in more places if it's warmer then colder for starters...

There is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for the fear mongering... no extra hurricanes, no increase in storms, etc...

Its the same thing with CO2. The earth has the capacity to sequester all the CO2 it produces which is a good thing, however, through our massive burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, we have increased the levels beyond what the earth can naturally process without heating up.

This is utter false and the long-term (millions of years) of data PROVES that the tight correlation between CO2 and Climate is nothing more then a recent phenomena. One does NOT cause the other to any great extent... and warming does NOT necessarily cause more storms or anything like that either.

Hell, they've even blamed earthquakes on global warming for chrissakes.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Co2 in the atmosphere is 35% higher now than at the start of the industrial revolution.

And so it's 35% warmer then it was ?

Well, no... because you're dealing with a correlation, not causation.

Further, 35% increase is assuming that 100% of the change in Co2 is human produced... which is simply NOT the case either.

 

[Catawba]

So you admit that water is a pollutant that should be treated like CO2....

Ok, now what is the 'too much point'??? Respiratory problems start happening at over 1200ppm... by 2000ppm it's fatal.

Here's the catch, in 150 years we've managed to artificially increase CO2 levels by 40%.... now, before there starts to be problems it needs to increase up to 400%.

You are confusing toxicity with pollution (see definition of pollution).

 

[Dittohead not!]

And so it's 35% warmer then it was ?

Well, no... because you're dealing with a correlation, not causation.

Further, 35% increase is assuming that 100% of the change in Co2 is human produced... which is simply NOT the case either.

No, because carbon dioxide concentration is only one factor. Change one factor by 35%, change the outcome by a lesser percent.

Absolute zero is -273.15. The average temperature of the Earth is 13C. Add those together, and the average temperature in absolute terms is about 286 degrees C. If you increase the temperature by one degree C, that is a percent increase of about 1/3 of 1%. The temperature of the Earth has not increased much, then, but just a little increase in the average temperature can create big differences as perceived by humans. Of course, we're a still long way from the temperature of Venus, but even that little bit is causing glaciers to melt, changing ocean and wind currents, and bringing about changes in local climates.

 

[Manc Skipper]

And so it's 35% warmer then it was ?

Well, no... because you're dealing with a correlation, not causation.

Further, 35% increase is assuming that 100% of the change in Co2 is human produced... which is simply NOT the case either.

I said neither of those things. Little wonder that your comprehension is so poor when you make erroneous assumptions from a simple statement of fact.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I said neither of those things. Little wonder that your comprehension is so poor when you make erroneous assumptions from a simple statement of fact.

Hey, you're trying to tell me it's a 'cause-effect' relationship... the graphs make the claim that it is a direct cause, meaning a 35% increase in CO2 should mean a 35% increase in temperature.

Understand the implications of what you're talking about.

My comprehension is fine... but with a 'cause-effect' like say gravity... you let go of an object and gravity causes it to drop to a measurable degree. So, what you're telling me is that you have a cause... and so when the theory is challenged you shift to an attack.

So, again, thanks for helping to point out that Co2 is NOT a cause of the warming... FROM YET ANOTHER perspective.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No, because carbon dioxide concentration is only one factor. Change one factor by 35%, change the outcome by a lesser percent.

Absolute zero is -273.15. The average temperature of the Earth is 13C. Add those together, and the average temperature in absolute terms is about 286 degrees C. If you increase the temperature by one degree C, that is a percent increase of about 1/3 of 1%. The temperature of the Earth has not increased much, then, but just a little increase in the average temperature can create big differences as perceived by humans. Of course, we're a still long way from the temperature of Venus, but even that little bit is causing glaciers to melt, changing ocean and wind currents, and bringing about changes in local climates.

Ok, so, it's a 35% increase in temperature in K??

Did some quick math using the measured data that was most recent... and the 35% increase in CO2 "caused" a 0.002% increase in temperature.

Now, shift the focus to the 40's -70's... well, that's the time they started worrying that they were on a cooling trend and should add carbon pellets covering the poles in order to absorb more heat... and again your premise of a 'causal' relationship falls flat on its face.

 

[Deuce]

And so it's 35% warmer then it was ?

Well, no... because you're dealing with a correlation, not causation.

No, because we're not dealing with a linear influence and a single variable. Math fail yet again!

Further, 35% increase is assuming that 100% of the change in Co2 is human produced... which is simply NOT the case either.

It pretty much is 100% us. Other than a minute change in CO2 due to solar influences, nature is a net carbon sink. It absorbs more than it releases. In fact, if you count the 40% of human CO2 emissions that are being absorbed by nature also, it becomes obvious that this change is definitely our doing.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ok, so, it's a 35% increase in temperature in K??

No. It's still about 1/3 of 1%, just like I said. A 35% increase in the average temperture of the Earth would cause changes that would wipe out most of the higher forms of life on this planet.

Did some quick math using the measured data that was most recent... and the 35% increase in CO2 "caused" a 0.002% increase in temperature.

No, 1/3 of 1% would be more like 0.33%.

Now, shift the focus to the 40's -70's... well, that's the time they started worrying that they were on a cooling trend and should add carbon pellets covering the poles in order to absorb more heat... and again your premise of a 'causal' relationship falls flat on its face.

Because the global cooling hypothesis turned out to be wrong? No, scientific opinions are based on facts and observations. Change the facts, and the opinion changes. It is quite unlike political opinion in which you start with the opinion, then try to find facts to support it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No, because we're not dealing with a linear influence and a single variable. Math fail yet again!

Ok, so you're admitting that man is not responsible for the most part. Thank you.

It pretty much is 100% us.

Yes, we produce 100% of the Co2 produced from machines. We are NOT responsible for there being CO2 on the planet.

Other than a minute change in CO2 due to solar influences, nature is a net carbon sink.

No, Co2 is cyclical in nature... The oceans for example will either soak up Co2, or it will generate CO2... depending on various factors.
Plants will soak up more Co2 at certain times then at other times, etc...

It absorbs more than it releases. In fact, if you count the 40% of human CO2 emissions that are being absorbed by nature also, it becomes obvious that this change is definitely our doing.

The change in CO2... let's assume your correct, that 100% of the change in CO2 is man-made. You're also correct about the RECENT correlation between Co2 and climate.

What you've NOT done, at ANY POINT was to PROVE that the relationship is a cause-effect.

You do get the difference, right???
- There's a correlation between global warming and the reduction in numbers of pirates over the past 150 years, that does NOT mean that pirates disappearing are causing warming... but the relationship is as much proof of cause-effect as you've offered.
- Or you can have a 'cause-effect' relationship : The temperature of the burner CAUSES the water in the pot to heat up.

How are we supposed to discuss this if you don't even know the difference between a relationship and a cause??

Or do you secretly have another function of CO2 on the climate that can demonstrate how much CO2 impacts the temperature?? (The last one someone showed was wrong... it was SO WRONG that the ONLY place that it was 'right' was the 1 year 150 years ago, but after that showed that the warming from CO2 went above and beyond the climates measured temperatures, and the difference was expanding the more recent data was being checked)....

So, don't show me the correlation, prove the cause-effect relationship, or you might as well be pushing for more pirates on the seas to lower the climate.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It's funny watching you guys try to back yourselves out of a corner when you try to use facts and figures... stick to the fear mongering, it's been working wonders so far.

No. It's still about 1/3 of 1%, just like I said. A 35% increase in the average temperture of the Earth would cause changes that would wipe out most of the higher forms of life on this planet.

Ok, so a 35% increase in CO2 CAUSES a 0.35% change in temperature... I don't even have to run the numbers to see that you're making stuff up again to try and fit your theory to reality.

No, 1/3 of 1% would be more like 0.33%.

Because the global cooling hypothesis turned out to be wrong?

Ok... so, what's changed in the past 50 years to take the 'global cooling' hypothesis being wrong, to the 'global warming' hypothesis being right?

Remember, they were going to artificially add Co2 in a way that would represent a VERY INTENSE clean-up effort once we realized that the fear mongering needs to be over warmer weather then a deep-freeze.

No, scientific opinions are based on facts and observations. Change the facts, and the opinion changes. It is quite unlike political opinion in which you start with the opinion, then try to find facts to support it.

So, what's it going to take for you guys to realize that correlation != CAUSATION (!= is 'not equal')???

The SECOND you realize that distinction you will HAVE TO realize that there's no proof of global warming being man-made.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's funny watching you guys try to back yourselves out of a corner when you try to use facts and figures... stick to the fear mongering, it's been working wonders so far.



Ok, so a 35% increase in CO2 CAUSES a 0.35% change in temperature... I don't even have to run the numbers to see that you're making stuff up again to try and fit your theory to reality.



Ok... so, what's changed in the past 50 years to take the 'global cooling' hypothesis being wrong, to the 'global warming' hypothesis being right?

Remember, they were going to artificially add Co2 in a way that would represent a VERY INTENSE clean-up effort once we realized that the fear mongering needs to be over warmer weather then a deep-freeze.



So, what's it going to take for you guys to realize that correlation != CAUSATION (!= is 'not equal')???

The SECOND you realize that distinction you will HAVE TO realize that there's no proof of global warming being man-made.

Perhaps you could read what I actually post, instead of responding to posts that exist only in some other dimension.

Oh, wait! No, if you do that, then your entire argument falls down like the house of cards it is.

Let's start with CO2 is only one factor in the temperature of the Earth. There is, therefore, no mathematical equation linking a certain percentage of CO2 to an equal percentage of global warming. That argument is simply grasping at straws.

But, then, that's all you have left, grasping at straws.

Further, it wasn't me who said that global warming was a disaster. No "fear mongering" from me, just the facts, the well ignored and swept under the carpet facts, that's all.

 

[marduc]

Wow talk about math failures.

non-linearity seems to be a lost concept to some. Too bad, most physical systems are non linear.

Lets extend this presumption of uniform linearity of a system to other concepts just for fun, and hopefully to illustrate the folly of this thinking.

How about a car. We know that gas mileage is dependent on the weight of the vehicle, and that humans being in the car increase the weight and decrease the gas mileage. Using a direct parallel to "I am ignoring all other variables and CO2 should cause a strictly linear temp rise with increased amounts" (il)logic, then we would account for the mileage of the car when only I was in the vehicle and my weight. I weigh 175 lbs. and my car gets about 25 mpg. So if I add another passenger who is also 175 lbs. then we should see a 100% decrease in mileage to coincide with the 100% increase in weight. meaning that when I have a passenger I would only get 12.5 MPG. Things do not work like that, not in my car, and not in nature.

But lets account for all the weight of the vehicle + passengers,, still ignoring a few variables, but we are accounting for all weight.. now things should be linear for sure using the superb math logic I have read over a few posts right? OK well lets say my car weighs 2,500 lbs. (with me in it, since we have no way to calculate mileage with autopilot). I then add 4 other passengers for a weight increase of 875 lbs (they are heavy set and weigh ~215 each- its a tight squeeze to get them all in.) Now the weight of the entire system has increased by 35% surely my gas mileage will decrease by 35% right and I should expect to only get ~16 MPG right? ohh wait again it does not work like that.

Another one: I have a container garden, and add fertilizer to my plants to help them grow. I add 1 tsp. per gallon of water. Now if the fertilizer really helped plants to grow then I would expect that if I added 1.35 tsp. per gallon my plants would be 35% larger. Heck all I have to do is add 2 tsp. per gallon and my plants should be twice as large! It does not work this way though, apparently this means that the whole fertilizer plant growth theory is just a huge myth and is a total crock of ****.

One more just for fun.. according to relativity, if you increase speed time slows down to an outside observer. If this is true, then with this fuzzy math I have been reading, if I were in a car and was driving 25 MPH, and then enter a 35 mph speed limit, then to that outside observer time must be going forward 35% faster for them because I am now going 35% faster right? I mean some arbitrarily designed numbering on a scale designed for our convenience must respond perfectly in a perfectly linear fashion and the scale must be an exact 1:1 ratio to everything else.. relativity equations included. or else it shows it is false right? damn now I can't trust my GPS system to be accurate anymore.

Nature is inherently non-linear, and even when there does happen to be linearity, it almost never works in a direct 1:1 ratio, especially not when you assume it should be perfectly linear and 1:1 to some arbitrarily designed temperature scale with some arbitrary start point. heck I could start at 0 F, and say, see it is now 1 F, and say there was well over a 1 billion percent increase in temperature.. there MUST be well over 1 billion times the CO2 in the air now if not it is all false!!!

 

[mac]

You believe the hype the doom and gloom and the lies and data manipulation. I believe it is pure BS and speculation and lies to get money. Follow the money because that is what it is about not the environment


Funny how you say crap like this and yet argue with me when I want equipment on big trucks to stop idle so we pollute less. You make no sense or may be you are to arrogant and elitist to ever admit I could be right

Anyone that follows Al Gore and actually pays attention knows he's in it for cash and fame. To be fair, though, that's the American way. I'm not a big fan of limousine liberals like Gore, but if they are getting the word out in a way that is truelly haveing an impact, who care's if he makes some money doing it?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Perhaps you could read what I actually post, instead of responding to posts that exist only in some other dimension.

Oh, wait! No, if you do that, then your entire argument falls down like the house of cards it is.

Ya... I take all the data you supply and point out the flaws... so, consider that if my argument is a 'house of cards'... you're supplying the bricks.

Let's start with CO2 is only one factor in the temperature of the Earth. There is, therefore, no mathematical equation linking a certain percentage of CO2 to an equal percentage of global warming. That argument is simply grasping at straws.

No, I"m not grasping at straws, I'm forcing your hand. The previous claim was CO2 was causing the warming... according to Deuce this is effectively 100% caused by mankind.

But, if there IS a link of CAUSATION then there IS an equation to determine how much. You're coming closer to the reality here, that CO2 concentrations WILL have a FACTOR, but it's a smaller factor when you consider JUST HOW MANY variables come into play to determine the weather conditions globally and by proxy the global climate.

But the earth has been warming for the past 150 years, and that trend is slowing, if only temporarily, meanwhile, CO2 has been increasing... but the question is to what extent can it be a factor??

You can't just say 'CO2' will increase temperature... when AT BEST you can say, for the global scale, that CO2 increases the potential to reflect energy back in a loop. When you look at it in REAL terms, you can see that there's no way that the correlation is much more then a relationship... in a warm climate there is more life, in the cold, most plant and animal life cannot survive... that's why up north in the summer time there's not much more vegetation that grows then small bushes and grass... it's generally easier for life to cope with a warm climate then for an excessively cold one.

Now, that said, humans ARE CAUSING REAL DAMAGE to the environment. I'm not trying to deny that... merely shift your focus to actual pertinent issues... I mean, even in the exhaust of a car, there's the Co2... sure... whatever. But, there's also the sulfur oxides (which have greater impact on acid rain, among other problems), among a whole list of different bi-products... then you look at the tires, as you're driving some of the rubber 'sheds' from the tire and goes into the air, where pedestrians would be inhaling it...

But even those issues can be SOMEWHAT mitigated, for most people diesel could be a more efficient choice... natural gas burns MUCH cleaner the gas, and all that stuff.. it's all morally good, but doesn't really change a whole lot. Because there's massive industry that sometimes are pumping out mass amounts of toxic garbage, think of all the places where they've been finding masses of hemaphroditic frogs and fish... whatever.

But, then, that's all you have left, grasping at straws.

Further, it wasn't me who said that global warming was a disaster. No "fear mongering" from me, just the facts, the well ignored and swept under the carpet facts, that's all.

Ok :
- Fact Co2 is increasing
- National Debt is increasing
- Crime rates are increasing
- and the weather is getting warmer...

Which ones can you actually PROVE anything more then correlation?? By the way that, if not you then others with your same position, present the issue, 'correlation' IS 'causation'... and it's simply NOT the way it is.

Like, for a long time they thought spicy foods CAUSED ulcers... people that ate spicy foods had a tendency to get ulcers, so they said figured that was the cause. THEN they found out the missing piece : The bacteria that CAUSES ulcers... it turned out the correlation was simply because spicy foods would take something unnoticeable and cause the pain to make it noticed... BUT the spicy foods were NOT the cause.

Finally, if you can't predict the weather more then 14 days out, then you really can't give more then guesses as to what the climate will be at that point... I know the two are different, but honestly, how do you determine the global climate?? You take local weather and amalgamate the data.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Wow talk about math failures.

non-linearity seems to be a lost concept to some. Too bad, most physical systems are non linear.

Lets extend this presumption of uniform linearity of a system to other concepts just for fun, and hopefully to illustrate the folly of this thinking.

How about a car. We know that gas mileage is dependent on the weight of the vehicle, and that humans being in the car increase the weight and decrease the gas mileage. Using a direct parallel to "I am ignoring all other variables and CO2 should cause a strictly linear temp rise with increased amounts" (il)logic, then we would account for the mileage of the car when only I was in the vehicle and my weight. I weigh 175 lbs. and my car gets about 25 mpg. So if I add another passenger who is also 175 lbs. then we should see a 100% decrease in mileage to coincide with the 100% increase in weight. meaning that when I have a passenger I would only get 12.5 MPG. Things do not work like that, not in my car, and not in nature.

But lets account for all the wieght of the vehicle + passengers,, still ignoring a few variables, but we are accounting for all weight.. now things should be linear for sure using the superb math logic I have read over a few posts right? OK well lets say my car weighs 2,500 lbs. (with me in it, since we have no way to calculate mileage with autopilot). I then add 4 other passengers for a weight increase of 875 lbs (they are heavy set and weigh ~215 each- its a tight squeeze to get them all in.) Now the weight of the entire system has increased by 35% surely my gas mileage will decrease by 35% right and I should expect to only get ~16 MPG right? ohh wait again it does not work like that.

Another one: I have a container garden, and add fertilizer to my plants to help them grow. I ass 1 tsp. per gallon of water. Now if the fertilizer really helped plants to grow then I would expect that if I added 1.35 tsp. per gallon my plants would be 35% la

One more just for fun.. according to relativity, if you increase speed time slows down to an outside observer. If this is true, then with this fuzzy math I have been reading, if I were in a car and was driving 25 MPH, and then enter a 35 mph speed limit, then to that outside observer time must be going forward 35% faster for them because I am now going 35% faster right? I mean some arbitrarily designed numbering on a scale designed for our convenience must respond perfectly in a perfectly linear fashion and the scale must be an exact 1:1 ratio to everything else.. relativity equations included. or else it shows it is false right? damn now I can't trust my GPS system to be accurate anymore.

Nature is inherently non-linear, and even when there does happen to be linearity, it almost never works in a direct 1:1 ratio, especially not when you assume it should be perfectly linear and 1:1 to some arbitrarily dsesigned temperature scale with some arbitrary start point. heck I could start at 0 F, and say, see it is now 1 F, and say there was well over a 1 billion percent increase in temperature.. there MUST be well over 1 billion times the CO2 in the air now if not it is all false!!!

Yes... finally someone sees what I'm up against here...

I made that point, specifically for this purpose... and this points out WHY CO2 and Climates' relationship is LITTLE MORE then correlation.

They are supposed to move roughly in sync, which would mean a linear cause-effect... so I'm asking them what's the equation, what's the numbers... because then you can run the numbers of verified data and, as I've done with no rebuttal the equations do NOT match reality. Therefore, it's the wrong equation.

 

[marduc]

Yes... finally someone sees what I'm up against here...

I made that point, specifically for this purpose... and this points out WHY CO2 and Climates' relationship is LITTLE MORE then correlation.

They are supposed to move roughly in sync, which would mean a linear cause-effect... so I'm asking them what's the equation, what's the numbers... because then you can run the numbers of verified data and, as I've done with no rebuttal the equations do NOT match reality. Therefore, it's the wrong equation.

your initial sentence is using the wrong pronoun -try third person plural to rectify this and have an accurate statement.

No they are not "supposed to move roughly in sync" that would imply linearity .. only in your mind and with your flawed logic. obviously the point I was making flew right over your head, no wonder since it is buried in the ground.

So anyways, it seems now that what you are trying to accomplish here (with the moved goalposts) is placing an excessive burden of proof on the shoulders of those you argue against, the "equations" that would govern this would be EXTREMELY complex, and therefore since they cannot meet your unrealistic request they are invalidated and therefore -ignoring that it is an argument from ignorance- it must be false.

 

[BmanMcfly]

your initial sentence is using the wrong pronoun -try third person plural to rectify this and have an accurate statement.

No they are not "supposed to move roughly in sync" that would imply linearity .. only in your mind and with your flawed logic. obviously the point I was making flew right over your head, no wonder since it is buried in the ground.

Again, NOT flawed logic, POINTING OUT flawed logic.

Or at the least, pointing out flawed presentation.

So anyways, it seems now that what you are trying to accomplish here (with the moved goalposts) is placing an excessive burden of proof on the shoulders of those you argue against, the "equations" that would govern this would be EXTREMELY complex, and therefore since they cannot meet your unrealistic request they are invalidated and therefore -ignoring that it is an argument from ignorance- it must be false.

No, I'm getting them to realize the difference between a RELATIONSHIP and a CAUSE - EFFECT.
Ulcers was the example of a relationship... spicy food -> ulcers
Gravity is a 'cause - effect' an object falls and you can measure the effect.

It's not 'moving the goalposts'... it's IF YOU"VE PROVEN a cause-effect relationship, then that means you've determined the precise relationship in all it's factors. If you can't measure the cause-effect relationship then it's just a simple correlation with no meaningful significance. End of story.

 

[marduc]

Again, NOT flawed logic, POINTING OUT flawed logic.

Or at the least, pointing out flawed presentation.

ohh I get it it was a straw man! No one ever claimed that there should be a corresponding 35% increase in temperature alongside a 35% increase in CO2 levels.. that was your invention.

just to make sure, lets check the post that you responded to to see if he made any claims about the temperature increase

Co2 in the atmosphere is 35% higher now than at the start of the industrial revolution.

nope, no claims regarding temperature increase or the supposed "linearity" there, that was definitely your invention. The level of mental gymnastics required to associate that argument with what he said was so gigantic that most of us failed to grasp that it was supposed to be "our" argument.

well you thoroughly thrashed that straw man, congratulations :roll:.

 

[BmanMcfly]

ohh I get it it was a straw man! No one ever claimed that there should be a corresponding 35% increase in temperature alongside a 35% increase in CO2 levels.. that was your invention.

just to make sure, lets check the post that you responded to to see if he made any claims about the temperature increase

No, he said "humans have increased Co2 by 35%" and "co2 is CAUSING warming" is the claim that runs rampant... So, I forced the issue, once again, of HOW MUCH warming has been CAUSED by Co2.

There IS NO ANSWER to that because CO2 is NOT a significant CAUSE of warming... there is a RELATIONSHIP between Co2 levels and global climate, but it is NOT a CAUSE EFFECT relationship.

Yes, Humans probably DID cause a large portion of the increase in CO2.
Yes, the earth has been on an overall warming trend for the past 150 or so years.
Yes, there's been a decrease in the number of pirates around the world...
Yes, there's been an increase in crime overall in the past 150 years...

You can TRACK the correlation of these matters, but you CANNOT demonstrate a causal relationship, because one does NOT EXIST!!

nope, no claims regarding temperature increase or the supposed "linearity" there, that was definitely your invention. The level of mental gymnastics required to associate that argument with what he said was so gigantic that most of us failed to grasp that it was supposed to be "our" argument.

well you thoroughly thrashed that straw man, congratulations :roll:.

Look, what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is this :

How much does CO2 increase temperature?? If CO2 is a cause, we've measured the increase in the CAUSE and so how much does that increase in EFFECT??? If there's a true causal relationship then there's an equation to determine this.

Just like gravity CAUSES an effect that an object falling will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 (minus friction)... this is a clear cause-effect relationship that can be measured. Someone had previously provided an equation that was refuted with the verified data, so I'm asking for this correct equation.

Remember all those times we've been told "predicting climate is easier then predicting weather" because it's mostly based on CO2 levels... when EVEN EARLIER in this monstrosity of the thread, we went over previous predictions and how we've gone through the 'mid case' in increased CO2, yet only saw the 'best case' scenario of warming.

I'm just waiting for some hard answers here, and nobody seems willing or able to provide... just spin issues, attempted insults, and modifying definitions to suit a purpose... when nobody is able to do more then offer correlation as causation.

And nobody seems to get it... I thought you got it for a second, but then you started defending correlation as causation as well here...

So, how about this : PROVE THE CAUSE-EFFECT relationship in a way that van be verified with the raw data and I'll concede that you have a point about CO2 causing warming... then we can start arguing about whether or not warming is a good thing or a bad thing.

Until then, well, this thread will just keep getting longer.

Especially after how many times I've sourced the document written by the types of people that are FUNDING these scientific ventures discussing how they intend to USE environmental issues LIKE global warming OR cooling, food issues, etc for a larger purpose... but that gets ignored because well... I'm not sure why people will deny it's existence, even reading the relevant sections, been told it was a figment of my imagination, in spite of the fact that you can get the documents at your local library, or even Amazon.

One last time... say it with me : Correlation IS NOT the same as CAUSATION.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The only reference made in my statement about "humans causing the rise" is in your head. Even with my statement in front of you, you make **** up.