Verified answer

I think you'll find it's very hard to reason with these people, since they have essentially no training in physics or atmospheric science. It's as if they just exited a murder scene where someone had been shot, holding a smoking gun, and said "It wasn't me that did it, it was the magic fairy dust." They have no alternative explanation for the warming, they have no argument for why CO2 added to the atmosphere shouldn't cause warming. You read some of their arguments and you can tell they have never even heard of Stefan's Law. Some of them have a rudimentary knowledge of statistics but virtually none of them has had more than freshman physics--but even that would have been enough if they had understood it.

They are purely politically motivated.

This cooling, approximately 0.one million C, replaced into possibly a organic fluctuation. It suits the calculated "organic in basic terms" climate curve, in accordance to which there could have been a greater 0.one million C cooling because then, somewhat than the mentioned form of one million.0 C warming. See "worldwide Warming", John Houghton, Prof of atmospheric physics, Oxford, for a very special communicate. word that the mentioned basic warming because 1950 occurs inspite of a reasonable organic tendency to kick back. So we can't count on the sluggish organic cooling to rescue us, and whilst this organic cooling reverses it is going to upload to our issues.

So in other words what you are saying is, that since co2 is a greenhouse gas, if you increase this gas you should get some warming. Since we've had some warming, ergo this warming must be attributed to co2, and future warming will be catastrophic (ie all predictions made about hurricanes, floods, droughts, 20 foot sea level rise are also correct).

You know perfectly well that positive feedbacks are necessary to get the warming that the IPCC predicts. If you want to prove that co2 is the culprit in the recent warming, then provide proof that these positive feedbacks are actually taking place at the rate the computer models predict.

And the other proof that is also given very often is that computer models cannot recreate the recent warming without including co2 is also not good enough. This "proof" that is the same as saying "it has to be co2, because we can not think of anything else". Very unscientific.

CO2 was used to make dry-ice. adding more pressure, CO2 would become dry-ice and make much more snow. So everyone can dream on a white Christmas, which is not equal to a merry Christmas.

Well benjamin,

An understanding of physics, is sufficient for one to understand that every additional CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere will have less ability to warm the atmosphere than the one prior to it. He is probably aware that the temps have been increasing since the last ice age and for the majority of that time, CO2 could have ahd absolutely nothing to do with it. He may realize that the wavelengths in which CO2 is able to hold energy are nearly saturated, so that while CO2 can cause global warming, it can only cause a small amount of global warming. He may indeed understand that the comp models are worthless, because they were unable to predict that past 10 years of temp stablizatio. He may understand that nature is able to balance itself out, but the comp models are not balanced and tend to shoot off to infinity. He may understand that the scientists do not fully understand the water cycle and the effect of clouds, and that it is this water cycle that has and will always control the overall temperature of the Earth.

Any knowledgable person can look at this information and come to the conclusion that while CO2 can contribute to GW, it is likely that it is not the primary driving force of temp changes.

Benjamin,

Are you kidding? You wanted to hear your own nonsensical argument, so go ahead and pick one of the know-nothing insulters like Dana, and be on your way. You neither care about truth nor knowledge. The scientific method in which you actually have to be able to make accurate predictions is lost on you. Instead, you would rather state something as a fact and ask others to disprove you. Your worthless brand of science will continue not to help out mankind in the slightest degree. While the scientific field I work, uses the scientific method and has made advances such as curing many forms of cancer and making it so that AIDS is no longer a death sentence. That is real science. So you go and play your little games and pretend to be so smart, while real scientists save lives.

Real easy Ben, if the AGW crowd's theory was valid, then we would have seen run away temperatures start around the year 2000 and continue this entire decade. We have not seen this even though greenhouse gas emissions went through a rapid increase this past 15 years. Other parts of Nature have dampened the effects of our increase in greenhouse gases.

CO2 can add to warming without being responsible for the recent warming. There are other factors that could be far more important. If you can't comprehend that, what is the point of trying to convince you of anything?

It seems you are having trouble with your English or logic or both? We have added ozone to the environment.

Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Using your logic or lack there of, our ozone emissions must have been responsible for the recent warming.

In fact, climates vary. Anyone with a basic knowledge would understand that. Some alarmists have a hard time figuring that out so you might want to reread. After you have fully digested that climates vary naturally, consider that as the earth warms and cools naturally, there is a 50 50 chance that any give time or time period is going to be warming. Since we are probably recovering from the Maunder Minimum, we have been warming. It is true that we have been emitting CO2, but the vast majority of those emissions have occurred during a time in which we were already generally warming. Ignorance of the exact cause of warming doesn't mean you can assign it to CO2.

Note: Dana is so pathetically ignorant that he thinks climates are linear systems where you can make predictions on how much warming would occur if you added a certain amount of greenhouse gas. It is important to understand what you don't understand. Alarmists seem to have trouble with that concept. I suppose it is hard to spread alarm when you admit to your ignorance. It isn't very scientific. It is in fact the opposite of science. It closer to faith based.

Note: My lower jaw has dropped on my table. You are seriously asking if I am suggesting that ozone is responsible for our warming? Of course it isn't. According to YOURlogic, it must be. We emit ozone. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. It has been warming. Therefore according to YOUR logic, ozone must be causing the warming. In reality, climate isn't that simple.

You seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to CO2 affect. There are thousands of scientists that believe in global warming and believe CO2 will have an affect on temperature, but just do not agree we have proved it is the major variable.

I think the fact is we just do not understand all the variables well enough yet to draw conclusions. Especially when the IPCC model has proved to be incorrect, and there are many other valid theories.

It is important we get it right. It is not important who wins! That is not science. Science always questions and is skeptical of even the latest studies in an effort to get at the whole answer.

That's just the thing that makes deniers 'deniers'. They don't just (or at all, really) provide alternative explanations of why the planet is warming, even when they admit that it is warming.

Here's a brief summary of what I see from most of them:

[warmer] The global average temperature is rising due to CO2.

[denier] It's not due to CO2, it's due to the sun. Mars is warming.

[warmer] The Sun's output is low and we're on a decline according to the Milankovitch Cycle. Warming must be retained solar heat, therefor the greenhouse effect.

[denier] It's not warming or it's stopped warming even though CO2 levels are still rising.

[warmer] Temperature records show that the 2000's are the warmest decade in over 100 years.

[denier] The measurements have been falsified. Not all the data was used. The data was manipulated.

[warmer] The raw data not used shows greater warming.

[denier] Solar output is low and the Milankovitch Cycle says cooling. It's cooling, not warming. It snowed.

[warmer] The snow storms are weather events. The snow all melted in unseasonably warm weather, which is also a weather event. The average temperature is still trending up.

[go back to beginning...]

The reason that the fact that they can't provide any alternative explanation is a huge dent in their argument is because they claim to be more intelligent than those that ARE providing explanations. They are also claiming to be more intelligent than those that back up their claims with scientific evidence, while they back up theirs, almost unerringly, with propaganda in the form of blogs and news articles [from questionable sources].

_

Possibly because there is some debate as to whether rising levels of Co2 causes warming or is caused by warming. As i understand it isn't as simple as one or the other - it's a feedback loop with the effect becoming the cause. I think in the past warming has been seen to have occured before a rise in Co2 (and vice versa as well) and cooling has occurred at levels of Co2 much higher than present.

I haven't yet read the question and response yet, so i'm guessing at what they meant.