Global Warming Pie Chart

[Derideo_Te]

Mmmmmmm, no, silly person it doesn't. You see dear silly person this is the way it works...Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.

You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models. But a propagandist, anti scientific, ultra-religous, fruitcake like you would never acknowledge a fact like that.

Would you...

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

 

[depotoo]

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

 

[Foxfyre]

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

There is just as much science to support a theory that global warming causes a rise in CO2. There is a pretty solid consensus of scientists, both pro-AGW and the skeptics, who point to periods in the paleontological record when the CO2 levels have been much higher than now but the temperatures were cooler. And though, in my opinion, competent scientists evaluate climate trends in faunal stages or periods, eras, and eons, and not via variables recorded in a few decades, there is still the interesting phenomenon that the Earth rise in temperature leveled out around 1998 even though AGW CO2 has continued unabated and the CO2 has increased measurably since then, in fact has skyrocketed since the 1950's. But the correlating climate temperatures don't follow that pattern all that well.

The pro-AGW folks sure don't want to look at that or give it any kind of consideration, however.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

Eco-Economy Indicators - Global Temperature - 2010 Hits Top of Temperature Chart | EPI

2010 Hits Top of Temperature Chart

Topping off the warmest decade in history, 2010 experienced a global average temperature of 14.63 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), tying 2005 as the hottest year in 131 years of recordkeeping.

This news will come as no surprise to residents of the 19 countries that experienced record heat in 2010. Belarus set a record of 38.7 degrees Celsius (101.7 degrees Fahrenheit) on August 6 and then broke it by 0.2 degrees Celsius just one day later. A 47.2-degree Celsius (117.0-degree Fahrenheit) spike in Burma set a record for Southeast Asia as a whole. And on May 26, 2010, the ancient city of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan hit 53.5 degrees Celsius (128.3 degrees Fahrenheit)—a record not only for the country but for all of Asia. In fact, it was the fourth hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere. (See data.)

Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions from human activities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have driven the earth’s climate system dangerously outside of its normal range. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen nearly 40 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to almost 390 ppm. As the atmosphere becomes increasingly overloaded with heat-trapping gases, the earth’s temperature continues to rise.

 

[healthmyths]

why is this in the political forum ? My thread regarding "global warming" was moved as I was criticizing it... yet this thread supporting global warming is still here! BIAS showing????

 

[Foxfyre]

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

Eco-Economy Indicators - Global Temperature - 2010 Hits Top of Temperature Chart | EPI

2010 Hits Top of Temperature Chart

Topping off the warmest decade in history, 2010 experienced a global average temperature of 14.63 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), tying 2005 as the hottest year in 131 years of recordkeeping.

This news will come as no surprise to residents of the 19 countries that experienced record heat in 2010. Belarus set a record of 38.7 degrees Celsius (101.7 degrees Fahrenheit) on August 6 and then broke it by 0.2 degrees Celsius just one day later. A 47.2-degree Celsius (117.0-degree Fahrenheit) spike in Burma set a record for Southeast Asia as a whole. And on May 26, 2010, the ancient city of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan hit 53.5 degrees Celsius (128.3 degrees Fahrenheit)—a record not only for the country but for all of Asia. In fact, it was the fourth hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere. (See data.)

Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions from human activities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have driven the earth’s climate system dangerously outside of its normal range. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen nearly 40 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to almost 390 ppm. As the atmosphere becomes increasingly overloaded with heat-trapping gases, the earth’s temperature continues to rise.

How is Earth Policy Institute funded? Most comprehensive sicentific organizations, think tanks, and research groups post at least a generic synopsis of their budget and funding, but you can't find any information at the EPI website.

 

[Freewill]

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

Can I ask one question? How can it be that CO2 concentrations lag the rise and the fall of temperature by about 400 years? That is if CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise and not the opposite.

 

[Derideo_Te]

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

Eco-Economy Indicators - Global Temperature - 2010 Hits Top of Temperature Chart | EPI

2010 Hits Top of Temperature Chart

Topping off the warmest decade in history, 2010 experienced a global average temperature of 14.63 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), tying 2005 as the hottest year in 131 years of recordkeeping.

This news will come as no surprise to residents of the 19 countries that experienced record heat in 2010. Belarus set a record of 38.7 degrees Celsius (101.7 degrees Fahrenheit) on August 6 and then broke it by 0.2 degrees Celsius just one day later. A 47.2-degree Celsius (117.0-degree Fahrenheit) spike in Burma set a record for Southeast Asia as a whole. And on May 26, 2010, the ancient city of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan hit 53.5 degrees Celsius (128.3 degrees Fahrenheit)—a record not only for the country but for all of Asia. In fact, it was the fourth hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere. (See data.)

Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions from human activities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have driven the earth’s climate system dangerously outside of its normal range. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen nearly 40 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to almost 390 ppm. As the atmosphere becomes increasingly overloaded with heat-trapping gases, the earth’s temperature continues to rise.

How is Earth Policy Institute funded? Most comprehensive sicentific organizations, think tanks, and research groups post at least a generic synopsis of their budget and funding, but you can't find any information at the EPI website.

Good question. It needs to be asked of all organizations weighing in on the global warming issue given that energy special interests have been trying to debunk the science. This is reminiscent of the tobacco special interests trying to suppress the science linking smoking and cancer.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

Can I ask one question? How can it be that CO2 concentrations lag the rise and the fall of temperature by about 400 years? That is if CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise and not the opposite.

Excellent question. The answer lies in where the temperature readings were taken. There is a see-saw effect between the northern and southern hemispheres and the ice cores show discrepancies. This topic is discussed in great detail on this website.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[Freewill]

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

Can I ask one question? How can it be that CO2 concentrations lag the rise and the fall of temperature by about 400 years? That is if CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise and not the opposite. The also say that CO2 concentrations amplify the temperature, which just by looking at the chart does not seem to be the case. CO2 always trails by about the same amount.

Excellent question. The answer lies in where the temperature readings were taken. There is a see-saw effect between the northern and southern hemispheres and the ice cores show discrepancies. This topic is discussed in great detail on this website.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Yes, I know all the explanations but I must invoke Occam's razor.

If indeed it is just a question of when and where the temperature is read then what makes us sure of any conclusion coming from those temperature? All I know is Al Gore showed a graph and clearly CO2 lagged Temperature, the simplest explanation is that temperature changed caused the change in CO2 level. Any other explanation takes too big of leap in faith.

BTW, did you read the article? It does say the change in CO2 level was caused by temperature change. Interesting that it would be the case then but not now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Can I ask one question? How can it be that CO2 concentrations lag the rise and the fall of temperature by about 400 years? That is if CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise and not the opposite. The also say that CO2 concentrations amplify the temperature, which just by looking at the chart does not seem to be the case. CO2 always trails by about the same amount.

Excellent question. The answer lies in where the temperature readings were taken. There is a see-saw effect between the northern and southern hemispheres and the ice cores show discrepancies. This topic is discussed in great detail on this website.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Yes, I know all the explanations but I must invoke Occam's razor.

If indeed it is just a question of when and where the temperature is read then what makes us sure of any conclusion coming from those temperature? All I know is Al Gore showed a graph and clearly CO2 lagged Temperature, the simplest explanation is that temperature changed caused the change in CO2 level. Any other explanation takes too big of leap in faith.

BTW, did you read the article? It does say the change in CO2 level was caused by temperature change. Interesting that it would be the case then but not now.

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

 

[westwall]

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

What you have posted are "assumptions". There is no "proof" of anything. CO2 has been shown to not be the cause of warming based on 600,000 years of ice core data from Lake Vostock underneath the Antarctic ice cap which clearly shows that warming occurs FIRST, then....600 to 800 years later the CO2 levels increase.

But that would be scientific observation. As an intersting aside it has been 800 years since the end of the Medieval Warming Period...mayhaps the CO2 rise is related to that? There is more evidence to support that theory than there is to support yours.

 

[westwall]

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

Can I ask one question? How can it be that CO2 concentrations lag the rise and the fall of temperature by about 400 years? That is if CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise and not the opposite.

Excellent question. The answer lies in where the temperature readings were taken. There is a see-saw effect between the northern and southern hemispheres and the ice cores show discrepancies. This topic is discussed in great detail on this website.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

How about a website that is not wholly owned by the people most actively involved in the fraud. SS is to global warming what the bad sources you quoted were to supporting the BS that tobacco wasn't bad for you. Funny how you don't see the parallel.

 

[westwall]

Excellent question. The answer lies in where the temperature readings were taken. There is a see-saw effect between the northern and southern hemispheres and the ice cores show discrepancies. This topic is discussed in great detail on this website.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Yes, I know all the explanations but I must invoke Occam's razor.

If indeed it is just a question of when and where the temperature is read then what makes us sure of any conclusion coming from those temperature? All I know is Al Gore showed a graph and clearly CO2 lagged Temperature, the simplest explanation is that temperature changed caused the change in CO2 level. Any other explanation takes too big of leap in faith.

BTW, did you read the article? It does say the change in CO2 level was caused by temperature change. Interesting that it would be the case then but not now.

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

Describe these changes in detail please....

 

[Freewill]

Excellent question. The answer lies in where the temperature readings were taken. There is a see-saw effect between the northern and southern hemispheres and the ice cores show discrepancies. This topic is discussed in great detail on this website.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Yes, I know all the explanations but I must invoke Occam's razor.

If indeed it is just a question of when and where the temperature is read then what makes us sure of any conclusion coming from those temperature? All I know is Al Gore showed a graph and clearly CO2 lagged Temperature, the simplest explanation is that temperature changed caused the change in CO2 level. Any other explanation takes too big of leap in faith.

BTW, did you read the article? It does say the change in CO2 level was caused by temperature change. Interesting that it would be the case then but not now.

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

What climate has changed? I live in a temperate climate now and I did then, it has not changed "extensively." Even if they have changed that is not proof that it is CO2 that did it and is not just a natural cycle.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, I know all the explanations but I must invoke Occam's razor.

If indeed it is just a question of when and where the temperature is read then what makes us sure of any conclusion coming from those temperature? All I know is Al Gore showed a graph and clearly CO2 lagged Temperature, the simplest explanation is that temperature changed caused the change in CO2 level. Any other explanation takes too big of leap in faith.

BTW, did you read the article? It does say the change in CO2 level was caused by temperature change. Interesting that it would be the case then but not now.

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

What climate has changed? I live in a temperate climate now and I did then, it has not changed "extensively." Even if they have changed that is not proof that it is CO2 that did it and is not just a natural cycle.

Asked and answered.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, I know all the explanations but I must invoke Occam's razor.

If indeed it is just a question of when and where the temperature is read then what makes us sure of any conclusion coming from those temperature? All I know is Al Gore showed a graph and clearly CO2 lagged Temperature, the simplest explanation is that temperature changed caused the change in CO2 level. Any other explanation takes too big of leap in faith.

BTW, did you read the article? It does say the change in CO2 level was caused by temperature change. Interesting that it would be the case then but not now.

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

Describe these changes in detail please....

Extensive use of fossil fuels.
Massive engineering projects.
Deforestation and destruction of natural watersheds.
Paving and building projects.
Air conditioning and heating.
Pollution of air, water and land on a global scale.
Factory farming for both meat and grain sources.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

Oh, is that how you "prove" that man's activities are causing Global Whatever?

Cool! Can I try that?

Let's see:

Global Whatever is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

When Derideo_Te runs his mouth expounding baseless theories, he expels CO2 in larger quantities than if he had kept his mouth shut.

Therefore, Derideo_Te is personally responsible for global Whatever!

Pay up, Derideo_Te. By your own "logic", it's YOUR fault that the planet is heating up (or is it cooling this week?).

Hey, this is neat! Proving Global Whatever by liberal means, is a walk in the park. Whoever dreamed it would be that easy?

 

[Freewill]

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

Describe these changes in detail please....

Extensive use of fossil fuels.
Massive engineering projects.
Deforestation and destruction of natural watersheds.
Paving and building projects.
Air conditioning and heating.
Pollution of air, water and land on a global scale.
Factory farming for both meat and grain sources.

None of those are climate changes

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

What you have posted are "assumptions". There is no "proof" of anything. CO2 has been shown to not be the cause of warming based on 600,000 years of ice core data from Lake Vostock underneath the Antarctic ice cap which clearly shows that warming occurs FIRST, then....600 to 800 years later the CO2 levels increase.

But that would be scientific observation. As an intersting aside it has been 800 years since the end of the Medieval Warming Period...mayhaps the CO2 rise is related to that? There is more evidence to support that theory than there is to support yours.

Perhaps you might want to educate yourself about the facts surrounding the readings from the Vostock and other more recent ice cores.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

An important clue came from some especially good Antarctic ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth. Confirmation came in 2012 from evidence that the lag was confined to the Antarctic ice cores: after an initial temperature rise followed by evaporation of CO2 from the Southern Ocean, globally the rise of CO2 had preceded the rise of temperature.(58)

Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate than anything in the Pleistocene record, so the lag was measured not in centuries, but mere decades. And already by the 1980s the levels of greenhouse gases had climbed far higher than anything seen for many millions of years. Even if we stopped our emissions, would feedbacks drive things higher on their own? There were disturbing signs that feedbacks were indeed kicking in. Drying forests and warmer seawater were getting less efficient at taking CO2 out of the air, and methane was seen bubbling up from Arctic wetlands.

By the start of the 21st century, it was clear that the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels was a major geological force. All through the Pleistocene, the greenhouse gas feedback had turned the planet's orbital cycles from minor climate variations to grand transformations that affected all life on the planet. The geological record gave a striking verification, with wholly independent methods and data, of the processes that computer models were predicting would bring a rapid and severe global warming — a disruption of climate exceeding anything seen since the emergence of the human species.