Is Global Warming Caused By Man????

[Viktor]

> Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
>
> This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming.
> As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles
> even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of
> the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the
> same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

 

[irosie91]

Thor did it

 

[konradv]

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?

 

[irosie91]

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?

---complicated by POLITICS

 

[konradv]

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?

---complicated by POLITICS

Then quit complicating it and have an honest discussion of the situation. Always bringing up climate cycles to the exclusion of other factors is an obvious example of politics getting in the way.

 

[Crick]

Did I miss something with Rosie or did you think you were responding to Viktor there?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Didn't NASA just say CO makes the earth cooler?

 

[Crick]

Did you perhaps mean this?

A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds

And I have to tell you it's a rare day in May when I put up a link to WUWT and agree with it.

 

[irosie91]

Didn't NASA just say CO makes the earth cooler?

CO? co screws up the function of your hemoglobin

 

[Muhammed]

> Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
>
> This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming.
> As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles
> even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of
> the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the
> same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

Humans are warm-blooded mammals. And like all other warm-blooded mammals then tend to have a net warming affect on their environment. For good reason. That being that we do not want to die from hypothermia.

Even at the hottest inhabited places on Earth the average ambient air temperature is several degrees lower than the 98.6 degree average body temperature of humans.

 

[Crick]

And... so... human metabolism is responsible for global warming?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?

What's so hard to understand the earth is always changing regardless if man existed or not?

 

[Billy_Bob]

First you must define what global warming is. Alarmist assume that global warming is all man caused and refuse to look at natural causes and cyclical variation.

Then you must determine if man is a specific cause of some of the warming and differentiate what is actually man caused and what is caused by natural variation. This scientific falsification step has NEVER BEEN DONE. (Rule out all other causes or potential caused by empirical evidence)

I am still in awe that the IPCC claims that all warming post 1950 is man made when they have never done the science.

In order for it to be all man made, as the IPCC CLAIMS, they would have to have stopped natural variation and be in controlled all of the natural causes. I am still waiting for the proof of this control, which would also preclude the need for further research as the problems in controlling our climate would already be solved and they would control it..


When you pair down the silly ass assertion of alarmists, the IPCC, and the AGW crowd, there is no credibility or science in support of the AGW premise.

 

[Crick]

First you must define what global warming is. Alarmist assume that global warming is all man caused and refuse to look at natural causes and cyclical variation.

That is false. Global warming is not difficult to define. The IPCC's position and that of the vast majority of climate scientists is that human activity is the PRIMARY or DOMINANT cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. It has NEVER been that it was the only cause. Climate scientists have studied natural causes and cyclical variations on many fronts and in great depth.

Then you must determine if man is a specific cause of some of the warming and differentiate what is actually man caused and what is caused by natural variation.

A version of this graphic has appeared in every assessment report.

This scientific falsification step has NEVER BEEN DONE. (Rule out all other causes or potential caused by empirical evidence)

The step you just described is NOT falsification. It would be attribution. However, AGW has withstood many attempts at falsification.

I am still in awe that the IPCC claims that all warming post 1950 is man made when they have never done the science.

Then you're a self-confessed idiot. The IPCC has NEVER claimed that all the warming past 1950 was man made and they have NEVER done ANY research. They ASSESS science done by others. You (and quite a few other deniers) seem to be completely ignorant of what the IPCC actually does.

In order for it to be all man made, as the IPCC CLAIMS

Wow... how could you be this ignorant after being on this board for as long as you have? The IPCC has never made such a claim. Ever.

they would have to have stopped natural variation and be in controlled all of the natural causes. I am still waiting for the proof of this control, which would also preclude the need for further research as the problems in controlling our climate would already be solved and they would control it..

Wow again. That is incredibly stupid.

When you pair down the silly ass assertion of alarmists,

The correct word there would have been "P A R E" and doing so would require accurate information, not the red herring bullshit you're sling about here.

the IPCC, and the AGW crowd, there is no credibility or science in support of the AGW premise.

There's enough credibility and scientific evidence to convince better than 97% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid and robust. And I bet a lot of those scientists have degrees in physics. You don't. So... go figger.

 

[Crick]

Muhammed, you didn't answer my question. Are you suggesting that the source of the increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is human metabolism?

Billy, did you have something you wanted to tell everyone about your degree in atmospheric physics?

 

[IanC]

Both Victor and Konradv have reasonable points. Climate science has difficulty explaining past warming excursions, and the CO2 increase of the present is man-made and therefore does not fit nicely into past correlations.

 

[jc456]

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. This is relevant to the discussion of the causes for global warming. As you can see, the Earth went through several warming and cooling cycles even before men were burning fossil fuels. It's a natural consequence of the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere. The Sun is not always the same temperature, so the climate of the Earth will change, too.

What so hard to understand about the addition of a new variable (human emissions, esp. since the Industrial Revolution) having an effect that can't be predicted solely by looking to the past?

where is the evidence that proves any of what you posted? You all love the word correlation don't you? There is a warming cycle and humans exist, therefore humans caused warming. It is the libturd bible. False, but it is the bible.

 

[jc456]

And... so... human metabolism is responsible for global warming?

correlations don't count crickster, never have, and is the ongoing argument, so just prove that humans cause warming. That's your challenge you have continuously failed to prove.

 

[TNHarley]

What did humans do the last time the carbon was at 800 PPM? Oh wait..

 

[TNHarley]

Climate change is natural.
That said, there is NOTHING any of us can do about it.
Sure, we could reasonably cut back on some emissions. Simply for our oxygens sake.
But this warm weather means nothing.
Hurricanes mean nothing.
Your politicians rhetoric means nothing.