Lets make some assumptions

[Billy_Bob]

Lets use the IPCC's own admission of failure for Crick.. As he wont take the truth from real scientists.

The red line is reality... the blue line is the fantasy...

 

[ding]

I take it you cannot find a denier model with anything even approaching the accuracy of Hansen's model of almost 30 years ago, much less the latest generation of CMIP5 models.

NO ONE has been able to recreate the climate's behavior of the last century in a GCM WITHOUT including anthropogenic global warming. NO ONE.

No one has been able to explain the past climate changes period. CO2 levels certainly don't explain it. You know why? Because CO2 does not drive climate change.

Does his model explain why the temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

Does his model explain how Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

Does his model explain how we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years when atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm?

Does his model explain why it took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2?

 

[Crick]

You're getting stupider by the minute.

CO2 feeds the greenhouse effect. The radiative forcing factor for the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere is, as you know, calculable. The net sum of such forcing factors is sufficient to produce the observed warming. Your idea that CO2 cannot initiate warming but can only reinforce it is simply unsupportable - and you've really made no attempt to do so anyway. The behavior of the Earth's climate in the geological record does not restrict what processes can take place. The record only tells us what processes HAVE taken place.
No other candidate exists that could have produced the observed warming. Isotopic analysis shows that the CO2 added to the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution is almost entirely from the human combustion of fossil fuels.

The world's climate scientists - thousands of PhDs actively conducting research in this topic - agree that human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the observed warming. They know this topic far, far better than do you. I'm going with mainstream science. If you actually think you've got something to challenge all of them with, go for it. But the wiser course might be to swallow that mega ego of yours and listen to what they're saying.

 

[ding]

You're getting stupider by the minute.

CO2 feeds the greenhouse effect. The radiative forcing factor for the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere is, as you know, calculable. The net sum of such forcing factors is sufficient to produce the observed warming. Your idea that CO2 cannot initiate warming but can only reinforce it is simply unsupportable - and you've really made no attempt to do so anyway. The behavior of the Earth's climate in the geological record does not restrict what processes can take place. The record only tells us what processes HAVE taken place.
No other candidate exists that could have produced the observed warming. Isotopic analysis shows that the CO2 added to the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution is almost entirely from the human combustion of fossil fuels.

The world's climate scientists - thousands of PhDs actively conducting research in this topic - agree that human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the observed warming. They know this topic far, far better than do you. I'm going with mainstream science.

Since you are so much smarter than me, take each of the examples and walk poor little dumb me through your explanation for each one. Fair enough?

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

 

[Crick]

Thanks but no thanks. I didn't say I was smarter than you. I said the world's climate scientists know this topic (AGW) far, far better than do you. Do you disagree?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thanks but no thanks. I didn't say I was smarter than you. I said the world's climate scientists know this topic (AGW) far, far better than do you. Do you disagree?

I disagree that they have proven man caused global warming And I see you can not answer pertinent questions in regard the theory of how man supposedly DID cause it.

 

[ding]

Thanks but no thanks. I didn't say I was smarter than you. I said the world's climate scientists know this topic (AGW) far, far better than do you. Do you disagree?

Because you can't. Because CO2 does not drive climate change. Clearly it does not work the way you say it works. Clearly other factor dominant the equation.

 

[ding]

Thanks but no thanks. I didn't say I was smarter than you. I said the world's climate scientists know this topic (AGW) far, far better than do you. Do you disagree?

I disagree that they have proven man caused global warming And I see you can not answer pertinent questions in regard the theory of how man supposedly DID cause it.

According to Raymond S. Bradley, Climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst "to anticipate future changes, we must understand how and why climates varied in the past."

If they can't answer these valid questions, we should be skeptical.

 

[Crick]

They can answer them and about every other question you can think of, better than you.

Do you believe that scientific theories are not accepted until they are proven?

 

[ding]

They can answer them and about every other question you can think of, better than you.

Do you believe that scientific theories are not accepted until they are proven?

I believe I have asked you some questions that have made you very uncomfortable.