Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you meant "function", you should have said "function". You said "correlation", so you looked stupid. I corrected you, and now you're pouting.Are you even listening how stupid that sounded? It's like you are totally unaware of why CO2 was a function of temperature and not the other way around.
Apparently you don't understand that function is always a part of correlation and that in any correlation there will be a dependent variable. It's a given so to speak.If you meant "function", you should have said "function". You said "correlation", so you looked stupid. I corrected you, and now you're pouting.
Anyways, even if you use "function", you're still wrong. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. CO2 is a function of temperature, and temperature is a function of CO2. Your inability to understand something so basic means you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
I just explained it to you. If you believe that natural variations override the GHG effect of CO2 that renders your entire argument for AGW null and void.I have never said or implied that the same amount of CO2 should always result in the same temperature, and I have no idea why you would say such a crazy thing.
You can dumb it down all you want but if you believe that natural variations override the GHG effect of CO2 that renders your entire argument for AGW null and void.Let me try to dumb it down for you.
Say I'm in a cabin. I start a fire of a given size. "Size of the fire" is analogous to "CO2 level" here.
According to your way of reasoning, the cabin should instantly assume a constant temperature, depending only on the size of the fire and nothing else.
Normal people, however, will point out that while the size of the fire is the most important thing that will determine temperature, you also have to take into account the outside temperature, how long that fire has been burning, and the thermal mass of the cabin and its furnishings.
Your really bad model doesn't take into account dynamic conditions, so it fails completely.
Now you're just babbling.Apparently you don't understand that function is always a part of correlation and that in any correlation there will be a dependent variable. It's a given so to speak.
You mean, other than the temperature record. And the current increase in backradiation. And the fact that paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2.And no, there has never been any proof that the reinforcement of CO2 ever drove any climate changes.
Well, no. You don't understand how the natural cycles work. You're making that very clear.If that were the case we would have never entered a glacial period and once in a glacial period we would have never existed the glacial period.
Well, since I don't believe that, you faceplant there too.I just explained it to you. If you believe that natural variations override the GHG effect of CO2 that renders your entire argument for AGW null and void.
What is it about "CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate" that completely confounds all the deniers here?
Think about it for a minute. I'm sure you'll work it out.
Well Mr Scientist. You seem to be saying that the absorption spectrum changes when it is mixed with other gases. Would you care to explain how that happens?Oh ... I already know the answer ... you show the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide in isolation ... NOT how it behaves in the atmosphere ... ha ha ha ha ha ... show us the spectrum of carbon dioxide with respect to the in-bourd IR from the Sun ... ha ha ha ha ha ... see how greenhouse gases work the other way in the upper half of the atmosphere? ...
No, it's just math. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water. In other words CO2 correlated to temperature as in CO2 was a function of temperature. Post industrial revolution CO2 correlated to emissions as in CO2 is a function of emissions. Temperature has never been a function or correlated to CO2. CO2 is a minor driver of the earth's climate. As evidenced by the planet cooling for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm.Now you're just babbling. If A has a given correlation with B, then B has the same correlation with A. That's statistics. And all deniers fail at statistics. It's one thing that defines them.
Nope. You are mistaking CO2 for natural climate fluctuations which are common in our bipolar glaciated world. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.You mean, other than the temperature record. And the current increase in backradiation. And the fact that paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2.
Of course I do. You are the one who has mistaken the recent warming trend for CO2. Not too worry though, colder temperatures will prove you wrong soon enough.Well, no. You don't understand how the natural cycles work. You're making that very clear.
Oh, you poor thing. You're not going to react well to the upcoming El Nino. Reality is going to hit you hard.Not too worry though, colder temperatures will prove you wrong soon enough.
If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.Oh, you poor thing. You're not going to react well to the upcoming El Nino. Reality is going to hit you hard.
Do you have your excuses prepared? You're going to need them. I suggest you go with the old standard "Any data that shows I'm wrong is faked!".
Is that just a convoluted way of asking what the rate of change of temperature is?We should know how much ... that's what's missing from your logic ... we can measure radiative forcing at 1.8 (±0.5) W/m^2, so how much is the rate of Earth's surface warming?
Then by all means, answer it yourself. Then tell us what the point of it was, as I don't care to guess.... and more important is what will forcing be when we reach 450 ppm CO2? ... or 500 ppm ...
These are rhetorical questions, you don't have to answer them ... it's a mathematical solution ...
Back in reality, we directly measure the increase in backradiation that comes along with increasing CO2 and methane.No, it's just math. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water.
Despite me explaining it to you, you still can't use the word "correlated" correctly.Temperature has never been a function or correlated to CO2.
You failing to understand the basics only reflects badly on you. You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the topic. It's not possible to teach algebra to a chimp, and it's not possible to teach atmospheric physics to you.CO2 is a minor driver of the earth's climate. As evidenced by the planet cooling for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm.
If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.Back in reality, we directly measure the increase in backradiation that comes along with increasing CO2 and methane.
We directly measure the CO2 causing warming. That means you come across as a crazy person when you claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming.
Despite me explaining it to you, you still can't use the word "correlated" correctly.
You failing to understand the basics only reflects badly on you. You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the topic. It's not possible to teach algebra to a chimp, and it's not possible to teach atmospheric physics to you.
If you just ignore all of the debunkings of your nonsense and repeat it again, then why should anyone talk to you?If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.
If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.
It's empirical climate data.If you just ignore all of the debunkings of your nonsense and repeat it again, then why should anyone talk to you?
