Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Hmm... Nothing in this particular graph looks alarming to me, except a spike in CO2. Is there a corresponding spike in CO? That would be even more alarming, since it's produced at the same time while burning fossil fuels. There is no corresponding temperature spike in the graph to go with the CO2 spike, so it all looks good so far.

Also, the graph would seem to support a scientific point of view (defined as skeptical by nature) by showing that the Earth has indeed been much warmer and much cooler in the past.

I'll post my tired old question again:

Who are we to decide which temperature is "correct" for the Earth?

Maybe it should be much colder. Maybe much warmer. Nobody knows.

We just live here. We don't have access to the thermostat.

 

no boston, i stipulated to all your grade school level arguments about combustion gases, ect. quit beating that dead horse. makes you sound like a broken record.
the fault in your argument is it's premise. That we face a future global catastrophe of rising temperatures and that mankind is the culprit.
You can't prove there is global warming because there is at least as much evidence to the contrary. You won't admit that. shame on you. You maintain a double standard noxious to all fair minded people. You demand aceptance of your propaganda and vehemently dissmiss any other data. Thats neither scientific, nor reasonable, nor inteligent. It's ill-manered, dis-respectfull, narrow minded and obstinate. Untill you can politely accept that someone else may have something of value to offer the discusson, you are no better than dictator that destroys all dissenters. And worse than a dictator because you have zero power to enforce your ideology. You convince no-one. You contribute nothing. You make more enemies than assocates. You harm the cause you represent, and serve at best only as an annoyance. If anyone is entertained by your rants, I don't see them applauding. Do you? Ach! You're hopeless! There is no reasoning with you. Because you don't know how to reason. You only know how to recite the catchechism of global warming. I'm disgusted with trying to talk to you. You don't know how to listen to anybody but yourself. You are damaged goods. I'm sorry for you.

 

ah but your forgetting several things.

One is a resolution issue. The increase in temp is so rapid that it doesn't show up in this resolution graph. Remember temp lags CO2 in the present system. CO2 is the forcing agent. Temp is rushing to catch up.

if you go to another resolution graph you can clearly see an accompanying spike in temps.

The next thing your forgetting is its the rate of change and not just change itself. Change happens all the time but change this rapid is unprecedented.

from

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...se&start=105&hl=en&sa=N&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1

 

well I certainly might have missed it, that you agreed that one of the byproducts of the combustion process is CO2

did you post it in Swahili or something

so you now admit that this part of the science is accurate ?

CO2 is a byproduct of combustion.

 

i did in earlier posts yesterday, today, again now. you don't read what others say even when they agree with you. never mind your charts. theyre pretty...not much else.
the problem for you is credibility. you tied your self to some un-creditable scientists and organizations. I know you think theyre credible. I dont. and you cant convince me with their charts.

 

excellent, now maybe we can get somewhere.

so can we move on to the concept that we burn fossil fuels

would you agree that we burn fossil fuels ?

 

i already did. you arent a lawyer building a case, but you maybe a grade school teacher. thats the level of sophistication i see

 

just prove to me that all your data isn't falsified. show me the raw data, un interpreted. i dont want someone elses slant on it

 

so is that a tacit admission that we burn fossil fuels.

my we are making progress today

ok now for a tough one

what do you suppose the byproduct of burning all that fossil fuels every day is ( 90 million barrels and how many gigatons of coal ?)

because in about a split second were going to move past 1st grade and right smack into some basic stoichiometry, again not rocket science but a tad difficult for some of our more illustrious posters .

 

get on with your presentation. obviously you are desperate for someone to see it

 

Eh... that graph looks pretty similar to me. It says that today we are up, what... .75 degrees C according to it?

The rest is "modeling" which may or may not be correct, as it relies on many assumptions. I would prefer to go on actual data when deciding something this important.

Actual data is shown in your 2nd to last graph (with the red and blue data sets) and shows the planet much warmer and much cooler than it is now at many times in the past.

So why is the current temperature (or slightly cooler than the current temperature) the correct one?

PS: I am all for reducing or eliminating fossil fuel burning and pollution, but I fail to see why about 2 deg C cooler than our current temperature is the "correct" one. Who decided that?

 

well we've already seen that your making progress. Just a few days ago you were claiming that "all" the science was somehow phony baloney, yet today we've discovered elements of it that your now suggesting you agree with. Hmmmmmm, interesting.

Even should we stop now I don't think anyone wouldn't say that thats not progress.

if you have a silver star :idea:


If you'd like to move forward thats fine but there's no point moving on to our next point if your not adequately convinced in the last.

have we agreed that we burn fossil fuels ?

and have we agreed that burning just about anything creates a byproduct of CO2

 

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at
the University of Colorado.

 

stipulated

 

yikes and here I thought we were making progress

oh well one step forward two steps back as the saying goes

so I take it your not going to admit that we burn fossil fuels, yet you want people to take your opinion seriously ?