[Truth To Power]

So what exactly is your argument about climate?

Be specific.

Climate variation has always been natural in the past, and is therefore most likely natural now.
The fact that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years is not evidence that CO2 caused it to warm.
The fact that CO2 has increased is not evidence that CO2 is the principal driver of variation in the earth's surface temperature or of recent century-scale warming.
The claim that because the earth warmed at the same time CO2 increased implies that increased CO2 caused the temperature increase is a post hoc fallacy.
The fact that CO2 and temperature are highly correlated in the paleoclimate record is not evidence that CO2 variation causes temperature variation; rather, the fact that CO2 correlates with previous temperature better than following temperature indicates that CO2 and temperature are correlated because temperature variation causes CO2 variation.
The fact that there was already so much CO2 in the atmosphere before human use of fossil fuels, and orders of magnitude more water vapor, makes it extremely unlikely that doubling atmospheric CO2 could have much effect on the earth's surface temperature.
The fact that CO2 has been much, much higher in the past, when the earth's surface temperature was not much higher, or even lower, makes it extremely unlikely that additional CO2 could have much effect on the earth's surface temperature.
The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration being hundreds of parts per million rather than zero has a large effect on the earth's surface temperature is not evidence that adding a few more hundreds of parts per million will have a correspondingly large effect.
Claims that the earth's surface temperature is sensitively dependent on atmospheric CO2 concentration are based on assumed powerful positive feedback relationships that lack any plausible physical mechanism.
Century-scale warming episodes similar to the most recent one have happened before as a result of natural causes, so the same natural causes that caused those previous century-scale warming episodes are most likely also the cause of the most recent one.
The fact that the earth gets effectively all its surface heat from the sun implies that a century-scale period of unusual cold being accompanied by unusually low solar activity is a good reason to think that a century of unusually high solar activity, which we have just had, would produce a century-scale warm period.

Which of these statements do you claim is false? Be specific.

[Pants-of-dog]

Climate variation has always been natural in the past, and is therefore most likely natural now.

Provide evidence that the current climate variation is not anthropogenic.

We will deal with the rest later.

[Truth To Power]

Provide evidence that the current climate variation is not anthropogenic.

Nice fallacious and disingenuous attempt to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, won't work, because I am quite a lot smarter than you apparently believe your readers to be.

Provide evidence that the current climate variation on Mars is not anthropogenic.

See how that works?

The fact that similar variations have happened many times in the past without human help is excellent -- even conclusive -- evidence that the current one is not anthropogenic.

We will deal with the rest later.

No we won't, because you will just contrive some fallacious and disingenuous trick to evade them, just as you have the first one. It's what you do.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

You made the claim that the current climate change is not due to anthropogenic causes.

Now you need to support it.

Also:

Human and natural factors both influence the earth’s climate, but the long-term trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect of human activities on climate. Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 2: Our Changing Climate EPA WEBSITE, 2017.

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-scien ... %20climate.

The fact that similar variations have happened many times in the past without human help is excellent -- even conclusive -- evidence that the current one is not anthropogenic.

The sun warms my house every day. According to your logic, that is conclusive evidence that the human activity in the house cannot warm the house. Lol.

[Steve_American]

Climate variation has always been natural in the past, and is therefore most likely natural now.
The fact that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years is not evidence that CO2 caused it to warm.
The fact that CO2 has increased is not evidence that CO2 is the principal driver of variation in the earth's surface temperature or of recent century-scale warming.
The claim that because the earth warmed at the same time CO2 increased implies that increased CO2 caused the temperature increase is a post hoc fallacy.
The fact that CO2 and temperature are highly correlated in the paleoclimate record is not evidence that CO2 variation causes temperature variation; rather, the fact that CO2 correlates with previous temperature better than following temperature indicates that CO2 and temperature are correlated because temperature variation causes CO2 variation.
The fact that there was already so much CO2 in the atmosphere before human use of fossil fuels, and orders of magnitude more water vapor, makes it extremely unlikely that doubling atmospheric CO2 could have much effect on the earth's surface temperature.
The fact that CO2 has been much, much higher in the past, when the earth's surface temperature was not much higher, or even lower, makes it extremely unlikely that additional CO2 could have much effect on the earth's surface temperature.
The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration being hundreds of parts per million rather than zero has a large effect on the earth's surface temperature is not evidence that adding a few more hundreds of parts per million will have a correspondingly large effect.
Claims that the earth's surface temperature is sensitively dependent on atmospheric CO2 concentration are based on assumed powerful positive feedback relationships that lack any plausible physical mechanism.
Century-scale warming episodes similar to the most recent one have happened before as a result of natural causes, so the same natural causes that caused those previous century-scale warming episodes are most likely also the cause of the most recent one.
The fact that the earth gets effectively all its surface heat from the sun implies that a century-scale period of unusual cold being accompanied by unusually low solar activity is a good reason to think that a century of unusually high solar activity, which we have just had, would produce a century-scale warm period.

Which of these statements do you claim is false? Be specific.

Just on the part I highlighted.
In May 2022 the air had 421 ppm of CO2 (or CO2 equivalent) by now it is more, so I'll go with 422 ppm. The preindustrial level is often given as 280 ppm.

So, 422/280 = 150.7 % of 280 ppm. So, we have dumped enough CO2 and Methane, etc. into the air to have increased the CO2 level by slightly over 50%. It has been shown that this is consistent with what we know we have burned.

We know that on Venus more and more CO2 has resulted in a very high temp, so don't be claiming that adding more and more CO2 has no effect.

In the part I highlighted, TtP claimed that adding enough CO2 into the air to have increased the amount of CO2 in the air by 50% is not enough to matter much. Real scientists have published peer reviewed papers that prove he is wrong.

Imagine that the sun was giving us 50% more heat energy. We would be cooked already. Scientists only claim that the more than 50% increase is slowly heating the earth, and TtP denies that. He says that we would need more CO2 to have the effects we are seeing, a lot more. There is a 99% chance that TtP will deny that he said or implied any such thing. We know his methods. He just asserts things right and left and denies he said things that he did imply.

Lurkers, TtP is never going to admit he is wrong.

So, I leave it to you. Do you think that raising the CO2 level in the air by 50.7% is enough to be causing the earth to be heating up the little bit each year that we are measuring?

.

[Steve_American]

@Truth To Power

You made the claim that the current climate change is not due to anthropogenic causes.

Now you need to support it.

Also:

Human and natural factors both influence the earth’s climate, but the long-term trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect of human activities on climate. Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 2: Our Changing Climate EPA WEBSITE, 2017.

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-scien ... %20climate.



The sun warms my house every day. According to your logic, that is conclusive evidence that the human activity in the house cannot warm the house. Lol.

PoD, not Lol.

More like ROFLMAO uncontrollably.

I did give you a like, though.

.

[Steve_American]

:lol: Nice fallacious and disingenuous attempt to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, won't work, because I am quite a lot smarter than you apparently believe your readers to be.

Provide evidence that the current climate variation on Mars is not anthropogenic.

See how that works?

The fact that similar variations have happened many times in the past without human help is excellent -- even conclusive -- evidence that the current one is not anthropogenic.

No we won't, because you will just contrive some fallacious and disingenuous trick to evade them, just as you have the first one. It's what you do.

This assertion is ROFLMAO false.

The earth is heating up 100 to 1000 times faster than it ever has in the past, except maybe when a 6 mile diam. asteroid or comet smashed into the earth. Maybe. So, this has never been like this in the past, ever, AFAWeK. But. TtP is too ignorant to know this.

.

[late]

In the 70s, only DARPA and Big Oil had a big enough budget to do good climate research. They both, independently, found warming.

In the over 60 years since, their conclusions have never been seriously challenged.

The Climate Sciences reached consensus over 20 years ago. Since then, there have been 2 types of Deniers, paid trolls, and kooks with a severely limited intellect.

[Truth To Power]

This assertion is ROFLMAO false.

No, it is an indisputable fact.

The earth is heating up 100 to 1000 times faster than it ever has in the past,

No, that's just absurd garbage with no basis in fact. Where do you get such nonsense? Greta Thunberg?

except maybe when a 6 mile diam. asteroid or comet smashed into the earth. Maybe. So, this has never been like this in the past, ever, AFAWeK. But. TtP is too ignorant to know this.

I obviously know far more about it than you, because I know your claims are nonsense.

[Truth To Power]

In the 70s, only DARPA and Big Oil had a big enough budget to do good climate research. They both, independently, found warming.

In the over 60 years since, their conclusions have never been seriously challenged.

Because you have no scientific knowledge or logical ability, you are permanently unable to understand that the fact that the more active sun has warmed the earth following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years does not imply that it must have been CO2 and not the sun that did it.

The Climate Sciences reached consensus over 20 years ago. Since then, there have been 2 types of Deniers, paid trolls, and kooks with a severely limited intellect.

<yawn> I stated the relevant facts. You cannot dispute them -- only deny them.

[late]

I stated the relevant facts. You cannot dispute them

Science is done by scientists, not kooks.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

You made the claim that the current climate change is not due to anthropogenic causes.

Now you need to support it.

No, because I already have.

Also:

Human and natural factors both influence the earth’s climate, but the long-term trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect of human activities on climate. Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 2: Our Changing Climate EPA WEBSITE, 2017.

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-scien ... %20climate.

But that claim is actually anti-scientific garbage.

The sun warms my house every day. According to your logic, that is conclusive evidence that the human activity in the house cannot warm the house. Lol.

No, it's conclusive evidence that human activity did not warm the house when it warmed this morning by the typical amount it always warmed without human activity. According to your absurd and brain-dead AGW "logic," if the sun has been warming your vacant house by 5C every morning, then after people moved in yesterday, and the house warmed by 5C this morning, too, that 5C warming can only have been caused by the people who moved in. Or maybe you are "only" claiming that because it warmed by 6C this morning, MOST of that warming must have been caused by the people....?

[late]

But that claim is actually anti-scientific garbage.

No, it's conclusive evidence that human activity did not warm the house when it warmed this morning by the typical amount it always warmed without human activity. According to your absurd and brain-dead AGW "logic," if the sun has been warming your vacant house by 5C every morning, then after people moved in yesterday, and the house warmed by 5C this morning, too, that 5C warming can only have been caused by the people who moved in. Or maybe you are "only" claiming that because it warmed by 6C this morning, MOST of that warming must have been caused by the people....?

Thanks for proving my point.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Lol.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Lol.

What an eloquent concession of defeat.

[Truth To Power]

Thanks for proving my point.

You really can't understand such a clear, simple, logical explanation of causal relationships? That explains a lot...

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Since all the science disagrees with you, all the science must be wrong.

Lol

[Truth To Power]

Just on the part I highlighted.
In May 2022 the air had 421 ppm of CO2 (or CO2 equivalent) by now it is more, so I'll go with 422 ppm. The preindustrial level is often given as 280 ppm.

So, 422/280 = 150.7 % of 280 ppm. So, we have dumped enough CO2 and Methane, etc. into the air to have increased the CO2 level by slightly over 50%. It has been shown that this is consistent with what we know we have burned.

None of that is evidence that CO2 is a principal driver of global surface temperature.

We know that on Venus more and more CO2 has resulted in a very high temp, so don't be claiming that adding more and more CO2 has no effect.

Venus's surface temperature is high because its atmosphere is thick, not because it is CO2. Mars has more CO2 than earth, but it is damn cold because CO2 is not a significant driver of planetary surface temperature. Would adding CO2 have an effect on the earth's surface temperature? Of course: if you multiplied atmospheric CO2 by 1000, the atmosphere would be thick enough to raise surface temperature by several degrees.

In the part I highlighted, TtP claimed that adding enough CO2 into the air to have increased the amount of CO2 in the air by 50% is not enough to matter much. Real scientists have published peer reviewed papers that prove he is wrong.

No they haven't.

Imagine that the sun was giving us 50% more heat energy. We would be cooked already.

That's not how it works. CO2 is a thermal decoupler, like a blanket, not a thermal source like a fire. If you are in a bed with 50 wool blankets and two cotton blankets, how much warmer will you be if two more cotton blankets are added?

Scientists only claim that the more than 50% increase is slowly heating the earth, and TtP denies that.

No, I have stipulated that it must be heating the earth as a matter of the basic physics of radiative heat transfer. Just a lot less than AGW screamers claim. And it can't continue heating the earth's surface: it will asymptotically approach a higher equilibrium temperature until its signal is lost in the noise of variability.

He says that we would need more CO2 to have the effects we are seeing, a lot more. There is a 99% chance that TtP will deny that he said or implied any such thing.

No, I said we would need a lot more CO2 to cause the effects we are seeking. We are having the effects; just not caused by CO2.

We know his methods. He just asserts things right and left and denies he said things that he did imply.

I would suggest that you are not a very reliable authority on the logical implications of what anyone says.

Lurkers, TtP is never going to admit he is wrong.

Unless I am.

So, I leave it to you. Do you think that raising the CO2 level in the air by 50.7% is enough to be causing the earth to be heating up the little bit each year that we are measuring?

No, only a much littler bit. The rest is mostly due to the sun.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Since all the science disagrees with you, all the science must be wrong.

Lol

Which of my statements in post #...543 do you falsely claim "all the science" disagrees with? Be specific.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I already posted evidence showing that ypu are wrong to claim that the current warming is due to natural causes.

You then got mad at the science.

And I laughed.