How is that meaningless? I think you are refusing to answer because you don't even know what I am really asking. It's all just part of "climategate" to you.
Do you or do you not think atmospheric CO2 is rising (and no it does not always rise considering the carbon cycle) and could be a cause for concern?
Do you or do you not think atmospheric CO2 is rising (and no it does not always rise considering the carbon cycle) and could be a cause for concern?
Know about WHAT? Until you can organize enough of your obamatized brain synapses to formulate a recognizable question, who can possibly know what you're talking about?
Know what the carbon cycle is and how some of reactions are starting to be heavily concentrated on one side as CO2 levels go up.
And synapses can't be "obamatized". "Obamatized" isn't even a word.
AH! A clearly posed question! I think the methods used to determine CO2 concentrations in the past are iffy (the burden of proof is of course on the people that claim that they are valid, not me to prove they aren't - that's more of that "how scientists do things" stuff.
)As to the effect of CO2 on global warming, that's iffy too - eg, it doesn't explain the general declining temperature trend in the period 1940-1970, a time when war industries were going full tilt.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png
Except they have used legitimate methods (accepted by most of scientific academia) and if there is something there that is not legitimate then you must show why the methodology is wrong, not them (unless they find it first).I think the methods used to determine CO2 concentrations in the past are iffy (the burden of proof is of course on the people that claim that they are valid, not me to prove they aren't - that's more of that "how scientists do things" stuff.
Correlation does not prove causation (or in this case correlation does not break causation). Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
AGW theory rests largely on statistical correlations - notably the vaunted hockey stick graph.
Two questions:
1) I asked this one many times before but you kept evading it. Let's try again: Do you agree that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing?
2) Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can trap heat in the atmosphere?
3) If you agree to the first two, then there you have it- increased CO2 concentration will likely lead to increased temperatures.
Now whether the actual temperature goes higher or lower depends on not only this, but also many many other factors, which is why you might still see cooling. But that isn't the point of the idea that CO2 undoubtedly warms (unless you have a reason for why it also cools, in which case we can only say that the greenhouse gas aspect of CO2 warms).
Just because there is a possibility that other things might cool the planet, does not mean that it won't warm, especially if those other things are only short term things. As you said yourself, in such a case, the burden of proof is on you, not those saying it isn't happening. If you agree with the three statements in my last post, you agree that [CO2] is increasing and as a result, the Earth is warming. Now if you think that that is negligible due to greater cooling, you must prove that the Earth is cooling (heading into the future).
They have proved it. You seem to agree with it if you agree that CO2 ppm is going up and CO2 is a greenhouse gas (or are you refuting that because then we have a whole other issue). So increased CO2 ppm is causing warming.
Now the burden is on YOU if you think that something else will cause temperatures to balance out and will do so into the foreseeable future.
Yes they have. And you seem to agree, unless again you refute the two points above. You also seem to agree based on this allegory you give (note that I never commented on how much the Earth is warming, merely that it is warming and if you even agree that your allegory is correct, you too agree that the Earth is warming.):No they haven't.
What you're saying is like saying:
1. Charley dumps a cup of water in the susquehana river every day.
2. Does that cause the river to rise any? Answer: yes.
3. The susquehana river has flooded recently.
4. Therefore, Charly has caused floods.
If you think that allegory holds, you agree that the globe is warming. How ironic, after all that time, you just didn't realize it. Of course the questionable thing is how big Charley's cup is. You seem to think it is completely negligible, but I disagree on that- and no the burden of proof isn't on me for that since it depends on how much heat is retained in the atmosphere as a result of the extra CO2- in this case we are both arguing the amount of heat on average per CO2 molecule- the same variable, just different datapoints.
