Pre-industrial anthropogenic climate change?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Too large to be ignored could still be not the primary cause.

CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a number of sources. It would be somewhat incorrect terminology to call any of them a 'primary source'. They all add up to make the total.
If you are referring instead to warming and not CO2, then I believe CO2 is the largest contributor to warming and man is the largest contributor to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Primary is probably again the wrong word.

Originally posted by twhitehead
CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a number of sources. It would be somewhat incorrect terminology to call any of them a 'primary source'. They all add up to make the total.
If you are referring instead to warming and not CO2, then I believe CO2 is the largest contributor to warming and man is the largest contributor to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Primary is probably again the wrong word.

Sure CO2 comes from a number of sources and I have no problem with that, do you? I never used the word "source", I used the word "cause". CO2 from any source is still applicable as a cause in the context I used. Primary is the right word. You are confusing the simplicity of what I said by misquoting me. I never said source or even implied it. Source is the wrong word.
I agree that man is the largest contributer of CO2, but dispute that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. With CO2 levels close to that of the Pliocene without temps today being anywhere close to Pliocene temps it is obvious to the unbiased mind that CO2 causes much less global warming than what climate models have predicted. Global warming theory is clearly flawed and those that cling to it are practicing pseudoscience because of an irrational bias that is likely political in origin.
Mere facts like CO2 being an effect of temperatures historically are ignored by those pretending to defend science while dismissing it in a sad display of "group think".
Climate models are proven failures, yet many still cling to them and refuse to accept the failed predictions as anything but a setback. This is shameful to science. Any scientist that is unbiased would never cling to failures like a religious faith. When a theory is proven wrong a good scientist moves on.

Here on the science forum climate models are like an imperfect god that must remain unquestioned. The rationalization is that they must be right because of the false belief that there is a consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming. No poll has ever asked that question, yet many imply it has. Deliberately vague terms like "significant" are used to mislead people when asking poll questions. I once asked kazetnagorra to define "significant". Not surprisingly he never replied.

Can you do it? Define "significant". Primary cause is significant, but significant is not necessarily primary cause. Right?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
CO2 from any source is still applicable as a cause in the context I used. Primary is the right word.

I disagree.

You are confusing the simplicity of what I said by misquoting me.
I did not misquote you.

I never said source or even implied it. Source is the wrong word.
I never said you did, nor quoted you saying it.

I agree that man is the largest contributer of CO2, but dispute that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
Dispute it all you like. What you asked me was weather I thought CO2 from agriculture and other land use changes was the primary cause of global warming and my answer is that I think it is a significant contributor and that 'primary' is the wrong word. That's my answer, take it or leave it its up to you.

With CO2 levels close to that of the Pliocene without temps today being anywhere close to Pliocene temps it is obvious to the unbiased mind that CO2 causes much less global warming than what climate models have predicted.
No, it is obvious to the uneducated mind. What you are claiming simply doesn't follow. Global temperatures are a result of many different factors not CO2 alone. Simply comparing CO2 between now and the Pliocene without taking other factors into consideration tells us nothing useful whatsoever.

.... yet many still cling to them.....
As I have told you before, if you have complaints about other people, address them to those other people. Stop wasting your time complaining about other people to me. I am not interested in your complaints. Address what I have said, or say something about your own understanding. What you don't like about what someone else has said is irrelevant to both of us.

Can you do it? Define "significant". Primary cause is significant, but significant is not necessarily primary cause. Right?
Agreed. I already stated that 'big enough not to be ignored' was another way to say 'significant' and that 'primary cause' is probably not a good term to use in the discussion anyway. If there are 20 things causing global warming and one is larger than the other 19, I wouldn't call it the 'primary cause', I would call it the 'largest cause'. 'Primary cause' is best reserved for a cause that is behind most of the other causes. So if man is behind say 18 of the 20 causes then we might refer to man as the 'primary cause'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...What you are claiming simply doesn't follow. Global temperatures are a result of many different factors not CO2 alone. Simply comparing CO2 between now and the Pliocene without taking other factors into consideration tells us nothing useful whatsoever. ...

Exactly! CO2 levels would not have been the only thing that could have been different in the Pliocene from today. There could have been and almost certainly was either more or less vulcanism, or either more or less sea ice cover etc, plus the land masses were in a different position then than now and that would have drastically effected ocean and atmosphere circulations which in turn would influence global temperatures in very complex ways. Differences in these factors other than CO2 would have also effected average global temperatures thus no rational simplistic comparison can be made between levels of CO2 and any global warming between then and now or at least no rational comparison can be made without at least also simultaneously taking into full account all these other causal factors other than CO2 levels, which would be an extremely complicated thing even for any climate scientist to do let alone an ignorant layman.

Originally posted by humy
Exactly! CO2 levels would not have been the only thing that could have been different in the Pliocene from today. There could have been and almost certainly was either more or less vulcanism, or either more or less sea ice cover etc, plus the land masses were in a different position then than now and that would have drastically effected ocean and atmosphere cir ...[text shortened]... n extremely complicated thing even for any climate scientist to do let alone an ignorant layman.

Plus the biggest point you both missed is that WE ARE STILL WARMING

The release of CO2 has been VERY rapid and only just this year reached the levels of the Pliocene
estimated average.

Even if everything else was the same, we wouldn't expect to have reached the same stable temperatures
yet because the Earth climate system has HUGE heat capacity and takes a long time to warm up. [on our
time-scales at least]

The Earth currently has a significant energy imbalance that we can measure accurately from space with
satellites.

This means that the Earth is gaining energy, and will continue to warm until it's hot enough to radiate away as
much heat as it's gaining and the energy imbalance is gone.

This proves that we have not yet reached the global temperature at which the climate is stable for our current
levels of CO2, let alone the temperature at which the climate would be stable after future releases of CO2.

This means that comparing our current climate to a past stabilised climate with similar CO2 levels and expecting
them to match is epically stupid on it's face, even without any of the other valid points you both raised.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree.

[b]You are confusing the simplicity of what I said by misquoting me.
I did not misquote you.

I never said source or even implied it. Source is the wrong word.
I never said you did, nor quoted you saying it.

I agree that man is the largest contributer of CO2, but dispute that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming ...[text shortened]... . So if man is behind say 18 of the 20 causes then we might refer to man as the 'primary cause'.

"Global temperatures are a result of many different factors not CO2 alone."

Exactly! This is also true today. Alarmists have a hard time accepting that though. They are obsessed with CO2 and will not accept that CO2 is a negligible factor. It is like a mental illness. No matter how many times climate models are proven wrong they do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
CO2 is not the primary factor. All evidence supports this conclusion, but you can't use logic to sway people away from their new religion. Logic doesn't matter to them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Plus the biggest point you both missed is that [b]WE ARE STILL WARMING

The release of CO2 has been VERY rapid and only just this year reached the levels of the Pliocene
estimated average.

Even if everything else was the same, we wouldn't expect to have reached the same stable temperatures
yet because the Earth climate system has HUGE heat c ...[text shortened]... tch is epically stupid on it's face, even without any of the other valid points you both raised.[/b]

"Plus the biggest point you both missed is that [b]WE ARE STILL WARMING"

I certainly hope so. It started over 300 years ago so only an idiot would expect natural warming to stop now. Since you did not say "anthropogenic" warming you must finally accept man is a negligible factor. If not you need to be specific and call the warming either natural or anthropogenic. After all, it doesn't matter if we are still warming. That is no reason to be concerned. If you are, what do you suggest, trying to stop natural climate change?

"yet because the Earth climate system has HUGE heat capacity and takes a long time to warm up. [on our
time-scales at least]"

What is your time scale? It is so easy for you and humy to assert this and never assert a time scale. For example, Peter Schiff has been predicting an economic crash that will be worse than 2008. His critics argue that he has been predicting that for years and he will always be right in the long term because 100 years from now Peter will say "see, it happened". His critics rightly point out that he doesn't assert a time scale so he keep saying that year after year after year.

The heat capacity argument is similar. 10 years from now you and humy will be saying the same thing and nothing is to stop you from doing it 20 years from now. I guess you will be convinced you are right on your deathbed because it will happen after you are dead and buried. After all, you and humy are to science what Peter Schiff is to economics. 🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
... so only an idiot would expect ...

You do know that this rhetorical trick is not working, don't you?
The only one appearing as an idiot is you yourself.

You are not a very good at rhetorics, but this you know already.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Global temperatures are a result of many different factors not CO2 alone."

Exactly! This is also true today. Alarmists have a hard time accepting that though. .

Then those "Alarmists" don't exist and certainly not in this forum here because OBVIOUSLY none of us here, especially the scientists who are all vastly more intelligent than you (not that most of the none scientists here are not vastly more intelligent than you ), CLAIMS/believes that only CO2 alone causes global temperature changes, moron. Absolutely nobody here is convinced by your incredibly stupid straw man and incredibly stupid comments like that only makes anyone reading your post see you for the moron you are even if they didn't already know because they haven't read any of your other past posts.

Only an idiot thinks he is a winner.
(Using Metal Brain own rhetorics.)

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Plus the biggest point you both missed is that [b]WE ARE STILL WARMING"

I certainly hope so. It started over 300 years ago so only an idiot would expect natural warming to stop now. Since you did not say "anthropogenic" warming you must finally accept man is a negligible factor. If not you need to be specific and call the warming either natural or an ...[text shortened]... re dead and buried. After all, you and humy are to science what Peter Schiff is to economics. 🙄

So why don't you illuminate for us idiots just what is the primary cause of global warming?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So why don't you illuminate for us idiots just what is the primary cause of global warming?

Natural causes are clearly the primary cause. This trend started over 300 years ago. The fact this trend is continuing is no surprise.

http://forums.theozone.net/offtopic/messages/234006.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Natural causes are clearly the primary cause. This trend started over 300 years ago. The fact this trend is continuing is no surprise.

http://forums.theozone.net/offtopic/messages/234006.html

Yet another denier. Well he said it himself. 'I am not an expert' (on ocean acidification) But words to the effect of everything will turn out fine, which is the bottom line for deniers.

So in twenty years when the ocean levels have risen to the extent that 'alarmists' have been saying, what then?

Also, why do deniers say on the one hand the world is warming and on the other hand mankind is having only a small effect on climate change, why aren't the deniers pushing for mankind to do something about it regardless of what or who is causing it?

Do you seriously think if we just sit on our butts watching football and guzzling beer, the world will fix itself, regardless of which side of the 'denier-alarmist' spectrum you sit?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yet another denier. Well he said it himself. 'I am not an expert' (on ocean acidification) But words to the effect of everything will turn out fine, which is the bottom line for deniers.

So in twenty years when the ocean levels have risen to the extent that 'alarmists' have been saying, what then?

Also, why do deniers say on the one hand the world is ...[text shortened]... , the world will fix itself, regardless of which side of the 'denier-alarmist' spectrum you sit?

There is no evidence sea levels will rise to the level alarmists have been predicting. If they predicted moneys will fly out of your butthole would you believe them? Sea levels have been rising at a consistent amount that is not alarming at all. Look at the data. You are extremely foolish for believing nonsense that has no logical basis. You cannot even cite a reason for the prediction that makes any sense. FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There is no evidence sea levels will rise to the level alarmists have been predicting. If they predicted moneys will fly out of your butthole would you believe them? Sea levels have been rising at a consistent amount that is not alarming at all. Look at the data. You are extremely foolish for believing nonsense that has no logical basis. You cannot even cite a reason for the prediction that makes any sense. FAIL!

Who woke this idiot up again?