I am sorry that some of your "pet" theories about why AGW might not be happening are not borne out by "the numbers" and the underlying hard science behind those numbers.
So, do you disagree with those "numbers" and observations as they pertain to the counter theories on C02 that they were presented in response to? If you do, I would be all ears as to why the "damn numbers" *don't relate to th specific theories presented.
Now, you present some counter-arguments, actually "counter-stories" since you fail to cite any basis for them aside from that "Dale and Gun told us."
Let's turn to them.
Well first of all (as indicated above) you present no specific citations to the studies that show this. Please provide them. I, for one, "think" (as opposed to what your snarky aside says.) Accordingly I require evidence to support that. (much like Dale, interestingly enough.) So now, much like Dale, I suggest that you "prove" your statement. I mean, what is good for the goose *is* good for the gander, right?
In fact, I'll start and spot you one:
source:
NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
(starting to get the drift?)
However, the cite also goes on to say:
This gets to my second point. There may very well have been "warmer periods" in the Earth's history. Now, please point out the driving mechanisms behind *all* of your (as yet unnamed) warming periods. Next, please point out *why* the mere existence of any unsourced warming trend in any way, shape, or form counts as evidence against AGW theories. Please try to remember "causation". The mere fact that "a warming trend occurred" many years ago is absolutely worthless in characterizing anything that might be happening today. In fact, that is probably far worse than the "cheesy correlations" that Dale deemed were unworthy.
Remember, per Dale's instructions above, "cheesy correlations" are *not* good. To wit, without any basis to tie the mechanisms of any cited warming trend, the existence of *any* previous warming trend provides not one iota of proof for or against the theory of AGW.
Again, instead of trying to "prove" by "a story I heard", provide references. Again, "prove it". (Funny how I hear that over and over again from one side, yet that same side inthe argument tries to do without....)
Well then, let me toos you one specific (among many) that are just opposite:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
I will be happy to provide you with others. So, at the very least, I would back away from asserting that "solar is the sole cause of excess warming" as "fact".
And, again (like #1) this supposition is fact only in the sense that it might show that a portion of coastal regions in Greenland in that time period were free of ice. Again, aside from the explicit evidence of that fact, this tasty little morsel (again) has no value in assessing the physics of CO2, nor of the many other issues that might have happened.
You in relating a tale that tells us nothing more than a specific thawing of a specific region of the world. Good for you.... Its scientific value as to the theory of potential CO2 warming effects is nil.
Let me put your "historical" narratives in perspective. I am driving down the road in my Ford Explorer and it stalls. Let us assume that the battery cable has gotten loose. However, the parties (right now) don't know the reason, but I suspect (but don't know) its the cable.
The guy behind me stops and says "Gee willikers, my Ford Explorer stalled on me 22 years ago. I don't know why it stalled out on me. And without even relating or knowing the symptoms of my stall 22 years ago, I can tell you that the reason my car stalled 22 years ago and why yours is now stalled is the same reason."
Do you understand *now* why your "proof by story" really doesnt rise above the level of a nice anecdote?
See #1, and #3 above. Hmmmm...... I know of outcroppings that have radiocarbon dates that are older than those that are below them. Does this automatically mean that they were deposited on top of the newer ones (but somehow older).
I am glad that there are reefs that are many meters higher. Too bad you don't see the many thousands of reasons that this occur. Interestingly you fixate on this as proof that AGW doesn't happen. How, I don't know, but you seemingly do.....
And if you had some, it would be blindingly obvious that while these items *might* be facts (remember that citation and proof thingy.... right?), that they are no way "proof" of anything related to carbon cycles.
Correct. They are puffheaded and rash conclusions on your part.
If you knew the first thing about me (which you do not, btw), you would realize that I am a true capitalist at heart. Stunningly so. But why let that fact get in the way of your sweeping generalizations...
no, just basic physics, and basic scientifically reported studies and facts. Sorry that you cannot recognize them.
Share this thread with friends: