Seeing Red

Most people see light shades of red better than they see light shades of blue.

April 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm

By increasing the saturation of the colors, it becomes much easier to see the blue.

Fifty one percent of the map is average or below average temperature, and 49% is above average temperature.

It was very cold in Colorado last night.

These are the views from the poles.  Temperatures of -25C show up as red hot in these anomaly maps.

The next week is forecast to stay very cold in North America.

Short-Term Climate Outlooks

Global warming alarmists will cling to their faith and look for signs everywhere.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Seeing Red

  1. oldbrew says:

    Even if alarmists find something they like, attribution is still debatable.

  2. Brad says:

    So CMIP5 was wrong and CMIP6 will be right?

    • AndyG55 says:

      They KNOW there is a cooling period coming.. so they are starting to adjust their models.

      How says either is correct.

      No sign of any “skill” in these models so far.

      • Anon II says:

        Brad,

        If you don’t want to wade through that Lindzen article, another big hitter to go after is Dr. Willie Soon from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who presents his arguments in video form here:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAy871w9t8

        Use the same strategy I outlined with the Lindzen paper.

        After the Lindzen Paper & the Soon Video, you will be crushing it no time! Trust me!!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Well that was a load of totally EMPTY BS

          All you have !!

          ZERO science, as always.

          Anon II FAILS at basic rhetoric. !!

    • Anon II says:

      Brad, it is useless trying to argue here on Tony’s blog without some education about what these guys are up to. The paper below should give you more ammunition and make your arguments more persuasive and convincing to the folks here:

      http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

      Once you have waded through all of that (I suggest reading the links the author links to as well, as they will help reinforce your positions) you will be able to see exactly where the Climate Deniers are vulnerable and can attack them more easily.

      It is always best, when trying to argue a position to completely immerse yourself in the nuances of the counter-position.

      I have used this technique and it is almost 99.9% effective. Otherwise you will just go round in circles with these guys, but with more knowledge you can get right to the jugular.

      You would not believe the successes I have had after carefully studying that article.

      The best technique is to write down each of his arguments and the concisely write down the counter-arguments. Don’t be content to rest on suppositions, as they won’t work with the folks here, but get to the real science and substance of it all.

      And don’t be intimidated that this guy is from MIT. See it as a challenge, if you can defeat his arguments, you will be able to talk to anyone with strength and authority about your AGW & GHG forcing positions.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Well that was a moronic ZERO-science post.

        Can we expect more of that type from you.

        Very amusing. :-)

        Counter arguments. are waiting

        How about YOU start with a paper that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth.

        DO you also DENY that the LIA was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years?

        Do you DENY that the 8000 or so year before the LIA were WARMER than now.

        Seems you are FULL OF IT.

        IT being CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL.

      • AndyG55 says:

        ” useless trying to argue here on Tony’s blog without some education ”

        Which is why people like you and Brad are destined to FAIL.

        That and the FACT that AGW is a load of scientifically unsupportable fantasy.

        Prove me wrong by producing a paper that proves empirically that atmospheric CO2 cause warming of anything.

        The challenge is there.. Now watch you FAIL.

  3. Brad says:

    This is by all means causing the warm week ahead, high pressure over our head causing above normal for almost the entire europe continent.

    • R. Shearer says:

      You said it was going to be 80F all over the Netherlands and Belgium all next week. Then you said between 77 and 85F. I asked for one city where the forecast is for 85F, so that I could verify this.

      You did not and will not answer because you do not tell the truth.

    • AndyG55 says:

      A small one or two WEATHER event

      SO WHAT !!

      77ºF is nothing remarkable, its beautifully pleasant.

      Get out of your heated basement and ENJOY IT. !

    • AndyG55 says:

      WOW, look at all that BLUE in the top left !!!

      and one TINY cell of slightly warmer, sitting on top of a TINY country for a TINY amount of time

      SO WHAT !!

      • Brad says:

        Whole europe isnt partically small now is it? How much further will you deny?

        • Cam says:

          And most of the winter Europe was cold and had storm after storm. What’s your point?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Deny weather events.. nope

          Do you DENY that the LIA was a FREEZING COLD anomaly?

          Do you DENY that the MWP was WARMER than now, as were most of the 8000 or so years before the MWP ?

          Are you a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, brad ?

          • Brad says:

            Your saying it yourself, 8000 years ago what is a slow rate compared to now. Now we causing the same heat as then in 100 years.

          • AndyG55 says:

            BULLSHIT

            We are NOT causing anything.

            You have ZERO evidence that we are.

            Just your ultimately GULLIBLE brain-hosed idiocy.

          • Brad says:

            Speaking that 7 billion people have no effect on the planet can be called ignorant… please enjoy the bubble you live in.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ZERO EVIDENCE , brad

            Empty rhetoric in every post.

        • Robertv says:

          ‘Whole europe isnt partically small’

          IT IS

          Get out of your parents basement

    • Andy DC says:

      Some places are warm and others are cold. Isn’t that the way the weather has been since the beginning of time?

      • John F. Hultquist says:

        I can’t speak for the “beginning of time” but I do know that here in central Washington State they say spring will arrive soon.
        Waiting. Me and the plants.
        A patch of sunny-location Daffodils started blooming 3 days ago.
        Hurrah!

        • Kris Johanson says:

          You live in Wenatchee where all the 10 million dollar homes are? Two page piece in the Wall St Journal on Wenatchee over the w/e… incredible home prices

  4. It was 81 degrees at 3500′ Canaan Valley WV Yesterday Brad…it will snow mon and tue…

  5. Brad says:

    If gfs run comes true april will come on an average of 13,6 what will smash the all time records off 13,1! Heat is more common every year and cold will be rather become special.

  6. Brad says:

    Wednesday and thursday we will likely smash daily records.

    • AndyG55 says:

      In one TINY small and irrelevant part of Europe?

      SO WHAT !!

      • Brad says:

        Try again. How much further will you deny the planet is heating up?

        • AndyG55 says:

          March was 2.5C BELOW average for most of Europe.

          You are yapping mindlessly about 2 or 3 days. !!!

          Do you even know what WEATHER is ???

        • AndyG55 says:

          ps, still waiting for that paper that shows that CO2 or CH4 have ANY measurable effect on temperature.

          You do know that SCIENCE require EMPIRICAL PROOF, don’t you Brad.

          So far.. just mindless evasion.

          • Brad says:

            If the permafrost melts there will be big methane release what will cause even more warming.

          • Gator says:

            Didn’t happen last time. Have the laws of physics changed?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor EMPTY Erik.

            Can’t even support the CO warming meme with any empirical science.

            PATHETIC. LOSER.

            and VERY, VERY EMBARRASSING if he really is a scientist. (as if !!! )

  7. Jurek says:

    “Fifty one percent of the map is average or below average temperature, and 49% is above average temperature.” You forgot, earth is round :)

  8. Pat Ludwig says:

    Is it possible to provide the %’s broken out three ways (below/at/above average)

    That would enable a direct comparison between below and above average. Thanks!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Only relative to probably the second coldest period since 1900 as a reference.

      Look at the blue shading on the AMO graph.

      As you can see, it really is CHOOSING a pretty cold period as “normal” isn’t it.

      What they should be using is the whole of a major AMO cycle

      If the reference years were say the period in green, the chart would be mostly blue.

      I wish everybody would start to think for themselves, and stop falling for all the little propaganda trick that these AGW fraudsters try to pull.

  9. Erik says:

    Well aside the fact this is one single day compared to the long-term trend, you might notice there is a larger percentage of area much warmer than normal compared to much cooler than normal, meaning the average global temperature is, wait for it, warmer than normal. One should also look at the locations that are warmer than normal, namely the Arctic. The colder temperatures at lower latitudes, namely the US, are also indicative of a warming arctic, which is seen in the picture, due to the jet stream meanders caused by the warming Arctic bringing cold air south.
    Granted, this is “realclimatescience” – when have you ever published real climate science?

    • tonyheller says:

      Moro alert

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep a moron FOR SURE.

      The baseline is pretty close to the COLDEST period that could choose (5 years back would have been somewhat colder)

      If the REAL data from around 1920-1950 was the “normal” baseline, the map would be mostly BLUE.

      You really haven’t got a clue what normal is, have you Eric.

      Tell us all.. What SHOULD the normal temperature of the Earth be?

      Should it be the somewhat warmer than now MWP?

      Should it be the even warmer RWP

      Or the even warmer again Holocene Optimum.??

      Should it be the freezing cold of the LIA, which we are just a tiny blip above.
      (is that REALLY what you wish for ??)

      Current temperatures are FAR below the average for the last 10,000 years.

      Get some basic knowledge before you post again, Eric, save yourself from looking like a dement AGW parrot.

      • Erik says:

        The temperature of the earth without GHG’s would be around 0 degrees F. The temperature without man’s emission would, based on the data we have, be around 0.9-2+ degrees F less than we currently see. The variance is due to the evidence supporting a natural cooling cycle that should have been happening while our temperatures have continued to increase, meaning the increase we see is actually less than the actual increase, for the high end and giving deniers the benefit of the doubt for natural change on the low end.

        We are already warmer than the MWP on a global scale. There are some locations that are similar, and perhaps cooler now than the MWP, to be sure, but we are warmer on a global scale.

        The RWP was quite similar to the current temperatures at local scales, but again there is little evidence showing it as being warmer on a global scale. Websites that use faulty data, wrong data, local and not global data, and incorrect statistics have shown the RWP as being warmer, but the actual literature doesn’t support it.

        The Optimum’s exact temperature is not as conclusive.

        Nobody ever said we want to go back to the LIA temperatures. That would be a form of an appeal to extremes logical fallacy.

        The 10,000 year comment is most likely a form of Easterbrook’s data, but he used local data and pretended that it was global data and didn’t have his years correct. It doesn’t matter, though, because the earth being warmer in the geologic past (which it has been during periods many thousands and millions of years ago) does not disprove the current warming. The earth was warmer at periods in the past due to known variables, none of which are active at levels able to cause the warming we are currently seeing.

        We aren’t trying to stop natural change. We are trying to stop altering natural change. Oh, and the logic of the climate changed in the past for specific reasons so the current change apparently has to be natural despite it being for completely different reasons is akin to saying you can’t start a fire using manmade technology today because lightning caused them in the past naturally. It is nearly a perfect comparison of logic.

        I know that the people on here have little in the way of actual training in the subject based on some of the replies I have read, but feel free to make up straw men and poor, if any, evidence for your claims as most other deniers do.
        As an aside, I notice you weren’t able to show how my comment was wrong despite your rhetoric. There is more above normal warm areas than below normal cool areas despite overall “cool” areas being a slightly higher percentage. You also didn’t address the issue with where the heat is found, didn’t address that this is one single day, and didn’t address the fact that the cold air in the south of the US is most likely, by the evidence we have, caused by the warming Arctic pulling cold air south.

        Try again, deniers.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We are already warmer than the MWP on a global scale”

          RUBBISH ! only is heavily doctored data.

          Where’s the outdoor crops in Greenland, where people scooting all over the Arctic without modern ice-breakers.

          You should learn some history, child-mind.. Become more AWARE than IGNORANT.

          The temperature without man’s emission would, based on the data we have, be around 0.9-2+ degrees F less than we currently see”

          BS.. modelled ASSumption driven garbage.

          Arctic is actually cooler than it was in the 1940’s

          https://s19.postimg.cc/chlq0r1cj/Arctic_Had_Crut_4.gif

          Antarctic has been COOLING for ages

          https://s19.postimg.cc/nn6qmzrb7/antarcticacooling.gif

          Your DENIAL of NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE is anti-science in the extreme, little sludge-for-brains.

          You have NOTHING but erroneous BS and baseless rhetoric driven by a fetid anti-CO2 , anti-LIFE agenda.

          “none of which are active at levels able to cause the warming we are currently seeing”

          MORE rampant brain-hosed BS.. The only thing pushing up the level of natural warming is rampant mal-adjustments of raw data

          There has , IN FACT, been NO WARMING in the whole satellite data era except for El Nino and Ocean effects, NEITHER OF WHICH IS HUMAN FORCED

          No Warming from 1980 – 1997

          https://s19.postimg.cc/kr0uu9cz7/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png

          No warming from 2001-2015

          https://s19.postimg.cc/jcuv319ir/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png

          All you have is mindless AGW brain-hosed rhetoric.

          I bet you cannot find ONE PAPER that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

          WAITING. !!!

          List of places that are NOT warming, I can provide graphs for every one of them.

          Since 1870s – no warming
          Greenland – no warming
          New Zealand – no warming
          Antarctica – no warming
          North Atlantic – no warming
          Western Pacific – no warming
          India/Western Himalaya – no warming
          Pakistan – no warming
          Turkey – no warming
          Himalayas/Nepal – no warming
          Siberia – no warming
          Portugal – no warming
          NE China – no warming
          SW China – no warming
          South China – no warming
          West China – no warming
          Southern South America – no warming
          Canada (B.C.) – no warming
          Canada Central – no warming

          Since 1940s/50s – no warming
          Northern Hemisphere – no warming
          Arctic Region – no warming
          Greenland – no warming
          South Iceland – no warming
          North Iceland – no warming
          Alaska – no warming
          New York – no warming
          Rural U.S. – no warming
          Northern Europe – no warming
          Western Europe – no warming
          Mediterranean Region – no warming
          Finland and Sweden – no warming
          East Antarctica – no warming
          North Atlantic – no warming
          Western North Atlantic – no warming
          Brazil – no warming
          SE Australia – no warming
          Southern South America – no warming
          Andes Mountains – no warming
          Chile – no warming

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I know that the people on here have little in the way of actual training in the subject”

          You mean manic AGW brain-hosing.

          Most people here would mop cretins like you of the floor with science.

          Did you know that the CO2 GHE has never been measured or observed ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYHOW. !!

          Its all just a MODEL CONSTRUCTION.

          IT IS NOT REAL.

          Let’s see how your science is.

          Produce ONE PAPER that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 actually “warms” anything.

          WAITING. !!!

          • Erik says:

            First, crops in Greenland alone do not prove a global warm period, and lack of crops in Greenland alone does not disprove a global warm period.
            Second, wait, so you think CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere? If you can’t even grasp the simple physics of that, I don’t see why I should even bother with you. I guess you could be trying to say the additional CO2 we are adding somehow doesn’t behave the way all other CO2 molecules behave, but that is a bit of a paradox in itself. The very physics of the situation mandate warming.

            You don’t even realize the graphs you linked show warming in Antarctica during the time period we have been adding anthropogenic CO2 (proving you wrong), not that random graphs without context, supporting data, statistical analysis, or global extent really mean much even if they do support you. But please, provide this data you say shows no warming. If it is as good as your Antarctic graph you will prove yourself wrong without even realizing it. Granted select locations mean little when the entire globe on average is warming.

            As for the people on here apparently being intelligent, the rhetoric, grammar, syntax, use of the shift key, and accidental debunking of themselves would not seem to indicate much in the way of intelligence. The mere fact you think that saying CO2 emissions by man cause the atmosphere to heat up somehow equates to hating CO2 and life shows you are a tad off in your thinking. Nobody said we should get rid of CO2; nobody said that CO2 itself is evil; nobody said that we hate life; those are all just fallacious appeals to extremes by deniers putting words in actual scientists’ mouths.
            We in the scientific field actually understand how things work, but it appears deniers are on a one track setting with blinders to everything they don’t like. Anthropogenic CO2, by the very definition, is a pollutant with regard to climate change. If you believe otherwise you are simply ignorant. Oh, and feel free to provide evidence that all the warming has been “rampant mal-adjustments of raw data.” It seems you don’t understand how raw data is used or what statistical analysis means.

          • AndyG55 says:

            EMPTY brain-hosed rhetoric from Erik

            Not one scientific counter, just blah, blah. !!

            Total evasion tactics because you know you have NOTHING.

            “We in the scientific field “

            ROFLMAO…

            You haven’t been near any science since you were kicked out of junior high.

            Produce ONE PAPER that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 actually “warms” anything.

            NOTHING, NADA, EMPTY !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Anthropogenic CO2, by the very definition, is a pollutant with regard to climate change.”

            ROFLMAO.. what absolute brain-hosed moronic BS.!

            CO2 provide food for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, and we should be VERY THANKFUL that it has been lifted from the barely subsistence level of the last few hundred thousand years.

            Why do you HATE plant life so much that you want to starve it??

            There is absolutely no way in which CO2 at any level it could possible reach in the atmosphere is a pollutant.

            You have just proven yourself to be nothing but a loudmouth ignorant nil-educated fool, devoid of all scientific and biological knowledge.

            Come on, you poor mindless drone, in what scientifically provable way does CO2 affect the climate.

            (and please, no more of your mindless rhetoric.)

            Actual provable science..

            Do you even know what that is ??

          • Erik says:

            Just going to ignore the fact you proved yourself wrong, I see. The fact you don’t understand what a pollutant is shows you really aren’t versed enough in science to be able to comment. A pollutant, by definition, is ANYTHING added to a system that causes unwanted effects. We are adding CO2 to the natural system, and it is causing unwanted effects. It thus, by the very definition of the word, is a pollutant with regard to climate change.
            I haven’t provided any papers to counter your statements because you haven’t provided any to support them. You haven’t shown how the science is wrong other than providing a graph that proves yourself wrong. Provide something to support your opinion that actually stands and I’ll be happy to refute it. Tyndall showed the heat trapping ability of CO2 in the 1850’s, and we have become more and more adept at tracking it.

            The scientific literature shows that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, traps heat. You are merely claiming it doesn’t. We have looked at the radiation entering and leaving the earth. We have tracked anthropogenic CO2. The radiation leaving the earth has decreased in the CO2 band while the downward radiation has increased in the same band. Google Scholar is your friend for reading up on the actual literature instead of blogs like this website.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ZERO EVIDENCE

            NO PAPERS, just evasion and more mindless blather.

            Try again, putz

          • AndyG55 says:

            Antarctic graphs proves we have recoverewd from desperate ANOMALOUSLY COLD period called the LIA.

            Be very thankful for that.

            It is no proof of human anything except in your brain-hosed sludge that passes for a brain.

            Still waiting for that empirical eveidence.

            Keep making a bozo of yourself, Erik.

            The clown suit fits you like a glove.

          • Latitude says:

            while the downward radiation has increased in the same band….

            and yet, sea level rise and temperatures are still following the same straight line they were on before global warming

          • Disillusioned says:

            You know the drill AndyG – keep hammering them for that “overwhelming evidence” of the mythical anthropogenic climate control knob, and after dancing for awhile, they’ll either go away defeated, but still solidly “in denial”… or there’s that slim-to-none chance they may actually start to have some cracks in their shell of ignorance and begin honestly questioning their gov’t-sponsored brainwashing.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The poor little petal doesn’t seem to know that the so-called GHE has never been measured anywhere, anytime.

            It exists only in ASSumption based models.

            And he can’t even provide one paper with empirical evidence of warming by CO2

            Probably doesn’t even know what empirical evidence is.

            Probably never heard the word thermalisation

            Doesn’t comprehend the collisional loss times vs re-emittance of energy

            Probably thinks DWLWR can warm the oceans, (only source of warming in the satellite era.)

            Waiting for that empirical evidence, Erik…

            and waiting, and waiting …..

          • Gator says:

            A pollutant, by definition, is ANYTHING added to a system that causes unwanted effects.

            So Mother Nature is by far the greatest polluter. Great! How do we sue her for damages?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yep D, always a FAILURE TO PRODUCE.

            He could try the Marty Feldman paper that shows El Ninos cause a slight warming of the atmosphere.

            Do you think he is that moronically UNAWARE of science to try that one ??

          • Disillusioned says:

            He reminds me of Monty Python’s Black Knight.

          • Erik says:

            Y’all are the ones making the claim, not me. My default is the science. You are claiming the science is incorrect, that the science is brainwashing, that CO2 can’t be a pollutant, and that CO2 can’t increase the temperature. It is not up to me to prove your claims wrong until you produce evidence for the claims. I have given you a bone by demonstrating how your claims are wrong on multiple aspects (CO2’s physical nature, your own graph being wrong, how trend lines work, etc.). Y’all are under the impression that I am the one with the claim, but y’all are the ones with the claim against science. You are the ones claiming the science is incorrect without evidence. I am merely stating what the science says, not making a claim. Because you are the ones making the claim the science is incorrect, it falls on you the provide evidence the science is not correct, not on me.

            Do you still not see how your own graph proves you wrong? We say that Antarctica has been warming due to anthropogenic forcing since around 1880. Your graph shows exactly that, yet you claim it doesn’t. Your own graph shows cooling and then a sharp spike at the period we say there has been an increase due to man.

            We have known about CO2’s impact on temperature since the 1800’s and Arrhenius. His experiments and many since have shown that CO2 impacts temperature, and we have been refining it ever since. We, again, have measured the radiation budget, and , as expected, we see a reduction of outgoing radiation in the CO2 band as CO2 has increased coupled with an increase is downward radiation in the CO2 band as CO2 has increased (see http://www.nature.com/articles/35066553 and references for some examples). CO2’s selective absorption is a well-known fact.

            As for sea level rise, it looks straight since the early 1800’s because the graphs are using a linear fit line, which can’t show anything but a straight line, but the rate has been increasing. Do you not understand how a linear trend line works?

            I will say that at least ignorant deniers are fun to converse with if for no other reason than to see the stupid things they come up with.

          • Gator says:

            Erik the Red, it is the grantologists who have to prove their hypothesis. Climates always change, and to not expect change is childlike.

            Let’s get down to brass tacks. Show me your settled science.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Proof of WARMING, Erik

            FAILURE YET AGAIN.

            You do know Harries found exactly what he wanted to find by MODELLING between the two very different satellites, Don’t you.

            The CO2 emission band is TINY, THIN and very low power and has ZERO warming capability.

            You do know that his data also shows the effect of thermalisation in other bands, don’t you?

            Do you even know what thermalisation is ??

          • AndyG55 says:

            “We have known about CO2’s impact on temperature since the 1800’s and Arrhenius”

            Again with the IGNORANCE.

            Arrhenius only figured out that CO2 was a radiative gas.

            Any warming supposition was just that.

            … an UNPROVEN and ERRONEOUS suppository.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “but the rate has been increasing. ”

            A bout sea level

            And TOTAL BS.

          • AndyG55 says:

            CERES shows DWLWR is DECREASING

          • AndyG55 says:

            OLR is INCREASING

          • AndyG55 says:

            Even according to NOAA

          • AndyG55 says:

            “We are adding CO2 to the natural system, and it is causing unwanted effects.. “

            BS again

            What scientifically provable unwanted effects?

            Only effect has been the absolutely beneficial rise in biosphere growth

          • AndyG55 says:

            “have shown that CO2 impacts temperature, and we have been refining it ever since. ”

            Then it shouldn’t SUCH A PROBLEM for you to produce a paper empirically proving CO2 causes warming.

            Why the MANIC EVASION ????

          • Erik says:

            Scientist aren’t saying the climate doesn’t naturally change. We are saying we are altering the natural change. None of the forces that we have found that caused changes in the past can explain the current change, but man’s GHG emissions can. Orbital changes take too long, the sun’s output is down indicating cooling and not natural warming, and earth’s changes in tilt can’t explain it either. We haven’t had enhanced volcanic activity that could cause it, and we haven’t had meteor impacts. The “it changed in the past so by default the current change is natural” doesn’t work when the factors of the past changes are not active at the same levels today. Perhaps there is a forcing agent that could explain the current change that we haven’t found yet, but there is no evidence of it existing. Demonstrate another agent and show it to the scientific community, and we would be glad to look at it. Proving climate change false would be welcomed in the scientific community, but nobody has been able to.

            As for the scientists’ burden of proof, the literature is there. The very literature you say is wrong must exists for you to be able to say it is wrong. You have not, however, shown how that literature is wrong other than by saying it is wrong and then claiming that means you are correct until proven wrong.

            As for “one paper” though a bit dated from 2009: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI3089.1 and it has a large amount of citations

          • AndyG55 says:

            “We say that Antarctica has been warming due to anthropogenic forcing since around 1880”

            RUBBISH !

            Measured data show how moronically WRONG you are.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “As for “one paper” though a bit dated from 2009: “

            Nice load of MODELLING !!

            “The thermodynamic model used to estimate the signal of ENSO and volcanic eruptions ..”

            OOPS.. you goofed with the “empirical” thing again !!

            “The filtering methodology should prove useful for investigating variations in global-mean temperature due to phenomena other than ENSO, variations in the high-latitude NH winter circulation, and volcanic eruptions (e.g., solar variability, variations in the oceanic thermohaline circulation, the effects of tropospheric aerosols, etc.).”

            So they basically haven’t looked at the main drivers of climate….. DOH !!

            You should try to read and COMPREHEND what you are citing, bozo. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Proving climate change false would be welcomed in the scientific community, “

            How do you disprove a fairy-tale???

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Perhaps there is a forcing agent that could explain the current change that we haven’t found yet,”

            No warming in the satellite era apart from El Nino, SOLAR energy stored in the oceans.

            If you think TSI is the only Solar variable, you are even more of an ignorant clown that you first seemed.

            Current slight warming is easily explained by the GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM of the latter half of last century…

            …. and the NATURAL WARMING out of the freezing COLD ANOMALY of the LIA.

          • Erik says:

            I said radiation in the CO2 band. I never talked about total radiation, and total radiation means little when we are only looking at the impacts of CO2. Your radiation graph from “NOAA”, by the way, is actually from a blog who said he used NOAA data.
            From 1997, thoughhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/12065270_Increases_in_greenhouse_forcing_inferred_from_the_outgoing_longwave_radiation_spectra_of_the_Earth_in_1970_and_1997

            Oh, and your graph regarding sea level increase isn’t using the proper time period. Y’all are saying sea level has been the same rate since before the 1800’s, not between the years 1993-2012. Oh, and: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024826

          • Erik says:

            I never said it was the best paper. It was merely a paper of the many on the subject.
            “Current slight warming is easily explained by the GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM of the latter half of last century…
            …. and the NATURAL WARMING out of the freezing COLD ANOMALY of the LIA” is nice to say, but your word means little.

            Again you show a graph without citation. It seems deniers are bad about doing that, normally due to their graphs being from blogs and not papers. As for the Antarctic warming, the first graph you gave showed cooling until the 1800’s and then a sharp spike in warming ever since.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I never said it was the best paper”

            Then why post it if you knew it was load of modelled nonsense? !!

            Re: sea level, we are talking about now.
            and sea level rise is decelerating.

            There is ZERO possibility that human anything could be affecting sea levels.

            You do know they were a meter or so HIGHER only a few thousands years ago, don’t you.

            Or do we add that to you IGNORANT list !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            How odd that you don’t realise that the LIA was ANOMALOUSLY COLD.

            Do you actually think it was “normal”

          • AndyG55 says:

            “the first graph you gave showed cooling until the 1800’s and then a sharp spike in warming ever since.”

            WOW, Erik the dumb has finally recognised the LIA. !!

          • Erik says:

            Why did I show a paper that you claim doesn’t count because you claim it doesn’t count? Perhaps because you asked for 1 paper that, for the purpose of science, would indicate the evidence? The fact that you don’t accept the paper simply because you don’t like what it says (you gave no reason as to why it is bad other than the fact that part of it uses models like are used in nearly every single other science to make predictions and examine data that you somehow don’t take issue with when used in those sciences) doesn’t mean it isn’t a “single paper.”

            I never said the LIA was not cool. I said that the original graph you gave to show that the Antarctic has been steadily cooling for “ages” showed cooling until the 1800’s and then a sharp spike up. That disproves your claim that the Antarctic has only been cooling.

            You say there is zero possibility man can impact ocean levels, but why is that? Why can’t man impact the ocean levels according to you?

            You do realize that the oceans being higher in the geologic past doesn’t refute the current change, correct? That is, again, like saying man can’t start a fire because fires have happened naturally in the past despite evidence we can, indeed, still create fire.

            It is also a bit odd that I am the only person who has actually provided papers while your side has done nothing but made unsubstantiated claims, used horrible writing, and shown anonymous graphs from anonymous people (at least one being a blogger and not an expert in the field) using anonymous data, along with at least one graph disproving your own statements.

            Empirical data involves observations, experiments, and predictions. We have observed the change, we have done experiments to see what could be causing the change, and we have made predictions based on those observations and experiments that have came true (predicted sea level increase, ice loss, global temperature increase, ocean acidification, altered growth seasons, alters geographic distribution of plant and animal species, altered drought and flood frequency, differential heating of the earth, differential heating of the layers of the atmosphere, decreased outgoing IR radiation in the CO2 bandwidth, increased downward radiation in the CO2 bandwidth, altered jet stream behavior due to a warming Arctic, etc.). Our data thus fits as empirical evidence.

            Still waiting for your side’s evidence against the accepted, peer reviewed science showing CO2 as somehow not impacting temperature, that science you don’t like is brainwashing, and that the word “pollutant” somehow doesn’t apply to things you don’t want it to apply to only because you don’t want it to apply to them because of reasons.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO

            Just more of your mindless UNPROVABLE ANTI-SCIENCE AGW waffle.

            Diversionary tactics from actually producing empirical evidence of CO2 warming.

            “with at least one graph disproving your own statements.”

            Only in your fevered anti-CO2 little mind. Note that even in the volcanic West Antarctic region temperature on that graph is no warmer than around 1820. None of Antarctica warmer than before the ANOMALOUS COLD of the LIA.

            Stick to your zero science fantasies, ..

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_YFLI4G1M

            just “believe” (spooky music), without evidence.

            Call the “consensus” mantra.

            Do all the “right” things for a rabid AGW apostle to do.

            Its all you have in your life.

            You are living up to the VERY LOW scientific standards of the usual brain-hosed wannabe .

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Our data thus fits as empirical evidence.”

            Your data fits NATURAL VARIABILITY.

            Only a complete scientific moron would call it empirical evidence for CO2 warming anything.

            NO WARMING apart from El Ninos in the whole of the satellite data.

            You aren’t seriously going to PHANTASIZE that CO2 causes El Ninos are you !!!!

            Only NATURAL warming up out of the LIA cold ANOMALY to the 1940’s spike.

            Natural COOLING for a couple of decades, then the NATURAL effects of the Grand Solar Maximum.

            No sign or signature of CO2 warming ANYWHERE, ANYTIME except in baseless anti-science propaganda and agenda driven models.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Isn’t it so HILARIOUS that will all this peer-reviewed AGW stuff on climate, you are TOTALLY UNABLE to produce any actual empirical evidence that it actually happens.

            Such a funny little clown.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I notice youhav emade ZERO effort to cut down your CO2 “pollution”

            Still using fossil fuel power computers.

            Bet you still drive a car.. HUGE CO2 investment there.

            Your house, ye=t another HUGE CO2 investments.

            NONE of it would exist without the EVIL DEATH GAS called CO2.

            Breathe out 40,000 ppm

            Bedroom at 2000ppm in the morning.

            All your food delivered from somewhere by fossil fuel transport , grown using fossil fuel powered machinery.

            Your whole worthless existence is based around CO2. It is part of YOU, and everything your eat, everything you do.

            And it is currently at very low atmospheric concentrations. It was at plant subsistence level before humans HELPED to push it up into a semi sustainable level.

            More is desperately needed as the world population grows. 700ppm, 1000ppm would be of massive benefit to ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

            But you only care about your mindless agenda.

          • Erik says:

            Again you have provided no evidence for any of your claims despite me having provided evidence for mine. Again, you said Antarctica has been cooling, but the graph you provided shows cooling then warming, meaning you were wrong.

            You claim it is all natural variability, but you provide no evidence. You claim there was natural cooling after the 1940’s, despite the most likely evidence being man’s aerosols, without any evidence. You claim it is the “grand solar maximum” without evidence despite the sun having been waning recently while the temperatures continue to increase. You claim there has been no evidence of CO2 warming, again without evidence. You do realize that without GHG’s we would be around 0 degrees F globally, correct? You claim GHG’s do not function as a GHG functions, again without evidence.

            The entire time you claim I need to provide evidence to refute your claim that you provided no evidence for. That is an argument from ignorance for starters, but I then provided evidence just to see if you would. You were not able to demonstrate why the evidence provided was bad. You simply ignored it, made more baseless claims, and then demanded more evidence. You don’t seem to understand how this works.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Earwig.

            Massive EVASION tactic.

            So HILARIOUS.

            “You claim it is the “grand solar maximum” without evidence ”

            You have just proven that you are NOT a scientist, and that you ARE NOT up with scientific literature.

            Are you one of Al Gore’s anti-educated climate worms ??

            CHOOSE to remain IGNORANT and BRAIN-HOSED, little child, Its all you have.

            No empirical proof of CO2 warming ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

          • Erik says:

            Forgot to add, potential benefits of something do not mean the negatives don’t exist, and appeals to extremes don’t refute the evidence. Nobody ever said we want to get rid of all CO2 and cause negative impacts to man or the environment. Nobody said CO2 doesn’t have benefits. The issue is that the negative impacts are beginning to outweigh the positives.

            A little more information on CO2’s benefit to plants. While it is true that plants can do better with more CO2, they are not starved currently, and each plant responds differently to different levels of CO2. There is a thing called competitive advantage in biology. Some plants flourish in an area while others do not due to competitive advantages. This is one reason man altering the geographic distribution of plants and animals have caused ecosystems across the world to be upset by adding a new organism without natural predators or that had an advantage in that area or climate. When you change the soil content, precipitation pattern, temperature, and atmospheric gas concentrations you change what would be an advantage for plants. It shifts the ability away from some plants to stay competitive and toward some plant that were not previously at an advantage. This causes the ecosystems to change, and we have already documented this fact.

            While CO2 may have benefits, it also changes the competitive advantages not only of plants but also of animals due to the altered plants in an area. This also allows for disease vectors such mosquitoes and invasive, tree destroying pests to change their distribution as we have been seeing.

            Yes, CO2 does have benefits, but you are ignoring all the negative impacts either because you want to or don’t actually know them. All the above issues, and many more, are also exacerbated by the rate of change. The faster the change, the less plants and animals are able to adapt.

            The field of Biogeography is an amazing field to be in to understand these issues.

            Oh, and please show why 700-1,000 ppm of CO2 would be a massive benefit to earth. I’m sure you have empirical evidence for that claim. Oh, right, I’m the only one who has provided published evidence on here.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “please show why 700-1,000 ppm of CO2 would be a massive benefit to earth. “

            ROFLMAO.

            Not only are you DEVOID of science and physics,

            You seem to be monumentally IGNORANT of plant biology as well.

            At what level junior high did you drop out ???

          • Erik says:

            So stating that you provided no evidence for a claim when you provided no evidence, as you have done this entire time while demanding my evidence that I have given, means I’m not a scientist despite science needing evidence? I guess my degrees are worthless. A guy who doesn’t understand how the burden of proof works and doesn’t understand how science works told me that I’m no longer a scientist because of his ignorance. I’m just heartbroken.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The issue is that the negative impacts are beginning to outweigh the positives. “

            ROFLMAO.

            Again with the brain-0-washed ASSumption driven, UNPROVABLE BS.!

            Please tell us what SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEABLE negative impacts there are to enhanced atmospheric CO2.

            Its been many times higher in the past.. and the world is still very much here.

            In fact, some of those periods were when life came into existence, and multiplied in abundance.

            The planet NEEDS CO2.

            Its what keeps everything on the world alive.

            Even YOU are TOTALLY DEPENDANT on it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            There are literally THOUSANDS of papers showing the enhanced effect of CO2 on plant life.

            Please don’t tell me you have never even looked for them.

            Biosphere has expanded 10-15% or so since adequate CO2 became available. Don’t tell me you were IGNORANT of that too. !!

            TOO FUNNY.

            There is one place in particular where a HUGE DATABASE of them is to be found.

            Have you ever done any research little ant. ???

            STILL WAITING for a paper showing CO2 does ANYTHING except help plants grow.

            As a “true believer” you must be able to produce one, surly !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I guess my degrees are worthless.”

            Certainly looking that way.

            Try barista work !!

          • Erik says:

            Again, CO2 alters geographic distribution of plants and animals, acidifies the ocean, increases atmospheric temperatures, alters precipitation patterns by altering temperature, alters fish spawns due to temperature and acidification, etc.

            The benefits of CO2 are not shared equally between plants, and you are just assuming that CO2 enhancing plant growth will have no negative impacts despite the entire field of biogeography refuting that claim.

            Again, CO2 concentrations in the past when the globe was entirely different than it is now, when the population of man was entirely different, when the plant and animal species and geographic distribution was entirely different than it is now, when man’s influence on reshaping the world through industrialization and urban expansion was zero, etc. means relatively little to the current way enhanced CO2 will change things.

          • Erik says:

            And again, I never said CO2 does not help plants. I said that CO2’s influence is a far more complicated matter than “it helps plants, hurr hurr.” You are pretending that the only thing CO2 does is helps plants, again without evidence for this claim, and that somehow all plants respond equally, again without evidence, and that there are no negative impacts of changes to the carbon cycle and natural system, again without evidence. This alone proves you to have never even looked into biogeography before. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the first time you have even heard of the field.

            You are too ignorant of the field to even begin to comprehend how little you understand of how interconnected these topics are. The entire system can be thought of as a huge set of equations that all interact with each other, and you are trying to say altering a variable will only impact select variable equations you want despite the fact they are all connected and thus all change when one is altered.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor earwig, for a pseudo-scientist you are doing a pretty FEEBLE job of producing any scientific evidence for CO2 warming

            Sad… and getting desperate,.. poor petal. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You are pretending that the only thing CO2 does is helps plants, again without evidence for this claim”

            Yes, I KNOW you have no evidence it does anything BUT enhance plant growth.

            You are the one with the fantasies.

            Now back them up with scientific evidence , or they remain just that FAIRY-TALES.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “and that there are no negative impacts of changes to the carbon cycle and natural system, again without evidence.”

            Again. What are the negative impacts, and where is your supporting empirical scientific proof.

            Its YOUR fairy-tale that CO2, which is the gas that provides for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, somehow has negative impacts even when its it the lower range of plant survivability.

            Any REAL scientist would surely be able to support such an outlandish conjecture.

            You are FAILING MISERABLY.

          • Erik says:

            I’m just over here having fun watching you devolve throughout the conversation. You started by demanding I prove your unsubstantiated claim wrong (a logical fallacy), moved to dodging evidence shown, shifted to projecting your dodging of evidence to somehow be me despite clear evidence I have not given all the links to peer reviewed sources and their pages of citations, to simply trying to attack me due, one can assume based on your claims thus far being from blogs, running out of blog posts. But please, don’t mind me, carry on.

            I’ll just sit here with my degrees and contacts with renown scientists and researchers in the field and related fields and continue to watch with mirth.

            Oh, and to add to the list of papers I have provided:
            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.12069 (technology has been the biggest influence of production, not CO2, and higher temperature will be detrimental)
            http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf (showing that increased CO2 did not have a significant effect and higher temperatures would counter the co2 benefit)
            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html (benefit vs risk)
            and http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3115

          • Erik says:

            Oh, and y’all are the ones who started by making the claim CO2 doesn’t have the negative impacts, meaning the burden of proof is on y’all to show that there aren’t negative impacts, not me; however, I, as usual, have still provided evidence to counter your, as usual, evidence-free claims.

          • AndyG55 says:

            First paper.. no effect from CO2, just mythical projections of warming of fractions of a degree YAWN.
            Funny how crop yields have increased all around the world, despite all the horror projections.

            2nd paper. Not much found, as against the THOUSAND that show increased plant growth and yield.

            3rd paper. ASSumption driven non-validated climate models YAWN. !!!

            4th paper. Wheat yield continue to increase world wide. Farmers know better than pseudo-scientists with models.

          • AndyG55 says:

            So, 4 papers, NONE of which show any negatives from increased atmospheric CO2

            DOH !!!

            FAILURE beckons earwig, yet again.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Quite HILARIOUS, we have one of these twerps that thinks ASSumption driven non-validated models are “proof” of anything.

            How UN-SCIENTIFIC IS THAT !!!

            Great for a chuckle, earwig. :-)

          • Erik says:

            Ah, so the usual “wrong because I say so” style of response without any evidence and farmers know more than scientists, coupled with not understanding the studies you read nor how models work nor the fact that the models are predictive nor understanding that you accept models in every other science but climate because reasons nor understanding that the models used actual data unlike you.

            Feel free to start showing some sort of evidence. This one-sided show of me providing all the evidence supporting myself and demonstrating your being wrong while you provide nothing but your opinion as to why you are magically correct and I am magically wrong does get old.

            If you can’t at least try to support your baseless opinions, this is going to get boring.

          • Erik says:

            I should add that I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to give no evidence (because you don’t have any for the most part) and just dismiss everything to try to get me to give up responding. You will then run to your ignorant friends and say that I ran away because I couldn’t provide evidence while not showing them the actual facts indicating I was the only one who provided any evidence. Too bad for you I can do this all day and continue to show how inept you are while doing it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I’ll just sit here with my degrees”

            ROFLMAO

            In janitorial services ??

            Or have you just learnt to use a protractor.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Let’s repeat, since little Erik, (the big scientist) is having troubles comprehending…..

            1. Produce a paper that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect on anything.

            2. What are the negative impacts of enhanced atmospheric CO2, with supporting empirical scientific proof.

            Watch for more manic evasion tactics. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            ” this is going to get boring.”

            Yep, it will get boring watch you wiggle and squirm like a slimy eel.
            …..
            eventually ;-)

            So far, quite HILARIOUS. :-)

            Come on..

            How about you invoke “The Precautionary Principle”

            That’ll show us !! :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I’m just over here having fun watching you devolve throughout the conversation”

            Mirror, mirror, little Erik

            I still have exactly the same question

            Which you have proven to be TOTALLY INEPT at answering.

            Great to see the manic squirming and contortions you are going through, though.

            Please continue. :-)

            WE ARE ALL ROFLOAO !!

          • Erik says:

            You are still not providing any evidence for claims and simply issuing ad hominem attacks while dodging every single issue I have mentioned, I see. You’ve played your hand and shown it to be poor, but please, carry on for my amusement. I normally don’t mess with trolls, but you are still at least mildly amusing.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Erik the BIG scientist remain TOTALLY EMPTY.

            Nothing unusual about that from the AGW anti-human , anti-LIFE scum.

            Which climate fund TROUGH do you SWILL from, Erik ??

          • Sara Hall says:

            Erik, you remind me of my two year old grandson. When he hears a siren, it’s always a police car, never an ambulance or a fire engine and he will insist this is so until he’s practically blue in the face. When he’s a little older, he’ll understand and maybe you will too.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You are still not providing any evidence for claims and simply “

            Only person making fantasy claims is you.

            And you are REFUSING to answer simple questions.

            1. Produce a paper that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect on anything?

            2. What are the negative impacts of enhanced atmospheric CO2, with supporting empirical scientific proof?

            NOTHING, NADA , ZIP

            ZERO EVIDENCE for the very basis of the AGW RELIGION.

            Just keep the manic evasion going so we can all have a good chuckle at your scientific incompetence, mr BIG scientist .

          • Erik says:

            Sara, it is y’all who are the ones hearing a siren and thinking only one possible answer for it. Y’all are the ones claiming there is no possible way the current change could be anything other than it being 100% natural. We scientists are saying that the evidence suggests that the current change is not 100% natural. Your analogy actually hurts your position. Did you not think it through? Your own analogy puts yourselves as the toddler and me as the parent because I am willing to look at the evidence to see if the siren is something other than the one thing it was in the past, while deniers are the ones ignoring everything and continuing to say the siren just has to be the one thing it was in the past.

            To Andy, first, you all claimed that CO2 doesn’t increase temperatures, that the science was bad, that CO2 only has positive impacts, that all the negative impacts are false, that models are not valid, that the science is a religion, that the warming of the Arctic hasn’t caused issues with the jet stream and baroclinic zones, etc. Those are your claims. You have given not a shred of evidence to back any of those claims. You seem to think that you can make claim after claim after claim without evidence, but demand evidence when somebody else makes a claim as well as demand that other person refute your baseless claims with evidence. You are the ones making the claims against the literature, yet you expect me to be the one to have to provide evidence while you provide nothing but your opinion. That is simply not how the burden of proof works. That logic you are using is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.

            That said, I have actually provided you scores of papers when you look at the references included along with my posts, but you just say they are all wrong because you say so. You have not provided a single peer reviewed paper to back up your claims or refute mine. You have not provided evidence or reasons other than your opinion as to why my papers somehow don’t count.

            You all are like talking to toddlers to be quite honest. I have been hoping you all were just trolls, but I am beginning to think you are actually serious in you inability to understand the issues with your comments.

            This is how the thread has gone: I pointed out the flaws in the original graph and post. You all made claims saying I was wrong but didn’t provide any evidence supporting your claims. I then answered your questions. You then said I provided no evidence and wanted just 1 paper. You then provided a couple graphs with no context, no data, no authors, no original paper, no citations, and even included one that proved you wrong. I then provided multiple papers with scores of references. You said they were all wrong because you say so. I asked for the evidence for your claims saying I was wrong and that all your claims about CO2 were correct. You replied by ignoring the request and then demanding I still show even more evidence to refute you. You then started just attacking me because you ran out of vocabulary, I guess.

            That is not only multiple arguments from ignorance on your part, but it is also just abject stupidity on y’all’s part. You also seem to not understand the word “empirical.” Speaking of, I assume you would agree, based on your rhetoric, that black holes don’t exist since there is less evidence for them than there is for climate change. Black holes have mathematical equations and models to predict them, and we can see the effects of them, but we can’t actually directly observe them. Climate science, however, has mathematical equations and models to predict it, we can see the effects and actually predict the effects with our data, and we can actually directly observe it, meaning we actually have more evidence for climate science than for black holes.

            Again, provide evidence to back your claims at least equal to the evidence I have provided. That is how a debate works. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 as not being able to impact the temperature. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing the accepted science to be wrong. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing 100% of the current warming being natural. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 having no negative impacts. Show your multiple papers showing the science to be a religion. Meet your burden of proof.

            I have given multiple papers to back myself up. Now let’s see if you can put up or shut up, as the saying goes, or if you are going to just continue to devolve and whine like a toddler.

          • Sara Hall says:

            Erik, you appear to have developed a severe case of verbal diarrhoea and you should possibly seek treatment for it. Luckily, it’s not catching.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I have given multiple papers to back myself up”

            And not one of them actually answer either basic question. A failed experiment countered by THOUSANDs of other showing large benefits of enhanced plant growth.

            Then 3 exercises in erroneous modelling

            WOW. !

            SLOPPY and very UN-SCIENTIFIC

            Almost as if you were attempting to youse your egotistical arrogance to hoodwink people, mr BIG science..

            “all the negative impacts”

            What negative impacts??????

            We are still waiting for you to list and support them scientifically.. NADA, NOTHING, EMPTY. !!

            MASSIVE FAILURE on your behalf.

            Rant and rave as much as you like in your DESPERATE attempt to avoid the issue. Your comment are superfluous to rational scientific argument.

            Go back to making lattes for your mates. !!

            Jet stream is the same as in 1977, bozo !!
            Coldest period since 1900 in the Arctic.

            I claim that there is ZERO empirical evidence for CO2 warming….
            You are PROVING me correct with every one of your bleating pathetic posts..

          • Erik says:

            I’ll reply on this section of the thread as well instead of the higher tier so you may see:
            Sara, I’m sorry if I actually have a vocabulary and understand the issue enough to elaborate instead of say catch phrases, use horrible grammar, and make claims without evidence.

            To Andy, you are again providing no evidence for anything. I have clearly provided papers to support my side whether you accept them or not. You, however, have not provided any papers.

            You also have made more than just that one claim while providing no evidence of the claim, and you don’t even understand that the claim you admit to in your final section is something you have to prove. You make the claim there is no evidence so it falls on you to provide evidence of it. An example would be you saying there is a unicorn having a tea party every day at 5 pm inside a small black hole at the center of the sun every day and then stating that you are correct until I prove you wrong. It would not be up to me to provide evidence against your claim until you provided evidence for it.

            So I guess you can’t keep up with a person who actually gives you what you ask for. You asked for evidence, and I gave evidence. I asked for evidence, and you attacked me and ignored the request. Until you can actually provide papers to support your side as I have to support my side, you are merely an idiot with nothing to add.

            I have provided 8 different papers, with over 260 references for continued reading, and many times that in papers that have referenced my 8 papers, along with the IPCC answer to the positives and negatives of CO2. You have provided nothing.

            To continue this conversation, please provide evidence for the claims you and your helpers have made: Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 as not being able to impact the temperature. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing the accepted science to be wrong. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing 100% of the current warming being natural. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 having no negative impacts. Show your multiple papers showing the science to be a religion. Show your multiple papers showing it is impossible for man to impact the sea levels. Meet your burden of proof, admit your defeat, or continue to be a whining baby with even less mental acuity.

          • AndyG55 says:

            8 papers, model based . nothing empirical.

            2 questions

            you are up the creek without a paddle, and you KNOW it.

            RANT ON , you poor attention seeking prat.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 having no negative impacts.”

            What negative impacts ??????

            You still haven’t told us what they are meant to be… or supported them scientifically.

            The fact that you continually ask me to disprove a nebulous EMPTY list, is quite telling.

            You are NEVER a scientist. !! STOP LYING.

            Just a low-level attention seeking TROLL.

          • Erik says:

            Still no evidence to support your side and not understanding what constitutes evidence, I see. I’m not even asking you to disprove me. I’m asking you to provide evidence of your own claims. I also provided data to show the negative impacts of CO2 that you ignored. Try again.

          • AndyG55 says:

            What negative impacts ??????

            You still haven’t told us what they are meant to be… or supported them scientifically.

            What CO2 warming???

            you still haven’t shown its anything but a fantasy in models.

            You are EVIDENCE FREE. Erik

            I saw a green elephant the other day.

            Prove me wrong!!!!.

            See, “maybe” FANTASIES is ALL you have.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You are an EMBARRASSMENT to pretend climate scientists, Erik.

            You can’t even find a paper to support the very premise of the AGW “belief” system

            Produce ONE PAPER that proves empirically that enhanced atmospheric CO2 actually “warms” anything.

            So embarrassingly PATHETIC.

          • Erik says:

            Well at least you admit to using arguments from ignorance instead of providing evidence with your elephant comment. That is a start.

            We can continue this conversation when you provide evidence to back your claims. Until then, you have lost.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor EMPTY Erik.

            Can’t even support the CO warming meme with any empirical science.

            Nothing but a PATHETIC LOSER. .. base level TROLL

            and VERY, VERY EMBARRASSING if he really is a scientist. (as if !!! )

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You do realize that without GHG’s we would be around 0 degrees F globally”

          Model and anti-physics driven suppository nonsense.

          Without CO2 we wouldn’t be here, you moronic idiot !!

          But we are…

          …. as part of the CARBON CYCLE enjoyed by ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

          • Erik says:

            Yeah, and that refutes the current change why? It has no relevance.

            We are adding CO2 that was sequestered from the current carbon cycle in any event, meaning that even your straw man doesn’t work.

            As for 700-1000, again show your evidence. You keep saying I have to provide evidence for my claims and against yours even if you provide no evidence, but you have not provided any evidence for yours or against mine so far despite me actually providing evidence. You are looking at closed experiments of high CO2 concentrations and pretending those closed experiments that can in no way be attributed to the globe at large without massive changes somehow can be attributed to it, again without evidence as usual.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your MANIC EVASION of producing ANYTHING to support your ANTI-CO2, ANTI-LIFE meme is quite amusing. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do you know ANYTHING about REAL greenhouses, Earwig ?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Zero evidence of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime, Earwig.

            Get over it. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            No CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite temperature data, Earwig, just EL Nino events.

            And surly not even a brain-washed clueless like you doesn’t think CO2 warms the oceans.

            That would be TOO FUNNY !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “so far despite me actually providing evidence”

            You have not provided one skerrick of proof of CO2 warming,

            …just that it is a radiative gas, which everybody knows.

            Do you know what “thermalisation” means in the atmospheric context?

            Do you know what the gravity thermal control gradient is ??

            Or is your science SADLY LACKING on that , as well.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do you know that CO2 doesn’t emit below about 11km ??

        • Erik says:

          Sara, I’m sorry if I actually have a vocabulary and understand the issue enough to elaborate instead of say catch phrases, use horrible grammar, and make claims without evidence.

          To Andy, you are again providing no evidence for anything. I have clearly provided papers to support my side whether you accept them or not. You, however, have not provided any papers.

          You also have made more than just that one claim while providing no evidence of the claim, and you don’t even understand that the claim you admit to in your final section is something you have to prove. You make the claim there is no evidence so it falls on you to provide evidence of it. An example would be you saying there is a unicorn having a tea party every day at 5 pm inside a small black hole at the center of the sun every day and then stating that you are correct until I prove you wrong. It would not be up to me to provide evidence against your claim until you provided evidence for it.

          So I guess you can’t keep up with a person who actually gives you what you ask for. You asked for evidence, and I gave evidence. I asked for evidence, and you attacked me and ignored the request. Until you can actually provide papers to support your side as I have to support my side, you are merely an idiot with nothing to add.

          I have provided 8 different papers, with over 260 references for continued reading, and many times that in papers that have referenced my 8 papers, along with the IPCC answer to the positives and negatives of CO2. You have provided nothing.

          To continue this conversation, please provide evidence for the claims you and your helpers have made: Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 as not being able to impact the temperature. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing the accepted science to be wrong. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing 100% of the current warming being natural. Show your multiple peer reviewed papers showing CO2 having no negative impacts. Show your multiple papers showing the science to be a religion. Show your multiple papers showing it is impossible for man to impact the sea levels. Meet your burden of proof, admit your defeat, or continue to be a whining baby with even less mental acuity.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You poor EMPTY attention seeking troll.

            You have 2 simple tasks.

            Failed pathetically

            STOP YOUR SQUIRMING !!

  10. Gator says:

    None of the forces that we have found that caused …

    You still have not settled the science Erik the Red. You make claims, now be a man and back them up with hard science.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself. Stop denying the science.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Erik clearly doesn’t understand even the basic concept of having to falsify the null hypothesis, let alone being able to specifically address these two points.

      He’ll just keep waving his arms as long as anybody’s paying attention.

      • AndyG55 says:

        YAWN.

        Tedious and EMPTY. !

        He has shown he cannot support even the most basic fantasy of this little AGW religion. (that atmospheric CO2 actually warms ANYTHING)

        TRUE BELIEVERS…. no evidence necessary.

        All he has left is his mindless ANTI-SCIENCE ranting.

      • Erik says:

        Aw, I’m touched, but as I am the only person who has provided evidence of my claims (8 papers, over 260 references, and well over 700 citations compared to the 0 papers, 0 references, and 0 citations from the multiple people against me), I am clear on the burden of proof aspect. It is you and the others who have made claims and not backed a single one of them up with any evidence other than your opinions. I hate to say this debate has been a rout, but, well, it wasn’t even difficult to win because only one side (mine) ever produced anything. Feel free to support the claims your side has made if you want, however, and I’ll be happy to look at it.
        Your side’s claims that haven’t been supported include saying CO2 is not able to impact the temperature (this claim of yours is demonstrably refuted by physics), that the accepted science is wrong (only opinion and baseless claims on your part so far), that 100% of the current warming is natural (more claims by your side without evidence), that CO2 has no negative impacts (easily refuted, and refuted by my own links), that the science is a religion (again, no evidence from your side), and that it is impossible for man to impact the sea levels (this claim by your side is yet again demonstrably false).

        Bring some evidence so this 1v4 debate that I am still winning due to actually providing evidence despite the odds might actually get interesting. There is little reason for me to respond any more until your side puts their data where their mouth is as I have.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “saying CO2 is not able to impact the temperature”

          Never has before.

          No reason it should now.

          Or do you have some EMPIRICAL SCIENCE, rather than unproven ASSumptions, to back up your religious BELIEFS?

          You are LOSING BIG TIME

          and you are SO DUMB you don’t even know it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “this claim of yours is demonstrably refuted by physics”

          But not by ANY empirical evidence, as you are desperately continuing to show.

          My contention has been that there is NO empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.

          You keep proving me correct.

          Thank you. :-)

        • AndyG55 says:

          And the physics used in the GHE is demonstrably LACKING.

          No mention of thermalisation, convection, mean free paths, basic thermodynamics is ignored etc etc

          Its really is all a bit of nonsense.

          So.. we are all still waiting

          A list of non-benefits of enhanced atmospheric CO2 (more than just a failed experiment, please) to counter the thousands of tests showing enhanced plant growth.

          And a paper showing EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of atmospheric CO2 warming ANYTHING !!

          If you think CO2 is a pollutant, why do you continue to INTENTIONALLY POLLUTE with every second of your pathetically HYPOCRITICAL life !!

          • Gator says:

            It seems as if Brad is pulling our collective leg again, nobody could be as stupid as Erik the Red.

      • Erik says:

        I felt I should add, given I told all the claims your side hasn’t provided evidence for, the claims I have made: I said the original graph looked at a single day (backed by looking at the graph), that there was a net warmth due to more areas being abnormally warm compared to abnormally cold despite having a smaller % above normal compared to below normal (verified by looked at the graph), that the Arctic is warm (verified by looking at the graph), that there are jet stream issues due to enhanced Arctic warming (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005/meta I’ll add that to my list of papers), that the temperature without GHG’s would be around 0 degrees F (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ for ease of access and use), on the MWP warmth (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51), on the definition of a pollutant (see the dictionary), CO2 radiation (already provided citations and papers), the negative impacts of CO2 (already given).
        I guess I need to change it to now 2 websites with scientific backing and references, 9 papers, over 300 references, and at least 800 citations supporting my claims. Your side’s evidence for their claims is 0 on all counts. Your side has made a few claims and then said I had to disprove them, but that isn’t how the burden of proof works. In fact it is the exact opposite of how the burden of proof works.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Wavering jet stream.. you mean like in 1977 around the COLDEST period since 1900?

          https://s19.postimg.cc/71bs8r6o3/jet_stream_1977.png

          Second paper.

          Not empirical. Misses out on things like thermalisation, convection etc etc…FAIL !!

          third paper.

          OOO a new composite, from 2000 , roflmao

          You still don’t even know what empirical evidence is , do you little monkey !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          No list of negative impacts of CO2 anywhere.

          Still waiting,

          No paper with empirical evidence of CO2 warming.. just models and assumption

          STILL FAILING , Erik.

          Actual MEASURED Arctic temperatures, non-adjusted.

          Arctic is no warmer now than in the 1940’s.

        • AndyG55 says:

          CO2 growth benefits.

          http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/photo_subject.php

          Why do you HATE plant life SO MUCH, Erik

          That you want to STARVE it?

          CO2 is totally and absolutely ESSENTIAL for ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

          280ppm is subsistence level for many plants

          400ppm is still very low, most plants developed when atmospheric CO2 was FAR higher.

          Nearly all plant FLOURISH in raised CO2 levels unless starved of other needs.

          Why do you DENY the basic biology of plant life, or are you just basically IGNORANT ???

          BIZARRE !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Also, I wonder what could possibly have driven the warmth of the MWP if it wasn’t CO2???

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gees we are SO LUCKY for the climb out of the ANOMALOUS COLD of the LIA, Aren’t we, earwig ;-)

          Keep your MANIC attention seeking going, you poor brain-washed non-scientist.

          • Erik says:

            Wait, so you just admitted that physics demonstrates that CO2 causes warming, but still say CO2 doesn’t cause warming while asking for empirical evidence that you accepted when you said physics shows CO2 causes warming. Are you mentally fit? Do you not understand what constitutes empirical evidence? I do not think you understand the terms you use.

            You say you refute my papers, but you provide nothing but your opinion as to why they don’t work while not actually mentioning what is wrong with the data. Yeah, that isn’t how this work.

            Nobody ever said the jet stream has never meandered. The evidence shows it is doing so more often and to a larger extreme. Please try to keep up.

            I already provided a list of the negative impacts of CO2 and increased temperature. Again, try to keep up.

            Plants need more than just CO2. Closed lab experiments where every variable is controlled do not translate to real life as you are pretending they do. I already provided multiple papers demonstrating why enhanced CO2 won’t have all the benefits you say (again, you never provided ANY evidence to support your claim of CO2 having no negative impacts).

            CO2science is not an adequate website, and the link you gave doesn’t refute a thing I have said or really support your claims in any case. It shows that plants use CO2, but that doesn’t refute my evidence of the negatives nor does it bolster your claim that there are no negatives. I can provide multiple examples (you know, the thing you still have not done for any of your claims) showing it to be a fraudulent website if you would like. The website tends to make up conclusions of the papers it cites or take papers out of context.

            Again, nobody said we should get rid of all CO2 and starve plants. Stop saying we have unless you want to provide evidence for your claim.

            The MWP nobody ever said did not have warmth. The data just shows that it was most likely not as warm globally (already provided evidence). Odd, though, that you accept any evidence that might indicate a warmer MWP as empirical, but you say all evidence showing it cooler is not empirical. It is almost like you are changing the definition to fit what you want and consider all data that might support you as empirical and all data that you don’t like as somehow not being empirical.

            The solar output is down, even on your graph, yet our temperatures continue to increase. Solar activity did help the current change, but there is no evidence it could cause the entire change we have seen.

            Again, provide some evidence, and do try to keep up. Oh, and I should add that you make another claim saying CO2 has never impacted the temperature in the past (even deniers accept that CO2 impacts temperatures, so this claim of yours is just stupid). I am beginning to think you didn’t make it past high school science with your rhetoric. I am actually, legitimately, beginning to feel sorry for you. I don’t mean that as any sort of insult. You just truly do not seem to be able to grasp the subject. I would hope you are a troll, but anybody who would troll this hard is even less intelligent than they are pretending to be.

            Oh, and feel free to make up the thousand or so paper gap between the evidence I have provided and the evidence (ha) you have provided. That should be interesting. Until then, I have trounced you all enough for a while. Bring some evidence and perhaps we can continue.

            The sad part is the people on this forum are so ignorant that they think themselves far more intelligent than they are. They then quite literally can’t comprehend how poorly they are doing and instead think they are the brightest people on earth. the D-K effect shown by the deniers on here is astounding.

            Ah, and before I forget, you at least accept the science behind evolution, an old earth, and that the earth isn’t flat, correct? Your rhetoric, logic, and amount of supporting evidence is beneath even young earthers and flat earthers so far.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Still EMPTY of anything resembling empirical proof of CO2 warming.

            ZERO EVIDENCE, as I said.

            Or of any “BAD THINGS” that CO2 does.

            So, apart from your MINDLESS SELF-AGGRANDISING WAFFLE …

            from your unsupportable EGO….

            NADA. !! EMPTY..

          • AndyG55 says:

            “so you just admitted that physics demonstrates that CO2 causes warming”

            No, you have comprehension issues.

            erroneous, incomplete physics hypothesises CO2 warming..

            EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE… LACKING

            “yet our temperatures continue to increase.”

            NO, there has been ZERO warming in the satellite era apart from El Nino events

            You aren’t seriously going to pretend, even in your wildest anti-science fantasies, that humans cause El Ninos.???

            Not even YOU are that dumb and brain-hosed. !!

            You do know what an El Nino is, and what it does, don’t you?

            (I sense another empty rant coming from me)

            You are MINE to play with, little mind. !!.

            You CANNOT escape. :-)

            Except , of course by providing EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I have trounced you all enough for a while.”

            ROFLMAO

            By FAILING UTTERLY to provide any evidence of CO2 warming ??

            and providing one failed study on CO2, against THOUSANDS of studies on the MASSIVE BENEFITS of enhanced atmospheric CO2

            Now off you go, toddle off into your little FANTASY world, little child.

            Preen yourself as you smirk into your mirror.

            Don’t forget, that CO2 will be around 2000ppm I your room when you wake up ;-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            “already provided a list of the negative impacts of CO2 “

            NO, you cited an irrelevant paper with very little in it. saying basically that the benefits of CO2 are cancelled by temperature.

            Amazing the world is still here after the MUCH WARMER 8000 or so year before the LIA….

            ….you know, that period when human civilisation and development started.

            No list, no scientific support…. EMPTY

            Instead of randomly linking irrelevant papers, why don’t you try to THINK for yourself for a change. ???!

          • Disillusioned says:

            Erik,

            Perhaps this is why your vaunted GHE is failing to produce the results you desperately want to see…

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

            Again, as pointed out – the skeptic doesn’t have to prove a negative. It is up to the theorist (or snake oil salesman) to prove to others that it is his/her elixir – and nothing else – that can actually do, and is the cause of, exactly what they purport.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            You are right, Disillusioned.

            Erik insists that he doesn’t have to falsify the null hypothesis of natural variability. He demands that others disprove the claims he’s throwing around.

            He is special.

          • Erik says:

            I have provided multiple papers with multiple references and citations for further reading demonstrating the negative impacts of CO2. You ignoring them does not make them go away.

            You still don’t seem to understand what “empirical evidence” means. The data in climate I have provided has been observed, experimented on, used to make predictive claims, and has been able to be reproduced. It fits the definition of empirical by any standard but deniers who think “empirical” means “that which they think support them.”

            I said “this claim of yours is demonstrably refuted by physics” and you replied
            “But not by ANY empirical evidence, as you are desperately continuing to show.” Your words indicate acceptance of the previous claim with a new problem with the original claim. Perhaps you should try to use proper grammar next time?

            Again, I am the only person who has given studies. You keep claiming studies, but you have not provided a single one while I have literally given over 1,000 if you look into the references and citations of just the papers I have given and not the references and citations of those 1,000+ papers as well.

            You have failed to show the temperature has not been increasing, but you keep claiming it hasn’t. You have failed to show that all warming is from el nino, but you keep claiming it is. You have failed to back up any of your claims with “empirical evidence” or papers as I have.

            Again, temperature in the past being warm doesn’t refute the current data. Populations were different back then anyway. You can’t compare man today with man back then with any degree of certainty. Oh, and your temperature from back then and the impacts on man back then I assume you say is empirical despite the fact the data we currently have is actually more “empirical” than the data from back then.

            As for proving a negative, there are a few issues with that. First, it is not always impossible to prove a negative. Second, it doesn’t matter if you can’t prove a negative when you are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and it doesn’t matter if their claim is negative. If you can’t support your claim, it has no merit and is not science. None of y’all have supported a single claim so far and have thus not shown scientific evidence. Your side has claimed CO2 can’t impact temperature, that the current warming is natural, that the accepted science is wrong, that CO2 has no negative impacts, that the science is a religion, that only your “evidence” that you have never provided counts as empirical, that you don’t have to provide evidence for your claims while I have to provide evidence for mine, and that it is impossible for man to impact the sea levels.

            If you do not start providing papers to refute those claims I just listed of yours, you have sadly lost this debate. You haven’t even been able to refute my claims, much less support your own.

            As for the results I “want” to see, you don’t understand the issue. No scientist wants to see these negative impacts of anthropogenic GHG emissions. We are forced to accept the evidence as scientists, however, and then try to learn more in order to mitigate the impact while continuing to see if there is another variable. That is how science works. We look at and provide evidence as I have time and time again throughout this thread. Deniers, on the other hand, are not scientists and don’t provide evidence or look at anything they don’t like, as your side has done by not providing any evidence and only claiming your data as empirical despite there being less actual data for it.

            You also don’t seem to understand that the default position in science is to not know. Natural variability, CO2 only having positive impacts, man being unable to impact the sea level, and the rest of your claims are not the default positions. Those are claims that must be supported with evidence. The default position is not knowing which side is correct. As I am the only side that has provided any evidence at all, the current thread supports my, and science, side.

            And the last thing: again, do you accept evolution, a globe earth, and an old earth? If you don’t at least accept them then you are not worth debating. I only ask because your rhetoric and lack of evidence is very similar to people who refute those scientific claims.

          • AndyG55 says:

            1. Empirical proof of CO2 warming….. not one of your papers has that. The fact that you think they have shows just how bent, and biased and brain-washed your scientific understanding is.

            2. a list of why CO2 is BAD, with scientific proof
            not some link to a single failed experiment and total DENIAL of the huge list of enhancement effects at CO2Science.

            So far EMPTY. !!

            You don’t comprehend the NULL HYPOTHESIS.

            You don’t understand basic EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

            You do know that actual atmospheric physics DOES NOT ALLOW for any heating by CO2, don’t you, or are you just chanting the brain-washed mantra you have unthinkingly and GULLIBLY ingested?

            “Natural variability, CO2 only having positive impacts, man being unable to impact the sea level, and the rest of your claims are not the default positions”

            BULLSHIT !! That is just your manic AGW brain-washing yapping

            The world has run on natural variability for billions of years

            Atmospheric CO2 has been FAR higher, and only been of massive benefit to life.

            Sea level rise is totally unaffected by any human influence, decelerating from a very tiny amount

            Models are NEVER scientific proof, but as a NON-scientist, you wouldn’t know that, and the climate models are a monumental joke anyway.

            Predictive value, ZERO, except by large data fabrication.

            You are great at the mindless waffle though.

          • Erik says:

            So your response to my request you show evidence is to not show evidence. Seems par for the course. You don’t even understand you not only don’t understand what constitutes empirical data but that you keep changing the definition to fit your view. Anything you like is empirical evidence even if it is just your opinion according to you, and everything you don’t like is somehow not empirical evidence even if it is backed by reams of data.

            The default position in science is not knowing. You making claims with no evidence is not the default position for anything but ignorance. Your side keeps making claims without evidence and saying that you don’t have to provide evidence and that you are correct until proven wrong. That is a logical fallacy.

            I provided multiple papers, as well as NOAA and NASA data, showing the negative impacts of CO2. You are simply pretending I didn’t.

            Please show how CO2 can’t increase atmospheric temperature. You keep claiming that, but you have not shown any evidence for your claim. I assume you think GHG’s are a myth.

            You claim “Atmospheric CO2 has been FAR higher, and only been of massive benefit to life.
            Sea level rise is totally unaffected by any human influence, decelerating from a very tiny amount” but you provide no evidence of these claims. You say the data is fabricated, but you have provided no evidence.

            Again, provide evidence or stop yapping like a dog. You don’t understand what the default position is, don’t understand that your claims require evidence, and don’t understand that you don’t understand what empirical evidence is.

            You also have not answered my question of if you accept evolution, global shape, and the age of the earth. You can’t even stay on topic, much less provide any evidence.

      • AndyG55 says:

        2000 paper superseded.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      And waiting, and waiting …

  11. Gator says:

    Erik the Red, I am still waiting…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

  12. Gator says:

    The burden of proof is on the one making the claim…

    Exactly, that is why alarmists must disprove natural variability in order to advance a new hypothesis.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor earwig is yapping mindlessly..

      How long can we keep him yapping like a demented Chihuahua, do you think?? :-)

      Still searching for that which does not exist.

      Has NO MIND of his own

      MUST FOLLOW THE BORG !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *