How does looking out the window help?
Even the last IPCC report confirms no increase in extreme weather events.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not up to me to produce anything, it's up to the warmists to define a theory to fit the observable measurements, not the other way around and you have significantly failed to do so. We get back to the question, how do you explain the significant cooling periods last century when billions of tons of CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere.
CO2 is not really a greenhouse gas it is only a greenhouse gas because of the way it has been defined by warmists. There is no CO2 operating in a real greenhouse.
So CO2 doesn't cause any atmospheric warming?
We have done. Those models fit the historical data. Please show where the error is. Essentially you've got nothing have you?
Well it might do in sufficient quantity. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about .039% of which only 3% is man made. In other words only 0.0012% is due to man. A gnats pee in the Pacific Ocean. The CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars is 96% but I don't see a lot of warming there.
I knew that;No, local weather events don't define climate change.
Bigblu can I ask why you're dismissing ALL evidence that doesn't fit with the IPCC science, when there is an overwhelming amount of it shows GW science to have gaping holes?
And you've mocked some very valid points that have been made here..
As a person from a scientific background, as you state you are from, I would have expected you to be capable of more open and clear discussion (with reasons 'why') .
and to have a less blinkered view - like that of a typical Green/lefty or biased person.
Weg, I don't believe I have seen anything that overturns the main stream science on the issue.
Ned even said he wouldn't read anything that he didn't already agree with!
Provide the studies, show me your hard evidence for your hypotheses (not some obviously biased and dodgy website).
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044018.pdf
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-cannot.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html
Just some.
We are going around in circles here. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this, it is not up to weg, me or any other scientist to provide evidence to refute anthropogenic global warming, it is up to the anthropogenic climate scientists to provide evidence that it exists. There is no point saying you have done so when all you do is post a link to a study that starts with the words, "Human-influenced climate change is an observed phenomenon affecting physical and biological systems across the globe." and then lists 50 other studies all referencing each other.
Did you think that it somehow disproved a link between CO2 and warming?
What it shows is carbon lagging behind temperature for 800 years!
We know there's a link but a link is not proof of anything. There is no actual proof carbon drives temperature - what AGWist keep insisting is happening.
So what about the other discrepancies??
Why has warming stopped for the last 17 years?
How about sea levels?
As a scientist why are you so quick to dismiss science that appears to be in conflict with your argument??