Sea level rise

My missedit;
"...vegetation to try out "
should be
"...vegetation to dry out "

@athousandyoung said
Now, for your comment about CO2 lagging temperature rise:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature an ...[text shortened]... als and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.

Skeptical science is a horrible source of information. The consensus project lies and skeptical science uses the consensus project for their source of info (i.e. lies).

If CO2 amplified the warming in a significant way there would be a runaway warming effect that would be impossible to stop. All talk of a solution would be meaningless and people would be in panic over it's inevitability.

Skeptical science has been discredited as full of lies. Find a reputable source next time.

@athousandyoung said
[quote]@athousandyoung said
People have been burning coal for hundreds of years now. Human caused greenhouse gases didn’t start with the automobile.

@metal-brain said
Others have claimed that, but failed because the CO2 records did not show it. Show me the CO2 records in the ice core samples. If you cannot stop your false claims. I'm sick of false assertions.[/qu ...[text shortened]... n the ice core samples DO show exactly what I wrote above. Stop being such a pretentious douchebag.

Establish cause and effect. You have not done that.

https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

We all know there is a correlation between temps and co2 in the ice core records. Al Gore had it backwards. The Vostok ice core samples proved CO2 lagged behind temperatures discrediting AL Gore as the propagandist that he is. Despite that PBS' Nova recently repeated that discredited myth in either an incredible display of ignorance for ignoring climate scientists who know better or it was deliberate propaganda meant to continue to mislead people who are not informed.

You are assuming co2 was the cause and temps were the effect, but that is not something that should be based on an assumption. It needs to be proven with ice core samples, specifically any lag time between either co2 or temperatures. If you cannot show one or the other you have no evidence, just a meaningless assertion with no verification of cause and effect.

The insults are childish of you. If you cannot debate using facts in a civilized way you must not have the facts on your side. All I asked for was proof of cause and effect. Insults are not an acceptable replacement for proof. It shows weakness on your part.

@metal-brain said
Skeptical science is a horrible source of information.

only horrible to you because it, along with all other respected science websites on the subject, speaks the known scientific truths.

and skeptical science uses the consensus project for their source of info (i.e. lies).

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
"...The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to SIX INDEPENDENT STUDIES..." (my emphasis)
-so, not "lies".

If CO2 amplified the warming in a significant way there would be a runaway warming effect that would be impossible to stop

False; assuming what you mean by "runaway warming effect " is "runaway greenhouse effect" (else we must assume you have no idea what you are talking about), which is a misleading term in this context that I and some other people always disapprove of in this context, CO2 amplified the warming in a significant way wouldn't necessarily produce a runaway greenhouse effect and in at least most cases it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
"...A runaway greenhouse effect is a state in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1]An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus.
...
Other large-scale climate changes are sometimes loosely called a "runaway greenhouse effect" although it is not an appropriate description.
...
...A hypothetical runaway greenhouse effect on the earth should not be confused with a greenhouse earth, which has happened in several well-known periods..."

I assert that the term "runaway greenhouse effect" is far too often used far TOO loosely and should generally be avoided unless referring to the "runaway greenhouse effect" only in its most strict meaning only, which isn't the same (loose) meaning used when referring to the effect of man made global warming.

Establish cause and effect.

This has been done. We have shown you the evidence. Put simplistically, the evidence is what the science tells us.

You are assuming co2 was the cause and temps were the effect,

We don't just assume but know, because that is what the science says. We also know it was the other way around i.e. it is also true that temperature increase causes more CO2 hence the lag. Where is the logical contradiction in that and in something being BOTH the cause and the effect? -simple question and one I predict you will not answer and it is obvious why.

Where is the evidence showing cause and effect?
If that is what the science says (as common morons assert without proof) then show the evidence. People who make assertions without evidence usually don't have any to present.

Skeptical science says man is the cause. Their source of info is the consensus project and they have no source of information that man is the cause, just a mere influence without any claim of how much that influence is.

The consensus project lies!! That is why skeptical science was exposed as being morons without any credibility. Anybody who claims otherwise is a liar!

https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

@humy said
only horrible to you because it, along with all other respected science websites on the subject, speaks the known scientific truths.

and skeptical science uses the consensus project for their source of info (i.e. lies).

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
"...The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared b ...[text shortened]... cause and the effect? -simple question and one I predict you will not answer and it is obvious why.

"This has been done. We have shown you the evidence. Put simplistically, the evidence is what the science tells us."

Yet another lie. WTF is wrong with you? This is the 3rd time you have lied in less than a week. You are making yourself look like a complete idiot. Someone needs to psychoanalyze you to find out why you blame me for hoisting your own petard. You are your own worst enemy!

@metal-brain said
Where is the evidence showing cause and effect?
If that is what the science says (as common morons assert without proof) then show the evidence. People who make assertions without evidence usually don't have any to present.

Skeptical science says man is the cause. Their source of info is the consensus project and they have no source of information that man is the caus ...[text shortened]... who claims otherwise is a liar!

https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

You're calling sources fake and then you offer Principia Scientific? lol

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/

I used to think you were intellectually honest. Now I've changed my mind.

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

@athousandyoung said
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

This lists just some of the many independent sources of evidence of CO2 infrared absorption and by how much. I know why you show it; many greenhouse theory skeptics try to argue against the greanhouse theory by denying that CO2 DOES absorb infrared, or, alternatively, say it doesn't absorb by nearly as much as the scientists say it does. Either case their claim is baseless and also nonsense because basic physics tells us that it SHOULD absorb and by about how much. Pity, just like metalbrain, they don't ever seriously look at sources of evidence with a will to go wherever the evidence points but instead just believe the evidence shows whatever they want to believe before they even looked at it. They will by choice all remain ignorant and delusional to their last breath.

@athousandyoung said
You're calling sources fake and then you offer Principia Scientific? lol

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/

I used to think you were intellectually honest. Now I've changed my mind.

My source is accurate and can stand any honest scrutiny you subject it to. Yours cannot. Besides, there are critics of your critics as well.

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-29/media-bias-fact-check-smears-wikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine

Look at the consensus project's website and their claim "man is the cause". First of all, that implies 100% which is impossible. Then search for their source of information. Can you find one?

Skeptical science relies on the consensus project and the consensus project is a lie. I discredited skeptical science long ago on this forum on that basis alone. There were others too. Skeptical science is a hack site that pretty much discredited itself by using the consensus project as their source of information. I just pointed out the obvious.

Principia Scientific is accurate and can stand such scrutiny contrary to the slander from partisan hack websites like those you posted. If you can find something inaccurate that I have overlooked have at it, but don't attack the source without cause. You need a reason to attack the source that makes sense if you are to do it. Dismissing facts that are inconvenient for you doesn't cut it.

@athousandyoung said
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

The atmosphere is not a laboratory. There is no proof CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. This is a subject that has come up repeatedly on this forum. You are a bit of a newcomer here and would probably not be aware of that, but you cannot prove what happens in a lab happens in the very complex atmosphere. Nobody can.

@humy said
This lists just some of the many independent sources of evidence of CO2 infrared absorption and by how much. I know why you show it; many greenhouse theory skeptics try to argue against the greanhouse theory by denying that CO2 DOES absorb infrared, or, alternatively, say it doesn't absorb by nearly as much as the scientists say it does. Either case their claim is baseless and a ...[text shortened]... they even looked at it. They will by choice all remain ignorant and delusional to their last breath.

Look up "should". You "should" tell the truth but you don't.

@metal-brain said
The atmosphere is not a laboratory. There is no proof CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. This is a subject that has come up repeatedly on this forum. You are a bit of a newcomer here and would probably not be aware of that, but you cannot prove what happens in a lab happens in the very complex atmosphere. Nobody can.

What is the basis for your premise the lab results can't be shown to effect the atmosphere. The atmosphere is just a big lab. It is just a matter of scale. They actually do know what they are doing when they do those kind of experiments.
Your argument reminds me of the young Earthers who say 'Carbon dating is BS because they don't know anything about it' or some such, saying there are too many variables and such, when in fact they know good and well the limitations and where it can be used accurately and where it can't.

You are making the same argument because you are biased against it, citing the work of 90 year old men from 50 years ago.

@sonhouse said
What is the basis for your premise the lab results can't be shown to effect the atmosphere. The atmosphere is just a big lab. It is just a matter of scale. They actually do know what they are doing when they do those kind of experiments.
Your argument reminds me of the young Earthers who say 'Carbon dating is BS because they don't know anything about it' or some such, sayin ...[text shortened]... me argument because you are biased against it, citing the work of 90 year old men from 50 years ago.

https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

@metal-brain said
https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/

This site shows the bias of Principia. BTW, the name plagiarized from Isaac Newton.

The bottom line is you will use any site that supports your view since mainstream science is almost universally against your theories.