I wasn't asking for proof, just evidence. I've offered strong evidence even if it's circumstantial. You have offered nothing.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Climate change is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove the cause of. You can make guesses as to CO2, the sun, water vapor, etc being the cause or not but humans simply do not have the capability to control, modify or reverse the climate on a global scale.

Again, no one is asking for "proof". You don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. The world operates on evidence. If you want to discard all evidence you might as well go back to the stone age. I take it you also think the ozone hole was completely natural. If so, I have nothing more to say.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

"Evidence" like big chunks falling off glaciers or declining Polar bear population is not direct evidence.

Ever notice the ozone hole problem has completely disappeared from the news now that "climate change" has dominated it? The ozone hole amazingly heals itself every year....

That is EXACTLY the kind of closed minded thinking that keeps the "climate change" issue alive. If people would open their mind to a logical/rational thought process they could see that its a completely politics driven issue and not an actual problem.

Here is your motto:
Don't listen to the truth, don't see the truth and don't speak out against the lies politicians have fed you.

What about the world getting hotter while the Sun's activity remains constant and the stratosphere cooling off while the troposphere is heating up? Only a complete idiot wouldn't connect the dots.

Regarding the ozone hole, I guess you've never heard of R134a. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Only a complete idiot would assume we are responsible with such little evidence.

Idea 1: Ever notice that a greenhouse will cool off slower than the outside air? Yep, same concept but on a MUCH larger scale. The atmosphere is a natural insulator, as it always has been, so of course its going to stay a little warmer than the outside until its had time to dissipate the heat.

Idea 2: Please explain how CO2 levels in the Cambrian Period were 18x higher than todays level, yet there were no machines, humans or fossil fuel combustion and temperatures were only slightly higher than today? Yes, that means that the global average temperature has been higher than it is now, especially after coming out of an ice age. The last ice age just ended 18,000 years ago which means that the climate is still recovering from that cold period. That means that we are not warming the climate, (gasp, shock, awe) its simply returning to "normal".

I guess you've never heard of DuPont.

1. Nice try, but a bad analogy. The greenhouse is cooling off at night too, just slower. It's not heating up like the troposphere.

2. How was the CO2 and the global mean temp of that era measured? What about sunspot activity and volcanic eruptions at that time? I find it amusing that you choose to pick a period about which we have so little data and use it as counter-evidence to what we know about today and recent history.

3. So DuPont fixed the ozone hole? That's news to me.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Its the same concept. They collected data and used educated guessing exactly like whats being done by modern "climate change" scientists. They say people are producing XX billion tons of CO2 per year but neglect to tell people that most all of that is consumed by plants. They also neglect to mention that the oceans (You know, the stuff that covers 70% of the planet's surface) also absorbs and releases huge amounts of CO2 on its own.

So R-134a alone fixed the ozone and stopping the production of billions of CFC propellant powered cans didn't? No. The ozone hole fixes itself every year near the end of spring and reappears around September.

Take a look on page 6 of http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

So, even with the recently decreased solar input [solar cycle 24 is about a year late in arriving, currently there is _one_ solar cycle 23 sunspot, after a couple of spotless months] average temps will climb as concentrated earlier input is distributed through the rest of the system.

Automotive analogy, take a vehicle with a running, warmed up, water cooled engine. Now, shut off the engine. What happens to the coolant temperature in the cylinder head? It first rises, absorbing the combustion chamber heat, without any flow to move the coolant to the radiator.

Then, the coolant chills down to ambient temperature, along with the rest of the engine.

Great example.

I would dispute the assertion that solar activity is constant:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396

It would be nice if plants absorbed most of emitted CO2, but the truth is CO2 is up 40% since the industrial revolution.

Are you saying human-emitted CFC's have no effect on the ozone hole?

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Shall I repeat what was said?

I find it amusing that you choose to pick a period about which we have so little data and use it as counter-evidence to what we know about today and recent history.

The steam engine was at the pinnacle of IR technology. Do you really think there were a bunch of people taking CO2 samples around the world at that time? Most people in the 18th and 19th century didn't even know there was such a thing as germs.

It was sarcasm. You stated something earlier like switching to 134a was the main reason the hole was getting better. The ozone hole has ALWAYS been there, we just slightly altered its diameter.

The GMT has not climbed since 2005.

OK, poor wording on my part, and yes I'm aware of the 11-year cycle that's currently delayed. However, overall solar activity has not increased in the last 20 years or so and that's what I was alluding to. Both the BBC article and the graph that you provided support this.



I hope this is true but it runs counter to the observed temperatures and solar irradiance over the last 20 years or so, even if you consider thermal inertia which I doubt could last that long.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Ice core data.

So now you admit that we humans do have an effect on the global environment. Until now you were denying it.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL