Climate continues to change.

[Klinkster]

Then you can correlate PPM of CO2, with deltaT?

Rhetorical question.
No you can't.

Hypothesis does not equal theory.

Anthropogenic climate change is a verifiable theory.

Of course it is impossible to give 100% probability of the future.

We have to theorize based on historical evidence and knowledge of climate factors, however limited.

Eventually we reach a conclusion which , while maybe imperfect, reached a confidence interval that is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Hal9000_]

Then you can correlate PPM of CO2, with deltaT?

Rhetorical question.
No you can't.

That you would even question the correlation of atmospheric CO2 concentration with global temperature change speaks volumes.

If you wanted to make an even half logical argument, you would infer that CO2 is increasing because of some unknown factor causing temperature rise.

But you can't. Because there is no other factor causing global warming.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And if it was "tested and verified", you would be able to correlate PPM of CO2, with deltaT.

You can't.

Scientists have. Thanks for playing.

 

[Klinkster]

Your argument is, "That's all it can be"
That, is not logical.

I wave the bullshit flag on that one.

You have not, repeat, NOT, correlated the CO2 content, to deltaT.

That you would even question the correlation of atmospheric CO2 concentration with global temperature change speaks volumes.

If you wanted to make an even half logical argument, you would infer that CO2 is increasing because of some unknown factor causing temperature rise.

But you can't. Because there is no other factor causing global warming.

 

[Klinkster]

No they have not.

You just say they have, and we know most of what you say, is a lie.

Scientists have. Thanks for playing.

 

[Klinkster]

Not to mention the fact, you even lie about lying.

Scientists have. Thanks for playing.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Nope.
It does not exist.

Bwahahaha.

You don't understand what proving a theory is.

Theories aren't proved, dipshit.

 

[Hal9000_]

The atmosphere of Venus disagrees.

 

[Que]

That you would even question the correlation of atmospheric CO2 concentration with global temperature change speaks volumes.

If you wanted to make an even half logical argument, you would infer that CO2 is increasing because of some unknown factor causing temperature rise.

But you can't. Because there is no other factor causing global warming.

I don't think even Sgt Spidey is that stupid. Phrodeau, at his most histrionic has never claimed that. None of BobsDownSouth's prepackaged climate alarmism talking points suggests any such thing.

 

[Hal9000_]

I don't think even Sgt Spidey is that stupid. Phrodeau, at his most histrionic has never claimed that. None of BobsDownSouth's prepackaged climate alarmism talking points suggests any such thing.

Name one factor. Solar intensity? Nope.

Earth orbit? Nope.

Increased earth core temp or geothermal activity? Nope.

Some kind of interstellar gamma ray burst? Think again.

What, oh what, oh oracle of Lit is the driving factor causing global warming?

 

[Klinkster]

Yes they are count dimple dick von skidmark.
And this one sure as hell ain't been.

Get off the definitions you seem so concrened about. Means nothing.

Show the correlation between PPM of CO2, and deltaT.

Again....you can't, because no one has.
Makes the theory....just a theory....no proof.

Bwahahaha.



Theories aren't proved, dipshit.

 

[Klinkster]

We are talking about global warming, specifically, man made.
Nothing else.

You have no proof.

Your bullshit may be a cause....but that's just theory......

Name one factor. Solar intensity? Nope.

Earth orbit? Nope.

Increased earth core temp or geothermal activity? Nope.

Some kind of interstellar gamma ray burst? Think again.

What, oh what, oh oracle of Lit is the driving factor causing global warming?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Hypothesis does not equal theory.

Anthropogenic climate change is a verifiable theory.

Of course it is impossible to give 100% probability of the future.

We have to theorize based on historical evidence and knowledge of climate factors, however limited.

Eventually we reach a conclusion which , while maybe imperfect, reached a confidence interval that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Verifyable how? What steps to reproduce your experiment that prove the theory?

 

[Hal9000_]

Oh...I know!

"It's just the natural cycle!"

Humans dumping CO2 in to the atmosphere does NOTHING!!!


https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/sgt-schultz-i-know-nothing-gif-1.gif

 

[von_Bismarck]

Yes they are count dimple dick von skidmark.
And this one sure as hell ain't been.

Get off the definitions you seem so concrened about. Means nothing.

Show the correlation between PPM of CO2, and deltaT.

Again....you can't, because no one has.
Makes the theory....just a theory....no proof.

The point of contact theories make with objective reality is with the hypothesises or predictions they generate. Data can be consistent or inconsistent or neither with respect to these predictions.

Theories aren't proved. At best, they can be disproven.

And for shit's sake, would you please teach yourself what a scientific theory is?

 

[Hal9000_]

Verifyable how? What steps to reproduce your experiment that prove the theory?

Basic lab experiments.


https://www.airwatergas.org/resources/curriculum/trapping-heat-with-carbon-dioxide/

Before you shout: "That isn't the entire Earth!", tell me why it wouldn't be scalable.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Even Que won't come to denialist shitbag Klinkster's rescue for his "it's just a theory" nonsense.

 

[phrodeau]

Yes they are count dimple dick von skidmark.
And this one sure as hell ain't been.

Get off the definitions you seem so concrened about. Means nothing.

Show the correlation between PPM of CO2, and deltaT.

Again....you can't, because no one has.
Makes the theory....just a theory....no proof.

Here’s somebody who did.

https://www.massscifair.com/sites/default/files/blog/wp-content/uploads/Everett_project_0.jpg

 

[Que]

Name one factor. Solar intensity? Nope.

Earth orbit? Nope.

Increased earth core temp or geothermal activity? Nope.

Some kind of interstellar gamma ray burst? Think again.

What, oh what, oh oracle of Lit is the driving factor causing global warming?

You are one of those "intelligent design" nutters, aren't you??

Humans arrived on the newly-minted Earth seven days after Elohim said, "Let there be light?"

 

[Klinkster]

Would you please pull your head out of your ass, and provide proof.
That would be, a correlation, between PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, and deltaT.

You are just a no nothing pompous ass, who thinks he is the smartest man in the room.
You are not the smartest man in the room.
You are tied for last, with Rob .

So....bring on the proof, and quit sniveling about what YOU think theory is.

The point of contact theories make with objective reality is with the hypothesises or predictions they generate. Data can be consistent or inconsistent or neither with respect to these predictions.

Theories aren't proved. At best, they can be disproven.

And for shit's sake, would you please teach yourself what a scientific theory is?

 

[Klinkster]

Good heavens fro-doh.
You discovered the 'photograph.'
Impressive.

I see no proof.

Here’s somebody who did.

https://www.massscifair.com/sites/default/files/blog/wp-content/uploads/Everett_project_0.jpg

 

[gunthernehmen]

Basic lab experiments.


https://www.airwatergas.org/resources/curriculum/trapping-heat-with-carbon-dioxide/

Before you shout: "That isn't the entire Earth!", tell me why it wouldn't be scalable.

Your theory. YOU explain how it scales.

And then PREDICT what will happen.

I'll wait.

 

[Klinkster]

Proof please?
If global warming is caused by CO2, then you should easily be able to correlate PPM of CO2, with deltaT.

Not your style.
You just deflect, and call people names.
It's all you can do.

Proof please.

Even Que won't come to denialist shitbag Klinkster's rescue for his "it's just a theory" nonsense.

 

[Hal9000_]

You are one of those "intelligent design" nutters, aren't you??

Humans arrived on the newly-minted Earth seven days after Elohim said, "Let there be light?"

I'd be more likely to believe the "expanding Earth" theory.

Accretion of mass in turn increasing gravity.

Or, does increasing gravity due to unknown forces cause increase in mass??

 

[von_Bismarck]

Would you please pull your head out of your ass, and provide proof.
That would be, a correlation, between PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, and deltaT.

You are just a no nothing pompous ass, who thinks he is the smartest man in the room.
You are not the smartest man in the room.
You are tied for last, with Rob .

So....bring on the proof, and quit sniveling about what YOU think theory is.

Is your Google broken? I already told you to look up climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity to radiative forcing agents. Scientists already have/are doing the work you've asked for.