reply to post by talklikeapirat
But your point was to show how in recent times, ever increasing greenhouse gas levels are driving the global temperatures.
No, I did no such thing.
Again - you guys need to try actually paying attention to what people like me are saying, instead of making up your own conversations so you can get
ahead of them by one-upping everything. My "point" was to simply show how ridiculous it was of Danbones to imply that CO2 levels are suddenly going
up because of rising temps. The graph serves to at least pretty much trounce that idea.
I have to say too the rest of your assessment was rather hypocritical - you started off by criticizing the graph for changing resolution and not
telling the whole story, but then used it to immediately draw all sorts of rash conclusions over short time spans without considering the whole
The ultimate effect of GHG forcing is well understood to be a long term process. This is why we talk about 'equilibrium' climate sensitivity versus
'transient' climate sensitivity. To simply expect instant gratification here is just ignorant and unreasonable.
GHG's are heat trapping gases, but heat and temperature are not exactly the same thing. That's why we have different heat capacites which determine
the temperature of different elements like air and water from how much energy they absorb.
Again, thanks to the bare bones physics, we absolutely know our GHG emissions are trapping this heat - there is no doubt or uncertainty on that. But
how this ultimately translates to an atmospheric increase in global temperature is a much more complicated process that simply takes time to resolve.
The atmosphere and the oceans and the land and the melting ice and the wind and the extreme weather events all divvy up that excess energy in
different ways, and they cycle it back and forth many times over before it can truly settle in under a new equilibrium.
Nonetheless, that's why it all comes back to the physics. We know
that extra heat has
to settle down somewhere. There's absolutely no
way around that. The only case you could make is through some kind of negative feedback process that flips it all back out into space, but nobody has
managed to demonstrate that, and the satellite measurements effectively prove it's not happening anyway.
So at the end of the day you're stuck with it. You can make all the cases you want about not being able to feel it, see it, smell it, whatever - but
the laws of physics dictate that it must
Meanwhile take a look around and it's actually quite easy to feel it, see it, and smell it anyway. Everyone these days is aware of the changing
climate around them - the melting glaciers, the disappearing Arctic, the extreme weather events - most are lucid enough to recognize something
is definitely happening.
But again - it all comes back to the physics, not some ambiguous and subjective graph-reading.
Those who understand the physics, understand why (at least a large portion of) it must be man-made. Those who don't, just continue to derail the
conversation with irrelevant banter about natural cycles, Al Gore, computer models, carbon taxes - whatever they can muster to avoid facing the
difficult and uncomfortable facts here.