PrintSmith wrote: Now establish that the deep sea temperature change is the result of CO2 and not increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet Dog. Can you do that? Can you exclude that from the list of causes? Do you know for a fact that it is CO2 or is it simply a belief that those who worship at the alter of anthropogenic climate change hold?
Really? That is the best you have? What evidence of increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet that would affect the deep ocean water on a global scale do you have? Because there is none. Oh yeah, you don't deal with facts or evidence. Are you sure that it is not underwater dragons, or giant electric eels? The best science at this time is that the deep oceans are rising in temperature due to global warming and acting as a temporary heat sink thus lowering the increase in surface temperatures. That global warming is occuring due to increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of scientific fact.
The point being made Dog is that there is a virtually limiless amount of variables, and an infinite number of combinations of them, which may be at the core of why the temperatures are rising at the bottom of the sea, only a few of which are known, and fewer still are fully understood. When you say "the best science at this time", what you really mean is the best WAG that can be made given the very limited understanding we have of the entire system and how it operates, isn't it? Isn't that really at the heart of the matter as to why the predicted warming hasn't mainfested itself as expected? The system is so large, so complex, with so many variables, that it is virtually impossible to even begin to account for all the possibilites that exist? What the current science is attempting to do is reverse engineer the process in the hope that they might stumble onto the correct series of events. What do you suppose the chances of success are given the infinite number of possibilities that exist?
The climate is changing, it is always changing, it always will be changing. The one constant in the universe is that it is constantly changing. The planet has been both significantly warmer than it currently is and significantly cooler than it currently is. To the best of my knowledge the climate has never, ever, been a stagnant constant, has it? Would it not be a fair statement to say that the planet's climate is a dynamic one that is constantly changing? The hubris it takes to even begin to believe that the human species is in control of the planetary climate is simply beyond my comprehension.
Actually hubris would be ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence of the dramatic change in global warming in a relatively short period of time that has conclusively altered the climate. Hubris would be ignoring the vast majority of scientific research and the almost unamity of conclusions of those who actually study climate change that man has played a substantial role in the change in the climate.
The temperature of the earth had remained relatively stable for tens of thousands of years. Then with the advent of burning of carbon based fuels, the temperature has risen dramatically in a relative short period of time. Yes, the climate does change, but over eons of time barring catrostophic events such as massive volcanic eruptions, perhaps an enormous meteor or two.
Do you deny that the rate of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions has increased substantially in the last 150 years?
Do you deny that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for over a hundred years before it dissipates?
Do you deny that the earth as a whole has warmed substantially over the last 150 years?
I have never claimed that global warming is solely a result of carbon dioxide emissions. But the evidence is clear that carbon dioxide is a substantial factor in global warming. Other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. Other man caused events also contribute greatly to global warming including destruction of the rain forests, destruction of forests in developed countries. I recently read an interesting article about the opacity of snow, where the increased dust particles in the air have resulted in dirty snow now absorbing heat instead of reflecting sunlight which results in warmer surface temperatures.
As usual, you simply posit your conclusions as facts with no underlying factual or evidentiary basis and dismiss the actual facts supported by evidence.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
