2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"rule out natural factors for the most recent warming?"

There you go again. You know full well I was not talking about the most recent warming period. This proves how dishonest and evasive you are. This is what people do when they can't debate on that facts and it is what you are doing. You are a cad!

You know full well I was not talking about the most recent warming period.

I didn't say/imply you were although you ought to as this is what this thread is supposed to be about.

This proves how dishonest and evasive you are.

Are YOU not being evasive by refusing to answer my question?
You still haven’t answers my question (nor KazetNagorra's for that matter ) :

IS there man made global warming? Yes or No?

I have answered all your questions; You haven't answered even this one. I guess you don't want to talk about it. It is clearly you who is being evasive.

Originally posted by humy
[quote]
IS there man made global warming? Yes or No?

The short answer to that question is "NO"

Firstly, the concept of "Global Warming" has to be accepted as an arguable postulate before the question needs to be answered. Then, you'd have to define Global Warming in realistic terms, then prove that man caused it.

A bit like asking someone if they believe that 3 eared unicorns wiped out the 2 eared unicorns. (answer yes, or no)

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
Firstly, the concept of "Global Warming" has to be accepted as an arguable postulate before the question needs to be answered. Then, you'd have to define Global Warming in realistic terms, then prove that man caused it.

No, it is not necessary to prove it. To answer 'yes' you only need to have reasonable reasons to believe that it is true.

A bit like asking someone if they believe that 3 eared unicorns wiped out the 2 eared unicorns. (answer yes, or no)
I suppose you are claiming that the concept of Global Warming is incoherent. Perhaps it is just that you do not understand it, and not a problem with the question or concept at all.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
The short answer to that question is "NO"

Firstly, the concept of "Global Warming" has to be accepted as an arguable postulate before the question needs to be answered. Then, you'd have to define Global Warming in realistic terms, then prove that man caused it.

A bit like asking someone if they believe that 3 eared unicorns wiped out the 2 eared unicorns. (answer yes, or no)

the concept of "Global Warming" has to be accepted as an arguable postulate before the question needs to be answered. Then, you'd have to define Global Warming in realistic terms, then prove that man caused it.

-all of which has been done by climate scientists although note that empirical 'proof' is, as always in science, probabilistic and only accepted as 'proof' when there is a non-zero but, just like here, an arbitrary vanishingly 'small' probability of it being false.
Which part of the above hasn't? Don't you understand the meaning of the term “Global Warming”? It means when the average global surface air temperatures on the Earth increase and that temperature increase may occur specifically as a result of the greenhouse effect. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/global+warming ) -which part of that meaning do you have a problem with? Perhaps the term “greenhouse effect”? If so, the greenhouse effect is when certain gasses in the atmosphere let sunlight through but then absorb some of the resulting heat that radiates from the Earth's surface thus the air becomes warmer and results in an increase in the temperature of the climate ( see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greenhouse+effect ) -which part of that meaning do you have a problem with?

OK, if you accept these definitions; since all possible natural causes have been ruled out for the most recent warming, that proves man caused it + the known basic physics says CO2 logically should cause warming -this known 'basic physics' doesn't come from the greenhouse theory but rather the other way around i.e. the greenhouse theory comes from (deduced from ) the basic physics, more specifically, the known basic physics of spectral absorption, heat flow and the laws of thermodynamics.
In other words, when the numbers are plugged into the physical equations of known physics that have been proven experimentally by scientists that know a lot more about it than you or I, out pops the greenhouse effect.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
The short answer to that question is "NO"

Firstly, the concept of "Global Warming" has to be accepted as an arguable postulate before the question needs to be answered. Then, you'd have to define Global Warming in realistic terms, then prove that man caused it.

A bit like asking someone if they believe that 3 eared unicorns wiped out the 2 eared unicorns. (answer yes, or no)

What would you consider possible empirical proof for man-made climate change?

Originally posted by humy

You know full well I was not talking about the most recent warming period.

I didn't say/imply you were although you ought to as this is what this thread is supposed to be about.

This proves how dishonest and evasive you are.

Are YOU not being evasive by refusing to answer my question?
You still haven’t answers my ...[text shortened]... even this one. I guess you don't want to talk about it. It is clearly you who is being evasive.

This thread is based on one year. I have proven that one year is not relevant which was my intent. If this year turns out to be colder than average you would surely say it doesn't matter and point to a longer term trend. I have no objection to that per se, but you and other global warming alarmists want to have it both ways. One year matters if it is warm, but not if it is cooler. My point is you should stick to the long term trends and not be dumb enough to point to one year. I have proven that point and done it well even if your pride prevents you from acknowledging it so get over it.

"IS there man made global warming? Yes or No?"

I have already answered that question. All you did is rephrase a previous question that I answered adequately. It is like you are so desperate to fool others into thinking I am not answering your questions that you are resorting to deception to save face and it is not working. You should just admit you knew far less about climate change than you thought you did. That would be the honest thing for you to do. Not that you have not proven yourself to be dishonest already though. I guess it is a slippery slope for you.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
This thread is based on one year. I have proven that one year is not relevant which was my intent. If this year turns out to be colder than average you would surely say it doesn't matter and point to a longer term trend. I have no objection to that per se, but you and other global warming alarmists want to have it both ways. One year matters if it is war ...[text shortened]... have not proven yourself to be dishonest already though. I guess it is a slippery slope for you.

This thread is based on one year.

Yes; the year that warmed which is hardest to deny was caused by man made warming.

One year matters if it is warm

-only if that warmth cannot be explained by natural causes -as is the case of last year.

but not if it is cooler.

Correct. A year that is cooler which CAN be fully explained by natural causes, like all the cooler years we have had up to date, wouldn’t be direct empirical evidence of man made warming. So what? Least year WAS far warmer than what could be explained by natural causes thus IS relevant evidence that directly proves that much of this warming can only be explained by more CO2. So what is your complaint about that?

There is also empirical evidence for long term trend of global warming once natural causes have been taken into full account but the OP isn't about that evidence but rather this new evidence since this new evidence is arguably the hardest evidence to deny.

"IS there man made global warming? Yes or No?"

I have already answered that question

No, you did not, and still haven't; Still waiting....

All you did is rephrase a previous question that I answered adequately

what previous question? It wasn't a equation but an assertion. You said:

“I have NEVER claimed man was not a factor in global warming “

which is an assertion, not a question. And you NOT claiming that there is man made warming is NOT the same thing as claiming there IS man made warming for you could, just for starters, always claim you don't know, or, alternatively, privately believe it to be true but still not claim it. So you haven't answered by question:

"IS there man made global warming? Yes or No?" (or “don't know” if you want to use that option )

I am still waiting....

You also haven't answered KazetNagorra's perfectly simple and very good question:

What would you consider possible empirical proof for man-made climate change?

I would also like you to answer this simple question; or don't you want to talk about it?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What would you consider possible empirical proof for man-made climate change?

Firstly, that there really was 'climate change', over a statistically significant period - and then that is was caused by man.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
Firstly, that there really was 'climate change', over a statistically significant period - and then that is was caused by man.

You're just rephrasing the question. Let's suppose there was man-made climate change. What would you consider "smoking gun" evidence for it?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're just rephrasing the question. Let's suppose there was man-made climate change. What would you consider "smoking gun" evidence for it?

It is up to the proposer to prove their case.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
It is up to the proposer to prove their case.

Obviously. How could a proposer prove the case for man-made climate change?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Obviously. How could a proposer prove the case for man-made climate change?

He just does not give a straight answer to a perfectly simple question, does he!
Don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by humy
He just does not give a straight answer to a perfectly simple question, does he!
Don't hold your breath.

It's difficult for a layman to know what the appropriate level of proof is in any given field. In particle physics they can go for a high level of proof, since all one needs to do is leave the experiment running and wait for enough events. With climate science it's rather different as the "experiments" are computer simulations and it is always possible to argue with a model. From a rhetorical point of view, in other words as a matter of debating technique and not as a matter of science, he's right to avoid answering that one. As a matter of science, well, that's what climate scientists are for isn't it. They're the one's with the training, listening to them might be the smart move.

Originally posted by DeepThought
With climate science it's rather different as the "experiments" are computer simulations and it is always possible to argue with a model.

Actually, computer simulations are only a small part of it. It was well known that CO2 was a greenhouse gas before computers even existed.
Measurements of global temperatures and measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are scientific results that are rather difficult to question. (and do not involve computer simulations).

Originally posted by humy

This thread is based on one year.

Yes; the year that warmed which is hardest to deny was caused by man made warming.

One year matters if it is warm

-only if that warmth cannot be explained by natural causes -as is the case of last year.

but not if it is cooler.

Correct. A year that is coo ...[text shortened]... ge?

I would also like you to answer this simple question; or don't you want to talk about it?

You have not answered my question. You are trying to hold me to a double standard even after I have answered yours. You continue to be a cad. You cannot explain the natural cause of the warming period of 1900-1940 so you have no credibility here. Do some research and get back to me. Your ignorance as well as your arrogance is showing.

Your evasiveness indicates you are on the ropes here. You are desperate and want to digress. All losers resort to that tactic. You are boring me.