@metal-brain saidThe point is that man-made climate change existed prior to 1900. You keep bringing up CO2, not me. If you want know what the levels were, look it up.
"What do you think a billion plus 600 million people were using for heat back then?"
Firewood, mostly. Cut down trees and more of them grow. What were the CO2 levels back then? Do you even have a point? Making up crap is not science.
@wildgrass saidI dispute that. How do you know there is man made GW prior to 1900 if CO2 had nothing to do with it? You need to establish the cause if you want to be taken seriously. You have not done that. That is why I keep bringing it up. CO2 is commonly blamed in GW theory. I know it, you know it and so does everybody reading this. Stop trying to trivialize the elephant in the room. The elephant might fart, then you will blame methane.
The point is that man-made climate change existed prior to 1900. You keep bringing up CO2, not me. If you want know what the levels were, look it up.
What was the cause? It isn't much of theory without a cause.
@metal-brain saidMaybe we can start with this? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19082
I dispute that. How do you know there is man made GW prior to 1900 if CO2 had nothing to do with it? You need to establish the cause if you want to be taken seriously. You have not done that. That is why I keep bringing it up. CO2 is commonly blamed in GW theory. I know it, you know it and so does everybody reading this. Stop trying to trivialize the elephant in the room. ...[text shortened]... t fart, then you will blame methane.
What was the cause? It isn't much of theory without a cause.
http://futureearth.org/news/early-start-climate-change
Not sure what you mean by "cause". Climate change research typically requires deep correlative analyses combined with historical data, physics, and modeling. We don't have a second earth to empirically test cause-effect.
@wildgrass saidIf you have no idea what the cause is just say so. It isn't CO2 and that is why you are being silly. You have no idea what you are talking about. You could be honest and admit that, but I doubt you will.
Maybe we can start with this? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19082
http://futureearth.org/news/early-start-climate-change
Not sure what you mean by "cause". Climate change research typically requires deep correlative analyses combined with historical data, physics, and modeling. We don't have a second earth to empirically test cause-effect.
@metal-brain saidYou can't define causes based on the lack of a correlation.
If you have no idea what the cause is just say so. It isn't CO2 and that is why you are being silly. You have no idea what you are talking about. You could be honest and admit that, but I doubt you will.
@wildgrass saidYou made the assertion, not me. It was a weak assertion because you cannot show why it makes any sense.
You can't define causes based on the lack of a correlation.
Pre 1900 warming was from natural causes. Sea levels have been rising long before significant CO2 level increases. Man made causes are being exaggerated. Natural causes are still the main driver of global warming today.
@metal-brain saidI made the assertion based on evidence, not hypothetical arm waving.
You made the assertion, not me. It was a weak assertion because you cannot show why it makes any sense.
Pre 1900 warming was from natural causes. Sea levels have been rising long before significant CO2 level increases. Man made causes are being exaggerated. Natural causes are still the main driver of global warming today.
The evolution of industrial-era warming across the continents and oceans provides a context for future climate change and is important for determining climate sensitivity and the processes that control regional warming. Here we use post-ad 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and model simulations suggests that greenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century and included an enhanced equatorial ocean response mechanism. The development of Southern Hemisphere warming is delayed in reconstructions, but this apparent delay is not reproduced in climate simulations. Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account.
@wildgrass saidWhat evidence? An assertion is not evidence.
I made the assertion based on evidence, not hypothetical arm waving.
The evolution of industrial-era warming across the continents and oceans provides a context for future climate change and is important for determining climate sensitivity and the processes that control regional warming. Here we use post-ad 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industr ...[text shortened]... s to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account.
How did industry in the 19th century cause warming? Your article didn't explain that. It mentioned no greenhouse gasses that I noticed. That assertion is about as silly as the one claiming the Native American population decline caused global cooling. No evidence for that claim either.
Where is your evidence?
I am impressed with this link given to me by frflyer:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691?fbclid=IwAR22W_ew3QeDhDT4D5fu7iTTFYJQwx09BJbBC7kwy96wGorxtoo2cdomB-w
" On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing, and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.
Introduction
During the past five decades, the earth has been warming at a rather high rate ((1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade), International Panel of Climate Change, IPCC-2013)1, resulting in a scientific and social concern. This warming trend is observed in both field2,3 and model data4, and affects the atmosphere both over the land and over the ocean. Based on the published evidence IPCC attributes this temperature increase to the total increase in radiative forcing and asserts that this is primarily caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 during the last 200 years.
..."
It then goes on for considerably longer and concisely and fully explains the exact statistical methods they used along with the actual mathematical equations they used to reach that conclusion.
It is such that it is extremely difficult for any rational and intelligent person to effectively criticize their conclusion that the data clearly indicates that there is significant man made global warming. How can a person rationally and effectively criticize it? Resort to saying there is something wrong with the data? -he would have to specify exactly what is wrong with it and provide good evidence of this. This has never happened and there is no indication it ever would. Or saying their equations are wrong? This is obviously not true. They are just the applied conventional statistical equations correctly adapted for this specific data. So, if there is nothing wrong with the data and their statistical equations are correct and correctly applied to the data, how can their conclusions be unreasonable or invalid?
This is the way good science should be done.
Excellent work.
@humy saidThis thread is about sea level rise, not temperatures. Cherry picked temp data is unimpressive and that is exactly why I created this thread.
I am impressed with this link given to me by frflyer:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691?fbclid=IwAR22W_ew3QeDhDT4D5fu7iTTFYJQwx09BJbBC7kwy96wGorxtoo2cdomB-w
" On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative fo ...[text shortened]... usions be unreasonable or invalid?
This is the way good science should be done.
Excellent work.
Take your gossip to another thread, it means nothing here. This thread is about sea level rise, not the heat island effect. Temp data is a whole lot of BS, which is why that is what alarmists always resort to it. They have nothing without the heat island effect.
@metal-brain saidsince it is temperature that is said to cause sea level rise, it is about BOTH.
This thread is about sea level rise, not temperatures.
Are you claiming here that an increased temperature won't ever melt glaciers on land to then cause sea level rise and thus people's concern of sea level rise has nothing to do with global warming thus temperature?
Cherry picked temp data is unimpressiveIn what way is the temperature data in that link "Cherry picked"? You are obviously just saying that because you don't like what the data shows.
This thread is about sea level rise, not the heat island effect.I didn't say/imply anything about the heat island effect and my link wasn't about the heat island effect. NOWHERE does my link imply it was or even merely might be. The data was from many locations across the whole globe including countryside icecaps deserts mountains oceans jungles and generally over vast wildernesses. My link had extremely little if anything to do with the heat island effect. Apparently you cannot read.
Here is that link again; just state to us all exactly which part of it you think implies specifically the heat island effect;
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691?fbclid=IwAR22W_ew3QeDhDT4D5fu7iTTFYJQwx09BJbBC7kwy96wGorxtoo2cdomB-w
Now compare that with what the heat island effect is by definition;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Explain to us all how the first one above is actually about the second one above...
@humy saidIncreased temps cause sea level rise. We don't have to waste time looking at temp data that is misleading when temps cause sea level rise. Sea level rise is all that is needed and you know it. You just hate the thought of having to admit you are wrong so you digress away from sea level rise, the title of this thread.
since it is temperature that is said to cause sea level rise, it is about BOTH.
Are you claiming here that an increased temperature won't ever melt glaciers on land to then cause sea level rise and thus people's concern of sea level rise has nothing to do with global warming thus temperature?Cherry picked temp data is unimpressiveIn what way is the temperat ...[text shortened]... n_heat_island
Explain to us all how the first one above is actually about the second one above...
Stop digressing. This is about sea level rise. If you cannot prove your case with sea level rise you sure can't do it with cherry picked temp data. Do you dispute the NASA data? If not, why are you avoiding it like the plague using digression tactics?
@metal-brain saidSo you contradict yourself by admitting that discussion of sea level rise is also about increasing temperatures, just as I said; Thank you. So what is the bases of your ranting complaint of me injecting a link about evidence for increasing temperatures (more specifically, evidence for man made global warming) into this thread? Why shouldn't any of us be allowed to do that?
Increased temps cause sea level rise.
And do you now accept the fact that I didn't mention the heat island effect and my link has extremely little if anything to do with the heat island effect? Contrary to your claim, it wasn't ME that introduced this irrelevancy (the heat island effect) to this thread but YOU; -such are your stupid false accusations.
One thing you neglect, if ocean temperatures rise the sea level will rise havin nothing to do with melting ice. That is a well known fact, water will expand a small amount with rising temperatures.
@Metal-Brain
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
@sonhouse saidI don't neglect any of those things. They all contributed to the sea level rise from NASA data. This sea level rise trend started from natural causes. That is a fact.
One thing you neglect, if ocean temperatures rise the sea level will rise havin nothing to do with melting ice. That is a well known fact, water will expand a small amount with rising temperatures.
@Metal-Brain
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html