• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by bradschrag

  1. So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2? Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming? This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.
  2. We do actually. Because nature has actually been absorbing some of our emissions from the atm. We have emitted far more co2 than how much co2 has actually risen. We are responsible for the full increase.
  3. And you didn't answer the question. Is claiming that only humans can change climate the same as claiming humans are currently changing the climate?
  4. Here, you state that nature does not need humans to change climate (your words, not mine). The implied assertion here is that you are stating my claim to be that nature requires humans to change climate. Here, you tell me to not mischaracterize your assertion that I claimed only humans can change climate. They are your words, not mine. No, I'm not dismissing your argument based on who you are. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy and inconsistency you are drawing between my statement (humans are changing the climate) and your response (nature doesn't need humans t
  5. And I did define them. Are or are not humans responsible for increase in atm co2 from preindustrial levels to current levels? You still haven't answered.
  6. Be clear in your answer: Is claiming that only humans can change climate the same as claiming humans are currently changing the climate?
  7. You agreed that Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. You bucked at the question of whether it not humans were driving up emissions, along for clarity on "driving up". That's what I'm doing now, clarifying. Yes or no, fossil fuel emissions have driven atm co2 from preindustrial levels to their current levels?
  8. That humans are changing the climate is a very different claim from only humans can change the climate. Is this dishonesty or ignorance on your part causing you to not see the logical difference between those two statements?
  9. Ok, so let's keep working through this 1 step at a time. Yes or no, burning fossil fuels has driven atm co2 from 280-~415 currently?
  10. Again, that's a straw man. No is claiming the climate hasn't changed. No is claiming co2 levels haven't risen and fallen (I've already given a link connecting past climate to a mechanism, mainly orbital cycles). No one has claimed nature requires humans to change climate. Do you see how you are defeating arguments that no one has made? Emissions of co2 from burning fossil fuels has driven atm concentrations from 280-415. Yes or no? If no, please explain 1) what is causing the increase and 2) where is the co2 from burning FF going?
  11. No it doesn't. There isn't mechanism that describes the current warming except for the change in the radiative properties of the planet, due to emissions of co2. I already described Milakovitch Cycles and no one has claimed the climate hasn't changed. Do you always stuff your straw men with red herring?
  12. Not quite, the article is peer reviewed literature that is based on established theories and mechanisms. If you have something better to put forward, b please do so. It supports exactly what this individual told you. Why didn't you raise concerns with his comment but you insist this article is only "opinions". Your second statement (billions dying) is an opinion, unless you of course have something more to back it up.
  13. Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming. You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.
  14. Because dismissal/disagreement somewhere early in the chain of logic throws out tall other answers. It's much simpler to step through the process until a specific point of disagreement is reached. As it is, I have trouble parsing what exactly you are asking for given the nature of your responses.
  15. You said that someone mentioned to you the next ice age has been put on hold. I agreed with that statement, trying to give a bit of insight as to why. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Read the paper if you are still confused:
  16. Well if you want now than opinions, there are papers discussing such topics. Glacial/interglacials follow the Milakovitch Cycles quite well. MC if simply a formula approximating insolation at 60N. The choice behind 60N is that Milakovitch hypothesized that because 60N has a relatively large portion of glaciers, it might influence the climate on long, gradual timescale. The reason for the change is a change in Earth's albedo, as 60N receives more sunlight, glaciers recede, albedo drops, system warms. The warming system has a positive feedback due to the release of co2 from the ocea
  17. Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?
  18. Throughout your ramblings and diatribe above, you often refer to "these peoples" thoughts, motivations, intentions, etc. I'm curious, why do you think you know my thoughts, motivations, and intentions?
  19. I'm trying to start at the beginning so we can pinpoint a specific disagreement. And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless. But thanks for acting as if I hadn't already stated that.
  20. Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.
  21. You are correct, her's wasn't aimed at government. Let me rephrase: When spouting conspiracies, the burden of proof is on the spouter. That's why I asked her to bring evidence to support her assertions.