What is it that you deny? There are multiple steps in the pro-AGW argument:?
1) The average temperature of the Earth has increased in the past 70 years. 2) Consider a column of air, lit from above by sunshine. If you increase the fraction of CO2 in the air, the ground temperature increases. 3) On average, each human burns a ton of fossil fuel per year, emitting CO2. 4) The measured increase in CO2 is consistent with about half of the human-emitted CO2 dwelling in the atmosphere for many decades. 5) Complex computer models of the Earth's climate suggest that if the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 continues, temperatures will be several degrees hotter at the end of this century. 6) If the few degrees of warming due to CO2 causes the net release of methane and other greenhouse gasses, the maximum effect in the next few centuries could be more than 10 C. 7) Global warming by more than 10 C would likely result in the extinction of a majority of species and a vast reduction in human population.
2018-12-19T16:46:53Z
About point 2: this is a question about the stationary state of a column of air that is lit from above by sunshine, over the course of a single day and night. This can be calculated, although the calculation is complex, involving literally thousands of atomic and molecular transitions. This has been done and compared to in situ measurements of both the chemical abundances and the spectral energy distribution of the radiation. The agreement is very good.
2018-12-19T16:50:48Z
About point 5: This is about predictions based on computer modelling. It is certainly true that these models can only be validated in the future, and could be wrong as a result of unforseen effects. However, the IPCC models done in 1993 that were predictions for 2018 are seen to be essentially correct (so far). I agree that this is a warning of POSSIBLE danger, not a warning of certain danger.
2018-12-24T22:18:37Z
Best answer goes to Sagebrush for being the most clear about what it is he denies.
Sagebrush2018-12-19T14:49:57Z
Favorite Answer
1) The average temperature of the Earth has increased in the past 70 years. CORRECTION: The Earth's temperature has been rising since around 1650. Look it up! It is on page 202 of the 1990 IPCC report. CORRECTION 2: If these know it all scientists really think that is true, how come so many of them that were alive at the time predicted an ICE AGE?
2) Consider a column of air, lit from above by sunshine. If you increase the fraction of CO2 in the air, the ground temperature increases.
I have seen many of those 'experiments' and they aren't worth anything near scientific.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/ (This one was so visibly bad they finally took it off the internet.)
3) On average, each human burns a ton of fossil fuel per year, emitting CO2. WOW! That is amazing that you figured that out. But what does that mean about the Earth warming? NOTHING! May I direct your attention to this chart:
Notice that this chart uses (1)RAW DATA. (2) The temperature goes down. (3) And historically the CO2 level went up during that same period.
4) The measured increase in CO2 is consistent with about half of the human-emitted CO2 dwelling in the atmosphere for many decades.
This measured increase is taken beside a volcano and is used for the 'world standard. Very unscientific! It may have more to do with volcano activity than CO2 level worldwide.
6) If the few degrees of warming due to CO2 causes the net release of methane and other greenhouse gasses, the maximum effect in the next few centuries could be more than 10 C.
"If the few degrees of warming due to CO2" Now you are getting pathetic! You just claim CO2 is raising the temperature. You have no proof! In a scientific evaluation one must always establish the first point before going on to the second point. Where did you learn science? Those 'multiple steps' you are taking are really multiple stumbles. And if you knew anything about science you surely would know at least that much!
7) Global warming by more than 10 C would likely result in the extinction of a majority of species and a vast reduction in human population.
That is just theory. Do you know the difference between fact and theory? I would explain it to you but your head is so filled with obvious crap that it doesn't have room for true science. And your seven steps confirm that.
Go back and learn some real science and for Pete's sake, stop listening to Al Gore and Bill Nye!
I did not read your long post. I deny that any of the proposed solutions would be effective in addressing CO2, and they all have massive costs especially to the poor in the US. So no carbon tax, little to no cap and trade, no to bribing other developing countries to become better competitors, no to allowing developing countries to increase their emissions. Pretty simple!
It isn't a matter of deny. It is matter of having proper skepticism for unproved theories. <<<1) The average temperature of the Earth has increased in the past 70 years.>>> It has been warming for 300 years. Interesting that you failed to mention that. <<<2) Consider a column of air, lit from above by sunshine. If you increase the fraction of CO2 in the air, the ground temperature increases.>>> Yet temperatures barely rose in the last 20 years even as CO2 continued to increase. <<<3) 4) On average, each human burns a ton of fossil fuel per year, emitting CO2.>>> No response needed.
<<<5) Complex computer models of the Earth's climate suggest that if the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 continues, temperatures will be several degrees hotter at the end of this century.>>> Yeah they are very complex using variables that are poorly understood. Garbage in, garbage out. <<6) If the few degrees of warming due to CO2 causes the net release of methane and other greenhouse gasses, the maximum effect in the next few centuries could be more than 10 C.>> Nonsense
<<7) Global warming by more than 10 C would likely result in the extinction of a majority of species and a vast reduction in human population.>> Yeah and we could be attacked by rabid wombats. Some risks I'm willing to take.