Quote:
Originally posted by alex_J:
dhammer: You're mistaken in suggesting "they" are counting all of the increase as human-caused. It's widely acknowledged that solar flux accounts for part of the trend - but a small one. And you make broad statements about how scientific data is presented without giving any specifics. Your provision of "several links to places where the scientist have talked about other causes" isn't the same as supporting the claim that "most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles". You're avoiding the point.
then you must not be reading them. one of them specificly pointed out that models that went by man being the only cause were way off, while the ones that ignored mans influence were only off a much smaller amount. This to me means that man is not the primary cause. Only by including all causes did they get close to the mark (notice only close) without haveing to do adjustments. Those models did not show a major upwards trend because there is evidence some of those cycles are going to be dropping. Some even show a moderate drop in temperature for the next half century. Only the ones that show man as the primary cause show the temperature going totally out of wack. The ones that show man as being the primary cause are the ones IPCC used that totally removed the little ice age and the mid ages global warming.

Quote:
Your responses to my remark don't answer the question of what natural mechanisms account for the persistent warming trend. What we do have is a sharp rise in CO2, with CO2 being the primary persistent greenhouse gas and a precursor to other changes that amplify warming. Your claim that man isn't primarily responsible remains unsupported. Until I see links to studies that have passed peer review suggesting that some combination of natural effects are mostly responsible, while human emission of 7+ gigatons of carbon equivalent annually has little effect, I'm done here.
why should i repeat the links when you dont read them the first time, or discount them because they are not of the correct political party.

as to the link between co2 and temperature, better look at the graphs you and da have previded. WHEN they put them together, the co2 rise is after the temperature rise, not preceding it. according to the theory that the oceans are delaying the changes by assorbing it, there should be a signifacant lead time, yet its not even in existance much of the time.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.