Climate change skeptic turned proponent

[Surgenator]

First off, the negative feedback mechanism would cool the earth not heat it. So without a negative feedback mechanism we should expect an exponential rise in temperature.

Sorry yes I meant positive feedback mechanism. We do know there is a negative feedback mechanism (in the presence of increased CO2 the oceans increase their absorption) that does go a way to maintaining the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

You have to show that rate of antropogenic CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is equal to the rate of CO2 absorbed by the ocean. However, we know this is not the case since the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up by 40% according to your numbers.

Also, the ocean water store a lot of natural GHG. As the water warms up, it can holds less and less GHG, giving a positive feedback.

As the surface temperature increases, ice melts which reduces the amount of light reflected back into space. Hence, a positive feedback.

CO2 is a GHG. How do other GHG direct it, but not the CO2 GHG? How can you get such a high correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise?

Because it's just a correlation, and it in fact doesn't correlate correctly until it's passed through a complicated computer modelling program that specifically has a positive feedback parameter on the CO2. Without knowing what it is or why it's there. Is it H2O? Nitrogen? Something else? All they say is that they "know it exists because it's in the computer models"; and why is it in the computer models? Because they put it there.

Muller doesn't have complicated modeling programs. His is a simple correlation/anti-correlation study of previous trends to current trends.

The argument for antropogenic GHG is very simple. Before we pumped GHG into the atmosphere we had X climate patterns. After we pumped GHG into the atmosphere we have Y climate patterns. X does not equal Y. Y is hotter than X. The only difference between the two sets is if human were pumping GHG into the atmosphere. You can waste your time arguing about the details, but the overall picture tells only one story.

Let's put this in perspective, say the Higgs Boson. It is believed that the Higgs Boson may have been experimentally observed, however well before we observed it we described it in detail what was thought to exist. With CO2's positive feedback element there's no theory whatsoever behind it, other than the fact that "if you add that parameter to the computer model you can correlate climate change to being driving by CO2". There was no theory before that which supported the idea, and it hasn't been experimentally observed. And with this we're not talking about something as difficult to observe as the Higgs Boson - if it was there it should be obvious and easy to test for and confirm.

Really, no theory. How about is ice mealting when it is hot not a theory? How is ice reflects light better than dirt not a theory? How is Henry's law of gas concentration in water not a theory?

We don't have to assume anything. The temperatures of the earth at the MWP were measured.

What with weather stations do you mean?

I gave you the research paper link and quote from it that states where they got their temperature samples from. So please don't strawman me.

We have this very well known cause, antropogenic GHG. The other theories were not able to reproduce the heating trend we're seeing.

So what? There doesn't have to be any other theory for the present one to be incorrect.

True, the present one does not have to be correct. However, it matches the heating trend very well. Coincidence, I think not.

Where are you getting your numbers for the decrease in temperature? Plus, your argument is "our instruments can't measure it then it's not worth it." That is ridiculous.

No, saying that something less than 0.1 degrees is meaningful is ridiculous.

How do you know it's ridiculous? How do you a 0.1 degree decrease is not significant?