http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

@BOG

This is exactly what climatologists are trying to measure.

I'm sure they're also trying to quantify how sunspots affect the climate as well. Did you do the math about sunspots before coming to the conclusion that they're the only predictors of future climate change?

So it hasn't been measured, but you believe it to be true.

@ Fulhamish

Thanks for the link. Since the LIA and MWP were mostly observed in Europe, while these data were gained from studying tree rings, are you sure the two are really disagreeing? Because it says he's at the University of Massachusetts, so I guess these trees grew in the American continent. (which makes sense, since there are not too many thousand year old trees in Europe anymore).

bog, please answer me as well. thanks <3

@ BOG

Are you saying your belief is more grounded in data than mine?

Because thus far you have not brought a single scientific fact into the discussion, other than "all energy comes from the sun" which I think is not true the way you frame it, nor does it debunk any of the theory aboug GHGs.

@ boylee. wow! Are you actually saying that in Mann's assesment of past GLOBAL temperature the sampling was biased? Let's shake on it there!

In fact there is evidence of a MWP and LIA in the Americas:
Wahl, E. R., Diaz, H. F., & Ohlwein, C. (2012). A pollen-based reconstruction of summer temperature in central North America and implications for circulation patterns during medieval times. Global and Planetary Change, 84, 66-74.

And lots more.

(Incidentally there was a Romabn Warm Period too.)

So I ask again why do you think that the MWP and LIA are missing from Mann's graph?

Boy - you are ignoring the facts.
Fact - We had an ice age
Fact - the ice age went away
Fact - All this happened without man around

But you believe that 'somehow' now man causes climate change.

So tell me, how does your theory of man caused global warming explain the last ice age? Your theory has to explain reality. Your theory has to be congruent with the reality observed. Those are the facts you ignore.

Since there seems to be much confusion as to the physics of the greenhouse effect, here is a link. The physics of the greenhouse effect itself has been known for over a century, and predates the idea of global warming, which is a runaway greenhouse effect.
https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-1/

After reading that introduction to the physics of greenhouse effect, which is in essence an energy balance, then maybe you will understand why the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere directly affects the temperature of Earth, even though the incoming radiation from the Sun remains the same.

@bog, since you ignored me twice, i'm going to repeat my questions to you.

@bog: "kas " i asked if we could survive without ghgs."
Of course not."

to quote you: FINALLY! an intelligent response.

that means (and correct me if i'm misinterpreting your words) that you think that it would be too cold on earth if there were no greenhouse gases, correct?
that also means that if there are too many greenhouse gases, the earth will become hotter, correct?

BOG you also assume that a change in climate can have only one cause, which is simply not true, it is a complex system with many factors. Some are related to humans, some are not.

He's also a troll, so I don't know about that.

Boy "BOG you also assume that a change in climate can have only one cause, which is simply not true, it is a complex system with many factors. Some are related to humans, some are not." Show how man causes the climate to change. Yes, man can 'seed' the clouds to induce rain. Man can cause some pollution.

But as I have been asking repeatedly, show how man causes the climate to change. Do the math.

Kas - "that means (and correct me if i'm misinterpreting your words) that you think that it would be too cold on earth if there were no greenhouse gases, correct? The atmosphere doesn't change the amount of energy we get from the sun. Well, it does reflect some heat. But look at Mars. Wide range of temperature. The atmosphere stabilizes the temperature. Without an atmosphere, the earth would be too cold and too hot.

"that also means that if there are too many greenhouse gases, the earth will become hotter, correct?" No. That doesn't follow. The temperature follows the amount of energy we get from the sun. Think of it this way - can you change the temperature of your house by changing the amount of gases you have? Can you heat your house by adding CO2? No. You need energy to heat your house.

bot "Some are related to humans, some are not." Show me the ones that are related to humans. Show the math.

Look, what you gotta understand, is that nothing humans do does anything at all to the planet, ever. I mean, it's not like we move more rock around the planet than any other organism, or dump more waste into the ecosystem than any other organism, or anything like that. Clearly absolutely nothing we do does anything likely to change or poison our environment. Ever. Nothing. That's obvious. I'm convinced. Thanks, BaldOldGuy for leading me to the light.

P.S.: Does anyone have a spare coal fired power plant? I need one in my backyard immediately so my children will grow up properly.

Would you like some nuclear waste with that? I hear its pretty good for your garden.

Thor "Look, what you gotta understand, is that nothing humans do does anything at all to the planet, ever." Nobody is suggesting that. Humans can do great harm to the earth.

But tell me, how do we create energy? If you build a greenhouse on Pluto, does the mix of gasses make it warm? Look at Apollo 13, when they were stranded in space. CO2 levels rose in their craft. They were freezing.

Thor "Does anyone have a spare coal fired power plant? I need one in my backyard immediately so my children will grow up properly" Why don't you just breathe on them to keep them warm? Give them more CO2 and they will never get cold.

Ooh, yeah, I need me some nuclear waste too, the kids need super powers, and they don't seem to have any yet.

Why not throw in some industrial waste? Last I heard, mercury is really good for your brain.

Aha! Australia has that covered, we eat tonnes of shark, good old top level predator fish high in mercury. I just need to get on board with that plan instead of eating those silly sustainable fishes. Excellent.

Life is so much *easier* when you understand that absolutely nothing you do harms the planet! I really don't know why I didn't get on board with this plan earlier in life. Missing out.

This is beyond the scope of my abilities, but someone needs to get BOG to agree that greenhouse gasses trap more solar radiation than non greenhouse gasses. If BOG can admit this, even his stubbornness cannot refute the logic that follows: Increasing the amount of any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by even one molecule increases the temperature of that atmosphere, however small that increase may be.

The trick is to somehow "show the math," I guess. Anyone up for it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

has the math. Which BOG will simply say "haha, wikipedia is rubbish it's all a conspiracy" to.

There is literally no point arguing facts or logic with a denier.