Sigh. Just because something is a green house gas doesn't mean it is a significant driver of temperature.
When you jump up and down, you are, by definition, affecting the earth through the transfer of your kinetic energy. However, that doesn't mean that it's measurable.
Saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore if it goes up it is going to cause a measurable rise in temperature.
As a reminder, this graph, which comes from NOAA.gov makes it patently obvious that CO2 isn't a driver:
Take a look at how temperatures go back down BEFORE CO2 levels go down. I don't know if the issue here is whether I'm dealing with people who have cognitive dissonance or simply are just not familiar with reading graphs. I mean that with no disrespect intended. Lots of people just have a hard time grasping the tools of statistical analysis.
Geo asked what it would take to "prove" global warming. That's a nonsensical question. The question isn't whether we believe in climate change. The question is whether we believe man-made CO2 production is having a significant effect on global temperatures.
When discussing these issues, having done so over many years, I routinely get the impression that AGW advocates don't really understand the links or the IPCC report.
One can believe in climate change without believing that humans are the cause. One can believe that humans are the cause without believing that CO2 is having a measurable affect. Unfortunately, too many leftists, like in so many other fields of study, don't seem to be able to make these distinctions. So I will say it again: There is zero evidence that CO2 levels have been a primary driver of worldwide temperature increases. That does not mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
Carbon Tetrachloride is also a greenhouse gas too. That doesn't mean it is having a measurable effect on temperatures. Chlorodifluoromethane is also a greenhouse gas and levels of that have gone up a LOT more (like 3X more) than CO2.
The problem, IMO, is that leftists tend to be intellectually sympathetic to any hypothesis that ultimately can be blamed on wealth (and let's face it, CO2 production is the result of our increasing global standard of living). So they don't really investigate beyond that hypothesis (even though, btw, the IPCC does talk about Carbon Tetrachloride and Chlorodifluoromethane and their increases but the typical AGW advocate hasn't actually bothered to read it.
What galls me are these lay people who have never bothered to do any of their own research into the matter (and I don't mean climatology I am simply talking about reading their reports before they've been politicized by non-scientists). Instead, they get their info from politically motivated websites and just regurgitate it smugly with nonsense like "Oh, you don't believe the scientists".
In fact, I do believe the scientists. I just wish more people would read and understand what they say instead of reading papers written by those with a political agenda.
You want me to buy into AGW? Ok, explain how historical temperatures (including ones in the 20th century) can significantly drop while CO2 levels are either still high or actually climbing.