Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW

[jillian]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage.

butwhatchagonnado?

 

[SSDD]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage.

butwhatchagonnado?

Nice try, but I doubt that you will ever be able to do the weasel as good as crick...of course science exists...what does not exist is observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis... but if you believe some exists...bring it here...slap me down with it...make me your bitch....

We both know, that it isn't going to happen though...because no such data exists....or maybe you don't know...but will soon find out if you try to bring some here.

butwhatchgonnado?

 

[jillian]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage.

butwhatchagonnado?

Nice try, but I doubt that you will ever be able to do the weasel as good as crick...of course science exists...what does not exist is observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis... but if you believe some exists...bring it here...slap me down with it...make me your bitch....

We both know, that it isn't going to happen though...because no such data exists....or maybe you don't know...but will soon find out if you try to bring some here.

butwhatchgonnado?

ok bubbalah. we can pretend.

me? i think i'll go with he actual scientists and not the paid shills of the fossil fuels industry.

thanks.

 

[SSDD]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage.

butwhatchagonnado?

Nice try, but I doubt that you will ever be able to do the weasel as good as crick...of course science exists...what does not exist is observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis... but if you believe some exists...bring it here...slap me down with it...make me your bitch....

We both know, that it isn't going to happen though...because no such data exists....or maybe you don't know...but will soon find out if you try to bring some here.

butwhatchgonnado?

ok bubbalah. we can pretend.

Why does the fact that you come back with no data of the sort I stated categorically does not exist not surprise me?....answer...because it does not exist...and yet, you believe...or to use your word...you pretend....how stupid does that make you?

 

[jc456]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage.

butwhatchagonnado?

not believe you nor your scientists!

 

[jc456]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage.

butwhatchagonnado?

Nice try, but I doubt that you will ever be able to do the weasel as good as crick...of course science exists...what does not exist is observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis... but if you believe some exists...bring it here...slap me down with it...make me your bitch....

We both know, that it isn't going to happen though...because no such data exists....or maybe you don't know...but will soon find out if you try to bring some here.

butwhatchgonnado?

ok bubbalah. we can pretend.

me? i think i'll go with he actual scientists and not the paid shills of the fossil fuels industry.

thanks.

And you proved his point.

Derp!!!!

 

[IanC]

If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.

Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.

Except the surface isn't warming either, except in the minds of data altering mainstream climate science...is it Ian...even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise....and the fact remains that at the TOA...ougoing LW continues to rise. These predictions were made and touted to be the smoking guns...the fingerprints of AGW...and yet, they haven't come to pass...in real science Ian, when a hypothesis fails a single predictive test, it is tossed in favor of a different hypothesis which is better able to explain and predict....but you still believe Ian....what exactly do you have invested that would prompt you to continue to believe in a hypothesis which has littered the landscape with failed predictions? How far must it go before you actually admit that you were wrong?...would a long period of cooling convince you?...even if CO2 continues to increase?....what would it take to falsify the hypothesis in your mind Ian?

The warming influence is still there whether the overall surface temperature is warming or cooling. I have never said CO2 was the only contributing factor, or even the most important. Quite the opposite actually. But the CO2 portion of the Greenhouse Effect obviously exists. The amount of influence is what is in question, and very difficult to determine because of all the other factors.

Magical CO2 at work again....causing warming even when there is no warming...do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? There is one effect of warming....and that is increasing temperatures...if it isn't getting warmer.....then it isn't warming...CO2 has no effect on the temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere....

It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals.

CO2's influence is there whether the surface temperature is warming, cooling or staying the same.

 

[jc456]

here, I found this link that discusses energy on the planet.

I thought it would be interesting to share:

SpringerPlus

"Background
It is an undisputed fact that the atmosphere can appreciably heat a planet’s surface above the temperature of an airless environment receiving the same stellar irradiance. Known as a natural Greenhouse Effect (GE), this extra atmospheric warmth is presently completely attributed to the absorption and re-emission of upwelling long-wave radiation by heat-absorbing gases such as CO2, water vapor, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and others (Schmidt et al. 2010; Lacis et al. 2010). Thus, GE has two scientific measures at the present (Lacis et al. 2013): a) as an observed difference in the outgoing global infrared flux (W m−2) between the planet surface and the top of the atmosphere (Ramanathan and Inamdar 2006; Schmidt et al. 2010; Pierrehumbert 2011); and b) as an extra warmth or increased temperature at the surface (Hansen et al. 1981; Schmidt et al. 2010; Lacis et al. 2010, 2013). This study explores the latter measure of GE using Earth as an example. The additional warmth provided by GE creates climate conditions that foster life on our Planet by enabling the existence of liquid oceans and providing for a global water cycle (Pierrehumbert 2010). In order to better distinguish between the two measures of GE and to facilitate a proper understanding of our analysis and results, we hereto introduce the term Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) to describe the total extra warmth near a planet surface measured as a difference (K) between the planet’s present mean global surface temperature and an estimated planetary reference temperature in the absence of atmosphere. By referring to the whole atmosphere, ATE also allows for investigation of potential contributions beyond those currently attributed to greenhouse gases."

 

[SSDD]

It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals..

So you have a bank account where you can make small deposits of zero on a regular basis and actually increase the value of your account?...where can I sign up for such an account?...do I have to believe in magic in order to get such an account?...can I spend this imaginary money in the real world?

CO2's influence is there whether the surface temperature is warming, cooling or staying the same.

FINALLY...a point upon which we can agree....it doesn't matter whether the earth is warming or cooling...the influence CO2 has on the temperature is zero beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere....

I know what you meant...so don't get your panties in a wad....you meant that even when it is cooling, it is warming...like I said...you believe in magic.

 

[IanC]

It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals..

So you have a bank account where you can make small deposits of zero on a regular basis and actually increase the value of your account?...where can I sign up for such an account?...do I have to believe in magic in order to get such an account?...can I spend this imaginary money in the real world?

CO2's influence is there whether the surface temperature is warming, cooling or staying the same.

FINALLY...a point upon which we can agree....it doesn't matter whether the earth is warming or cooling...the influence CO2 has on the temperature is zero beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere....

I know what you meant...so don't get your panties in a wad....you meant that even when it is cooling, it is warming...like I said...you believe in magic.

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

The surface produces IR. Some of which is blocked from escaping directly into space by CO2. That energy is captured by the atmosphere, therefore the temperature is warmer than if that energy was simply lost immediately. Temperature is a function of both energy input and energy output. CO2 decreases output therefore temperature must go up.

I agree that the mass of the atmosphere is important, that the fluctuations between stored potential energy and kinetic energy is the basis of weather, and must be incorporated into any theory that claims to explain the climate.

I also think any changes we are making to the amount of CO2 in the air are trivial in the overall picture. What I don't understand is how wackos like you proclaim that CO2 makes no difference at all, with a straight face. Your personal version of physics is absurd and you fail to address any logical inconsistencies that are pointed out to you.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

 

[jc456]

It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals..

So you have a bank account where you can make small deposits of zero on a regular basis and actually increase the value of your account?...where can I sign up for such an account?...do I have to believe in magic in order to get such an account?...can I spend this imaginary money in the real world?

CO2's influence is there whether the surface temperature is warming, cooling or staying the same.

FINALLY...a point upon which we can agree....it doesn't matter whether the earth is warming or cooling...the influence CO2 has on the temperature is zero beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere....

I know what you meant...so don't get your panties in a wad....you meant that even when it is cooling, it is warming...like I said...you believe in magic.

Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

The surface produces IR. Some of which is blocked from escaping directly into space by CO2. That energy is captured by the atmosphere, therefore the temperature is warmer than if that energy was simply lost immediately. Temperature is a function of both energy input and energy output. CO2 decreases output therefore temperature must go up.

I agree that the mass of the atmosphere is important, that the fluctuations between stored potential energy and kinetic energy is the basis of weather, and must be incorporated into any theory that claims to explain the climate.

I also think any changes we are making to the amount of CO2 in the air are trivial in the overall picture. What I don't understand is how wackos like you proclaim that CO2 makes no difference at all, with a straight face. Your personal version of physics is absurd and you fail to address any logical inconsistencies that are pointed out to you.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .

my personal version of physics is that science is tested. It is not just a mathematical equation. Making my version the only scientific one. And CO2 does not add any influence in temperatures. And sir, you can't prove it. So stop all your posturing with no facts.

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.

I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

have you not investigated the full properties of CO2? I've posted links that show why CO2 doesn't always absorb. I can't believe you.

 

[jc456]

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

and they avoid colliding with O and N molecules when in the atmosphere cause they are that magical.