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

[Crick]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

nope.

Like that.

 

[IanC]

Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked? Nothing.

did you mean to say someone else? I only duck questions that involve making effort that will just be ignored by the questioner.

 

[SSDD]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.

 

[IanC]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.

AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.

The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.

We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement

The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.

The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.


I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.

To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.

AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.

The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.

We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement

The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.

The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.


I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.

To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.

Got yourself a fine correlation there...but nothing like actual evidence in support of the claim that mankind is altering the global climate...the warming is in VERY large part due to data manipulation...and to date, there is no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect...it remains hypothetical....like all warmers, you assume a great deal but when it comes to evidence in support of your belief...actual evidence...there just isn't any.

 

[jc456]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.

AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.

The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.

We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement

The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.

The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.


I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.

To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.

wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post. wow.

 

[SSDD]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.

AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.

The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.

We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement

The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.

The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.


I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.

To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.

wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post. wow.

Sounds remarkably like crick, rocks and mammoth doesn't he?

 

[IanC]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.

AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.

The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.

We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement

The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.

The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.


I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.

To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.

wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post. wow.

Sounds remarkably like crick, rocks and mammoth doesn't he?

I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.

I am not a rabid denier like you who places extra weight on inconsistencies, complexities and poorly defined terms to jump to erroneous conclusions .

I am not a doomsaying alarmist like Crick or Old Rocks who parrot the most extreme authority figure that they can find, only to change their position when they find someone else even more extreme.

The Greenhouse Effect is real, but the actual amount of warming is up for debate.

The increase of temperature for the Earth is real, although the exact amount for the last 150 years is up for debate.

Mankind's addition of CO2 is real, how much is up for debate.

The evidence is solid that mankind has created a warming influence via the Greenhouse Effect by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This would be true even if the world was cooling! Only the amount of influence is up for debate.

This is an example of how a skeptic should think. I can draw a conclusion that Co2 has a warming influence but I cannot say that the present warming is exclusively due to CO2, because there are too many other poorly understood or unknown factors to be sure of either the amount of CO2's influence, or the total cause and amount the Earth's warming.

 

[SSDD]

I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.

No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?

 

[IanC]

I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.

No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?

So tell me SSDD, do you believe in Newton's First Law? Because every observation ever made says it's wrong.

How about Newton's second law? Is it obviously wrong, or just incomplete?

Who has seen a body in motion with no forces acting upon it? No one. Who cares if the second law breaks down at relativistic speeds? Next to no one

Are the basic principles involved important even if unobserved under normal conditions? Of course!

 

[SSDD]

I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.

No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?

So tell me SSDD, do you believe in Newton's First Law? Because every observation ever made says it's wrong.

Diversion...that is useful in magic...but not science...are you pushing science or magic?

You really think that every observation made says that Newton's first law is wrong? Really?

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Describe how every observation ever made says that it is wrong. Show me a single observation which proves it wrong..much less every observation ever made.

 

[IanC]

I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.

No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?

So tell me SSDD, do you believe in Newton's First Law? Because every observation ever made says it's wrong.

Diversion...that is useful in magic...but not science...are you pushing science or magic?

You really think that every observation made says that Newton's first law is wrong? Really?

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Describe how every observation ever made says that it is wrong. Show me a single observation which proves it wrong..much less every observation ever made.

No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof.

I agree with Newton's first law, and a bunch of other implied theoretical laws and postulates that cannot actually be seen in reality. The square root of negative one is imaginary but ever so useful.

You commonly ask for virtual proof of things that are built up from theoretical first principles. When no physically derived evidence is possible you say it is all theory and mumbo jumbo. And then claim something else which also cannot be proven.

 

[SSDD]

[


No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof.

So there are no observations that it is wrong....and the first one that is made will then, cause the law to be rewritten or scrapped.....there is, however, every observation ever made that shows that your notion of energy transfer is wrong.

 

[IanC]

[


No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof.

So there are no observations that it is wrong....and the first one that is made will then, cause the law to be rewritten or scrapped.....there is, however, every observation ever made that shows that your notion of energy transfer is wrong.

So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.

You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.

 

[SSDD]

So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.

You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.

So now you are reduced to equivocating? You get more like rocks, crick, and mammoth every day... There are plenty of observations that your ideas on back radiation are wrong as evidenced by the fact that it can't be measured at ambient temperature....it doesn't exist...

 

[IanC]

So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.

You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.

So now you are reduced to equivocating? You get more like rocks, crick, and mammoth every day... There are plenty of observations that your ideas on back radiation are wrong as evidenced by the fact that it can't be measured at ambient temperature....it doesn't exist...

Actually I am just using your method of arguing.

Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.

You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '. Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.

You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR. Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?

It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!

 

[SSDD]

Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.

No..Ian...I never made such a claim...one more instance of you making up an argument to rail against...I said that back radiation has not (because it does not exist) been measured at ambient temperature.

You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '. Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.

Already have.

You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR. Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?

Don't need to...having proved that they are not measuring back radiation.

It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!

Unlike you ian, proof exists in support of my position...that is why I hold my position...unlike you who relies entirely on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models....you don't have the first bit of proof to support any of what you believe...while I tend to only believe what is supportable by observable, measurable, testable, empirical data.

 

[IanC]

Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.

No..Ian...I never made such a claim...one more instance of you making up an argument to rail against...I said that back radiation has not (because it does not exist) been measured at ambient temperature.

You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '. Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.

Already have.

You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR. Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?

Don't need to...having proved that they are not measuring back radiation.

It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!

Unlike you ian, proof exists in support of my position...that is why I hold my position...unlike you who relies entirely on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models....you don't have the first bit of proof to support any of what you believe...while I tend to only believe what is supportable by observable, measurable, testable, empirical data.

Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.

In other words, PROVE IT.

 

[SSDD]

Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.

In other words, PROVE IT.

Failure of a tropospheric hot spot to develop and then get warmer as atmospheric CO2 increases...


There, observable, measurable, empirical evidence in support of my statement...ie...proof.

 

[IanC]

Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.

In other words, PROVE IT.

Failure of a tropospheric hot spot to develop and then get warmer as atmospheric CO2 increases...


There, observable, measurable, empirical evidence in support of my statement...ie...proof.

You are making unsupported declarative statements again. You haven't described the the present tropospheric hotspot or the reasons why it is there. You haven't described the consensus position and predictions for the hotspot and how they diverge from reality. You haven't described the difference between how H2O affects the hotspot and how CO2 affects it.

You haven't said much of anything and you certainly haven't explained your position. Get on with it, explain your position and supply evidence to support it. Prove it.