Here is a question for all the AGW believers

[Old Rocks]

This is real science from real scientists. Not claptrap from paid deniers.

Richard Alley | Hot Topic

 

[Kosh]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

Much of what you listed has not really been studied as the majority of the money 95% goes to prove that man made CO2 drives climate.

However all the evidence collected has proven that CO2 doe NOT drive climate.

So the real deniers are those that don't believe in real science just the AGW religion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

Much of what you listed has not really been studied as the majority of the money 95% goes to prove that man made CO2 drives climate.

However all the evidence collected has proven that CO2 doe NOT drive climate.

So the real deniers are those that don't believe in real science just the AGW religion.

You dumb ass. Tyndall proved that CO2 is a major driver in 1858. The mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs was refined many times since. Simple fact, adding GHGs to the atmosphere increases the heat the atmosphere absorbs from the outgoing radiation from the earth.

You really wish to be in a competition with the rest of the bozos here to prove who can make the dumbest statements?

 

[Old Rocks]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

Much of what you listed has not really been studied as the majority of the money 95% goes to prove that man made CO2 drives climate.

However all the evidence collected has proven that CO2 doe NOT drive climate.

So the real deniers are those that don't believe in real science just the AGW religion.

Much of what I list has not been studied? Lordy, lordy. Magnetic reversals, because of there importance in dating have been extensively studied.

Earth's Magnetic Reversal Won't Kill You : Discovery News


There’s no way to say if we’re in a reversal or not; the Earth’s field fluctuates in magnitude and direction all the time. To think the field will reverse in the next few thousand years, on the basis of the decrease we see today, is like thinking you’ll become weightless in two years, because you lost 10 lbs last month. - Because it is a diffusion problem, an instantaneous change deep within the earth can not be felt at the surface right away; it takes hundreds of years for the field to decay. Just like baking a potato in the (conventional) oven – it takes an hour for the heat to diffuse through the potato into the center. The Earth is a very, very big potato. - Last, but not least, life on earth has evolved over millions of years, through lots of magnetic field reversals, so we’re adapted to it at the very least. The birds, bees, and sea turtles that use magnetic fields to either navigate (sea turtles and pigeons) or collectively build their hives (bees) – they all manage to get it done even when the magnetic field is unavailable for that purpose. In short, we’re good.

 

[Abraham3]

One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.

Just goes to show that you have nothing.

This is the most fitting link I can find to help with your problem:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My position - and the argument I have consistently made here - is that global warming is taking place, even now, and that the primary cause of that warming is a greenhouse effect using greenhouse gases emitted by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. THAT is the mainstream view. It is a view held by the VAST majority of climates scientists and scientists in general. YOUR view is held by something in the neighborhood of ONE in ONE-HUNDRED climate scientists (if that). Thousands of peer reviewed research studies support that view. Virtually NONE support your view. The majority of known names and pundits on your side of this argument are unqualified to speak to the topic. I use virtually NOTHING but PhDs because I have my pick of thousands of them.

If you have something of interest concerning the Earth's magnetic field and our climate, just put it out there and talk. Stop trying to use items like this to suggest that you or anyone you know is smarter than the world's scientists.

That effort fails long before you begin.

Exactly you believe in and promote the AGW propaganda.

CO2 does NOT drive climate. Never has.

And there is a link posted in this thread.


Here is someone with a Phd and is a climate scientist:

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
•CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
•The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
•"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
•Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
•96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
•Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
•Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
•Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
•The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
•Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
•Climate models have no predictive value
•Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=player_embedded]Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

Since he has a PhD (in climate science of all things) you should believe him right?

Since he's the one in a hundred who reject AGW, I do NOT believe him. I'll continue to side with the 99.

Since I can refute most of what he says out of my own head, and I am NOT a climate scientist, I can't say I find the fellow the least bit convincing. I'm wondering why you would.

And then there's this: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university--banned-national-science-foundation

"We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years." -- National Science Foundation

 

[Abraham3]

So... who's gonna stand up for Dr Salby? Surely he's a shining paragon of science, a hero persecuted by the led industry. Or the solar panel industry. Or Greenpeace. Or the conspiracy of all the world's climate scientists.

 

[westwall]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

Much of what you listed has not really been studied as the majority of the money 95% goes to prove that man made CO2 drives climate.

However all the evidence collected has proven that CO2 doe NOT drive climate.

So the real deniers are those that don't believe in real science just the AGW religion.

You dumb ass. Tyndall proved that CO2 is a major driver in 1858. The mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs was refined many times since. Simple fact, adding GHGs to the atmosphere increases the heat the atmosphere absorbs from the outgoing radiation from the earth.

You really wish to be in a competition with the rest of the bozos here to prove who can make the dumbest statements?

No he didn't you dumber ass! All he did was show that CO2 WAS a GHG. Not what it's effect was. Man, you're dumb.

 

[Abraham3]

One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.

Just goes to show that you have nothing.

Just goes to show that you do not understand the meaning of the word "prove".

 

[flacaltenn]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

Much of what you listed has not really been studied as the majority of the money 95% goes to prove that man made CO2 drives climate.

However all the evidence collected has proven that CO2 doe NOT drive climate.

So the real deniers are those that don't believe in real science just the AGW religion.

You dumb ass. Tyndall proved that CO2 is a major driver in 1858. The mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs was refined many times since. Simple fact, adding GHGs to the atmosphere increases the heat the atmosphere absorbs from the outgoing radiation from the earth.

You really wish to be in a competition with the rest of the bozos here to prove who can make the dumbest statements?

All the CO2 emissions of mankind since the 1880s ---- PLUS all the emissions we have yet to create --- up to 500ppm ---- will cause a temp rise of about 1.4degC ---- MAX.. And because that's a first approximation and all revisions from physics are DOWNWARD --- the fact is that

CO2 ALONE does not drive the climate. THERE IS NO CRISIS -- due to CO2 alone. More likely a blip of 1degC. You AGW faithers have to INVENT all the magic to multiply that number into something of crisis proportions to make the political wings of AGW happy...

How you get to 4 or even 8degC of warming because of the "power of CO2" is somewhere between mysticism and faith.. Thank God for the physics "whores" you dont like for revealing the hype..

 

[Abraham3]

Do you really think all those reinforcing factors were "invented"? Would they be issues if they had not been triggered by the CO2?

The answer to both those question, as you well know, is "no".

 

[Mr. H.]

It's not the least bit interesting.

Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?

There's a good boy.

How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?

How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.

Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability
Earth Magnetic Field

I like this. I am no longer a "fence-sitter".

Thank you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you really think all those reinforcing factors were "invented"? Would they be issues if they had not been triggered by the CO2?

The answer to both those question, as you well know, is "no".

Of course .. They are wholly invented and sloppily estimated. 1deg aint gonna trigger jack shit. Unless you pray hard enough and pledge your economy as a sacrifice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

And yet not a SINGLE experiment conducted to prove that the CO2 caused heat increase. NOT ONE.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since we know how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere, records of the amount of fossil fuels produced, we know what the contribution of mankind has been to present atmospheric levels of CO2. The fact that this man Salby denies this means that he is just another Phd whore like Singer and Lindzen.

There have been many magnetic reversals in the geological history of the earth. There has never been any coorelation of dramatic warming or cooling with those events. However, when we see rapid injection or depletion of GHGs in the atmosphere in the geological record, we see rapid warming, or severe glaciation. In both cases, accompanied by extinction events.

And yet not a SINGLE experiment conducted to prove that the CO2 caused heat increase. NOT ONE.

Dumb ass. That experiment was conducted in 1858 by John Tyndall of England. He did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of CO2.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930

 

[Abraham3]

Gunny, where's the snappy comeback?