In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing. The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why. One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.

The point of contention seems to be the A in AGW. Anthropogenic...caused by man.

Alright....I am guessing that we can all agree that the AGW hypothesis is a hypothesis regarding things that happen in the natural, observable, quantifiable world...while parts of the hypothesis make claims regarding the subatomic, the effects of these things claimed to be happening at the sub atomic are supposedly visible here in the observable quantifiable world.

Which leads me to ask a question...a question that I have been asking for decades now and have yet to receive anything like a satisfactory answer. The warmer side of the debate claims that the science is settled...that consensus exist...that at this point, skeptics are simply deniers who refuse to accept the overwhelming body of evidence that caused the consensus to form in the first place and settled the science.

My question is where is this evidence? I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. We are after all talking about the climate...it is observable...it is measurable, it is quantifiable...things that effect it are observable, measurable, and quantifiable, therefore, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate should exist.

My question is....where is it? If it actually existed, I doubt that there would be anywhere on earth that a skeptic could go to escape from it....It would be readily available to all those who accept the AGW hypothesis to slap down any skeptic who asked for such evidence and yet, I have been asking for decades and to date, no one has stepped forward with it. Why?

So here is a whole thread purposely created for you to slap me down with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...do your worst.....I'm asking for it.

My bet, however, is that after much name calling, logical fallacy, and presentment of stuff that you believe to be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from out here in the real world there will, in fact, be absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

That being said, and soon to be proven, I must ask, if the science is settled, and the consensus exists....there being no observed, measured, quantifiable evidence in support of the A in AGW, exactly what is this science settling consensus based upon?

 

[jc456]

OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing. The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why. One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.

The point of contention seems to be the A in AGW. Anthropogenic...caused by man.

Alright....I am guessing that we can all agree that the AGW hypothesis is a hypothesis regarding things that happen in the natural, observable, quantifiable world...while parts of the hypothesis make claims regarding the subatomic, the effects of these things claimed to be happening at the sub atomic are supposedly visible here in the observable quantifiable world.

Which leads me to ask a question...a question that I have been asking for decades now and have yet to receive anything like a satisfactory answer. The warmer side of the debate claims that the science is settled...that consensus exist...that at this point, skeptics are simply deniers who refuse to accept the overwhelming body of evidence that caused the consensus to form in the first place and settled the science.

My question is where is this evidence? I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. We are after all talking about the climate...it is observable...it is measurable, it is quantifiable...things that effect it are observable, measurable, and quantifiable, therefore, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate should exist.

My question is....where is it? If it actually existed, I doubt that there would be anywhere on earth that a skeptic could go to escape from it....It would be readily available to all those who accept the AGW hypothesis to slap down any skeptic who asked for such evidence and yet, I have been asking for decades and to date, no one has stepped forward with it. Why?

So here is a whole thread purposely created for you to slap me down with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...do your worst.....I'm asking for it.

My bet, however, is that after much name calling, logical fallacy, and presentment of stuff that you believe to be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from out here in the real world there will, in fact, be absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

That being said, and soon to be proven, I must ask, if the science is settled, and the consensus exists....there being no observed, measured, quantifiable evidence in support of the A in AGW, exactly what is this science settling consensus based upon?

the almighty dollar.

 

[SSDD]

OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing. The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why. One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.

The point of contention seems to be the A in AGW. Anthropogenic...caused by man.

Alright....I am guessing that we can all agree that the AGW hypothesis is a hypothesis regarding things that happen in the natural, observable, quantifiable world...while parts of the hypothesis make claims regarding the subatomic, the effects of these things claimed to be happening at the sub atomic are supposedly visible here in the observable quantifiable world.

Which leads me to ask a question...a question that I have been asking for decades now and have yet to receive anything like a satisfactory answer. The warmer side of the debate claims that the science is settled...that consensus exist...that at this point, skeptics are simply deniers who refuse to accept the overwhelming body of evidence that caused the consensus to form in the first place and settled the science.

My question is where is this evidence? I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. We are after all talking about the climate...it is observable...it is measurable, it is quantifiable...things that effect it are observable, measurable, and quantifiable, therefore, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate should exist.

My question is....where is it? If it actually existed, I doubt that there would be anywhere on earth that a skeptic could go to escape from it....It would be readily available to all those who accept the AGW hypothesis to slap down any skeptic who asked for such evidence and yet, I have been asking for decades and to date, no one has stepped forward with it. Why?

So here is a whole thread purposely created for you to slap me down with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...do your worst.....I'm asking for it.

My bet, however, is that after much name calling, logical fallacy, and presentment of stuff that you believe to be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from out here in the real world there will, in fact, be absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

That being said, and soon to be proven, I must ask, if the science is settled, and the consensus exists....there being no observed, measured, quantifiable evidence in support of the A in AGW, exactly what is this science settling consensus based upon?

the almighty dollar.

DING...DING....DING...DING....WE HAVE A WINNER.....Give the man a kewpie doll and a dollar...

Cut right to the chase and hit the nail right on the head....as I have said before, nothing creates consensus and settles arguments faster than a big old bucket full of money.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD.. And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Just some facts for the record...

 

[Kosh]

Well let us see over the past 40 years or so worldwide trillions have been spent on writing papers and proving that man is at fault.

While only a few billon as been dedicated to find out how the climate engine actually works..

Yep it is all about the free government money and the AGW talk circuit where they can make as much as $30,000 per 30 minute lecture..

Yep money!

 

[Crick]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Empirical data gathered in the real world that shows man-made CO2 is warming the planet.

What a fucking idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From my point of view, man MIGHT have an impact. As of today it has yet to be quantified and as I have show above there is no empirical evidence to support it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Empirical data gathered in the real world that shows man-made CO2 is warming the planet.

What a fucking idiot.

And yet empirical evidence says your a wrong... Oh that's right, you base your opinion on models that have no predictive capabilities.. FAILED MODELS, I might add..

 

[Old Rocks]

The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.

Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.



Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum

There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Empirical data gathered in the real world that shows man-made CO2 is warming the planet.

What a fucking idiot.

And yet empirical evidence says your a wrong... Oh that's right, you base your opinion on models that have no predictive capabilities.. FAILED MODELS, I might add..

Silly Billy, you are the last person in the world that should speak of failed predictions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.

Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.



Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum

There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.

I love it... You equate potential with 'does' when empirical evidence shows it does not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD.. And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Just some facts for the record...

Silly ass, how does last years point fit? How about Feb, 2016?

NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*

 

[Old Rocks]

The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.

Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.



Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum

There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.

I love it... You equate potential with 'does' when empirical evidence shows it does not.

'Empirical' evidence that you never link to. LOL. All that education, and you don't know how to find a site that would demonstrate your 'empirical' evidence. Amazing.

 

[SSDD]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Empirical data gathered in the real world that shows man-made CO2 is warming the planet.

What a fucking idiot.

First, let me say that it has not gone unnoticed that it took an unusually long time for the first of you warmers to even respond to this post....there we're plenty of views but it took 9 full hours before any attempt was made to provide the requested data. I hypothesize that you warmers were looking furiously for that legendary mountain of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence and finding, perhaps at long last that it simply did not exist.

So crick...I suppose it escaped you, or perhaps you didn't know that all of those measurements of back radiation, as is with all measured back radiation were made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than -80F. There are no observed, measured quantified measurements of back radiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature except in unusual cases where the air above the instrument is warmer than the instrument itself..temperature inversions. So if your hypothesis was that if you placed an instrument on the ground that was cooler than the atmosphere, you could measure radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, you would have some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. Alas, however, the issue at question here is the A, in AGW.

Just to be sure we aren't overlooking something however, Billy has provided us with a graph showing that the rate of temperature increase from 1900 to 1950 was statistically the same but actually slightly higher than the rate of temperature increase from 1951 to 2000, a period when CO2 was rapidly increasing. If, in fact, CO2 had the effect you believe, then the rate of warming should be significantly higher. It isn't.

Then there is the fact that every ice core ever taken shows warmer periods than the present in the past 14000 years while CO2 was still at "safe" levels...and we have man admitting that his proxy based hockey stick isn't all that he originally claimed it to be.

So sorry crick...you have not provided any observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from the real world that supports the A in AGW. Congratulations, however, on demonstrating beyond question that radiation will move from the warmer atmosphere to a colder instrument in accordance with the prediction made by the 2nd law of thermodynamics....a rousing success and one more accurate prediction which is why it is a natural law and AGW is a piss poor failure of a hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.

Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.



Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum

There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.

So rocks....you have provided us with some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out here in the natural world that CO2 absorbs IR radiation in a quite narrow spectrum. You failed to provide the information on the other side of the coin however that CO2 also emits that radiation in a fraction of a nano second....and you have failed to provide anything like observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence collected out here in the natural world that absorption and emission equals warming. And we still have Billy's graph, from a reputable source based on data gathered out here in the real world showing that the warming rate from 1900 to 1950 is statistically the same as the warming rate from 1950 to 2000....a period when CO2, and its claimed effect on temperature were increasing at a steady, and according to you guys a rapid clip....and we have every ice core ever taken showing warmer periods than today across the globe while CO2 levels were at what you guys call "safe".

So no, rocks...you have not provide any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

It is interesting, however, to gain some insight into what you guys accept, and believe constitutes observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

 

[SSDD]

NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*

This is observed, empirical proof of nothing more than the fact that you are an alarmist...any claim of terrifying records based on a month of data is nothing but scaremongering and the fact that it comes from what used to be a respected scientific agency is disgraceful...then there is the fact that that terrifying record amounts to a tiny fraction of a degree of temperature anomaly...not even actual temperature achieved through heavy manipulation and adjustment of the data makes it nothing more than unwarranted hysterics.

The actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical data gathered out here in the natural world say that you simply are not correct and as I thought, there appears to be .zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

So again, I have to ask...since there is apparently no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A, in AGW, exactly what settled the science, and upon what is this claimed consensus basing its opinion?

 

[SSDD]

'Empirical' evidence that you never link to. LOL. All that education, and you don't know how to find a site that would demonstrate your 'empirical' evidence. Amazing.

You think this isn't real? And questioning it is just a straw man diversion anyway....I never asked for anything other than observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out in the real world supporting the A in AGW...That graph, in no way answers my request, although it does serve to dispute what you and crick apparently accept and believe is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

And again...it is interesting to see what you guys accept as strong evidence in support of that A in AGW...it goes a long way towards explaining why you have been taken in by this farce so thoroughly....in combination with your political leanings...you never had a chance...had conservatives put forward this laughable hypothesis, you wouldn't have bought it for a second and would, like us skeptics, seen flaws with it as far as your eye could see. You aren't on board because of any mountain of evidence as this thread clearly proves...you are on board because of your politics.

I asked you guys to slap me down with an overwhelming mountain of hard evidence in support of the A in AGW and this is really the best you can do? You provided observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered in the real world of something....but nothing in support of the A in AGW....the 2 decade halt in any significant warming while CO2 has made its steady rise should seriously call the hypothesis into question for any thinking person, and these fear mongering claims of terrifying records reached by hundredths of a degree during a single month taken from heavily adjusted records leave anyone in the believer category with precious little credibility.

 

[Crick]

From my point of view, man MIGHT have an impact. As of today it has yet to be quantified and as I have show above there is no empirical evidence to support it.

You've been provided a direct measurement of CO2's back radiation and you say there's no empirical evidence. You need to stop pretending that you're making any attempt whatsoever to have a discussion here and that you have any more qualifications than Crusader Frank, jc456 and the rest of your peers.

 

[SSDD]

From my point of view, man MIGHT have an impact. As of today it has yet to be quantified and as I have show above there is no empirical evidence to support it.

You've been provided a direct measurement of CO2's back radiation and you say there's no empirical evidence. You need to stop pretending that you're making any attempt whatsoever to have a discussion here and that you have any more qualifications than Crusader Frank, jc456 and the rest of your peers.

I have been shown observed, measured, quantified evidence that radiation will transfer from a warmer atmosphere to an instrument cooled to at least -80F....that is not evidence in support of the A in AGW...it is interesting to see that you apparently believe it is. There are no observed, measured data, however of energy radiating from a colder sky to an instrument at ambient temperature...and again, the 2 decade pause in any statistically significant warming while CO2 has increased on its merry way should call your beliefs into question....clearly you don't question anything if it comes form a place that is in agreement with your political views.

By the way....energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to an instrument which has been cooled to a very low temperature can hardly be called "back" radiation at all....can it? Isn't that just standard energy transfer from warm to cool just as the second law predicts....the same can be said for those rare instances where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface....just energy transfer...not "back" radiation at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................