In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.

Provide a link to the "fudge factor", please. Since you were going on about it for quite some time, you should know.

And yes, BTW, a calculation of a planet's energy content that doesn't in any way refer to the primary source of (surface) energy on planets is such an obvious fraud as to be spotted by a blind man with a stick. Why you would humiliate yourself in such a way by bringing forth such gobbledygook is anyone's guess.

damn, I always thought the sun was the energy source? mmmmmmmmmmm WTF. How does the earth supply it's own energy?

Oh and the sun was external and not local. wow.

 

[jc456]

hahahaahahhaahaha yeah post something that proves my claim. Since you are such a little fk why not, seems you can't prove yours.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of feedbacks.

yeah post something that proves my claim.

There is nothing that proves your claim.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus

Don't know, don't care.
How does CO2 absorb and never emit? Durr.

there is nothing that proves your claim. so what do we do? Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback. And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions. yep, for you it's feedback and you can't even validate it.

Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback.

Since I never made any claim of feedback, I have to ask, why are you drinking already?

And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

Which claim of yours is supported by the hotter corona and the cooler surface, emitting in all directions, constantly?

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions.

I didn't throw them out. Not even a little.

I need to hear more about CO2 absorbing energy and escaping our atmosphere.

Tell me more about this magic ability of CO2 that you discovered.

You tell me how co2 emits. Still waiting. Hey, why is it if it emits and is spread equally in the atmosphere are there different temperatures? Hmmm. Still waiting

why is it if it emits

If? LOL!

Does any matter ever emit? How?

Does it?

 

[SSDD]

how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.

Provide a link to the "fudge factor", please. Since you were going on about it for quite some time, you should know.

And yes, BTW, a calculation of a planet's energy content that doesn't in any way refer to the primary source of (surface) energy on planets is such an obvious fraud as to be spotted by a blind man with a stick. Why you would humiliate yourself in such a way by bringing forth such gobbledygook is anyone's guess.

Interesting...very interesting indeed...but not surprising in the least. You are a believer....in your mind you have no doubt that AGW is real....and also have no doubt that the greenhouse hypothesis is 100% correct....based on what? Clearly, since you have no inkling what the fudge factor is, or how it was derived, or that there isn't the first bit of actual observed evidence to support it, your position is one of pure faith....not to worry though, all your buds hold their positions based on faith....just like all those christians, and muslims, and all other religions...there is consensus among their priests that what they believe is true as well but don't have the first bit of observed, empirical evidence.

You just believe on.

The fudge factor is this: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase. Hansen made it up....he doesn't have the first bit of lab work to support it and yet, among believers such as yourself, it is unquestionable...it erases complexity within the climate system...when complexities change, the fudge factor remains the same...

C over Co represents the increase in CO2....the question was what would happen if CO2 doubled...hansen decided the fudge factor would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter....and rather than call it a fudge factor, he named it forcing...sounds better...right? More marketable...sounds like someone actually did some research and could prove that with the doubling of CO2 the energy change would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter.

Any idea where saturation might be in that fudge factor? Saturation is very important but not found within the greenhouse effect calculations? The fudge factor also removes all influences from natural variations....imagine...a hypothesis RE: the climate whose only support is a mathematical model that doesn't recognize natural variation...

In short, the fudge factor is a fill in for a mechanism that could not be found or even synthesized....it was an ad hoc construct put in place of a mechanism that doesn't exist..

Believe on Garth.....

 

[SSDD]

how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.

Provide a link to the "fudge factor", please. Since you were going on about it for quite some time, you should know.

And yes, BTW, a calculation of a planet's energy content that doesn't in any way refer to the primary source of (surface) energy on planets is such an obvious fraud as to be spotted by a blind man with a stick. Why you would humiliate yourself in such a way by bringing forth such gobbledygook is anyone's guess.

If it only produced an accurate temperature on one planet the way the greenhouse calculations do, I would agree that it was coincidence...in fact I would argue that it was coincidence...but when it works for all of them the idea of coincidence sort of flies out the window.

 

[Olde Europe]

Believe on Garth.....

Ah, okay, no link. Therefore the "fudge factor" is dismissed. Thanks, anyway.

 

[SSDD]

Believe on Garth.....

Ah, okay, no link. Therefore the "fudge factor" is dismissed. Thanks, anyway.

Must suck not being bright enough to type the words greenhouse effect fudge factor in a search engine...how did you manage to get here? Or do you just fear anything that calls your faith into question?

Here...never let it be said that I wasn't willing to help out the intellectually challenged...

Fudge Factor.
Green house gas modelling – some thoughts. | Scottish Sceptic
Errors and frauds of global warming science - Climate Dispatch

Sorry that I couldn't provide a warmer wacko site that discusses the fudge factor, but for obvious reasons, they don't like to mention it...can't say that I blame them....I mean when the most basic fundamental component of your whole belief system is so terribly flawed...well..you know.

And before you come back with the best argument that skeptical science could cobble together...do be prepared to apply the greenhouse effect equations to the other planets to demonstrate how accurate it actually is....and do it without a fudge factor.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S
Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.

Phoenix won't be alone in the oven. A strengthening ridge of high pressure lifting out of Mexico is on course to also scorch other parts of Arizona and southeast California, bringing potentially record-shattering temperatures.

Though accustomed to triple digits, the upcoming heat spell is a rarity in Phoenix, a desert metropolis of 1.5 million people, raising concerns of heat stroke.

Temperatures are predicted to hit 118 degrees in Phoenix on Sunday and peak at 119 degrees Monday. Such heat is "rare, dangerous and deadly," according to a National Weather Service warning.

"This is extreme even for our standards," said Matthew Hirsch, a weather service meteorologist in Phoenix.

Read more: News from The Associated Press

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Believe on Garth.....

Ah, okay, no link. Therefore the "fudge factor" is dismissed. Thanks, anyway.

If you want accurate Hurricane forecasting forget NOAA..its these Right wing stooges who know how to forecast LOL...
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

 

[Olde Europe]

Fudge Factor.
Green house gas modelling – some thoughts. | Scottish Sceptic
Errors and frauds of global warming science - Climate Dispatch

Ah, that's (1) a denialingdong failing to understand that C0 is supposed to mean CO2 content at pre-industrial levels, and you gobble up his piffle and regurgitate it for years, and come up with the ridiculous notion that "doubling" from one to two CO2 molecules would amount to a forcing of 3.7 watts per square meter. Of course, "saturation" is not removed. Then we have (2) one who grapples with his own private, home-brew climate model, and seems to fail, and (3) one Mr. Novak publishing in the world-renowned Pravda, picked up by the most honorable, sincere, and scientifically proficient "climatedispatch", kid you not.

Really? You could do no better than to advertise your trolling, yet again?

 

[Wuwei]

Fudge Factor.
Green house gas modelling – some thoughts. | Scottish Sceptic
Errors and frauds of global warming science - Climate Dispatch

Ah, that's (1) a denialingdong failing to understand that C0 is supposed to mean CO2 content at pre-industrial levels, and you gobble up his piffle and regurgitate it for years, and come up with the ridiculous notion that "doubling" from one to two CO2 molecules would amount to a forcing of 3.7 watts per square meter. Of course, "saturation" is not removed. Then we have (2) one who grapples with his own private, home-brew climate model, and seems to fail, and (3) one Mr. Novak publishing in the world-renowned Pravda, picked up by the most honorable, sincere, and scientifically proficient "climatedispatch", kid you not.

Really? You could do no better than to advertise your trolling, yet again?

I read the references too. You have a good insight into the weaknesses of those references.
I would add that ref 1 did not have an understanding on what saturation means when applied to the atmosphere. His statement that,

"The fudge factor uses a natural log curve, which is a contrivance, as natural log is a mathematical hypothetical resulting from calculus manipulations, and it does not exist in cause-and-effect relationships in nature."​

He is quite wrong. There are lots of logarithmic functions in physics such as entropy calculations, alpha absorption, transmittance, etc. that use logarithms. It is weird that he makes such a blanket statement when he doesn't understand how saturation works in large volumes.

Yes ref 2 was a stream of conscious rambling.

Ref 3 didn't understand what saturation means in the atmosphere and instead focused on absorption "wings". Presumably those are the drop-offs because of the Q factor of the resonant absorption. He also says

" It is supposedly these molecules which do the heating for greenhouse gases, because they do not use up all available radiation; and therefore, more of the gases absorbs more radiation."​

He totally misunderstands that everyone knows heating is caused by the sun. Green house gases only impede that heat from escaping.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S
Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.

Phoenix won't be alone in the oven. A strengthening ridge of high pressure lifting out of Mexico is on course to also scorch other parts of Arizona and southeast California, bringing potentially record-shattering temperatures.

Though accustomed to triple digits, the upcoming heat spell is a rarity in Phoenix, a desert metropolis of 1.5 million people, raising concerns of heat stroke.

Temperatures are predicted to hit 118 degrees in Phoenix on Sunday and peak at 119 degrees Monday. Such heat is "rare, dangerous and deadly," according to a National Weather Service warning.

"This is extreme even for our standards," said Matthew Hirsch, a weather service meteorologist in Phoenix.

Read more: News from The Associated Press

LOL!!!

Caused by a deadly mutant strain of CO2, right?

 

[Olde Europe]

Ref 3 didn't understand what saturation means

You've actually read that third link? All of it? I just got until...

In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide​

... verbiage so utterly misguided and revealing so enormous a deficit of scientific understanding as to disqualify the whole of the thing, and that was that.

He totally misunderstands that everyone knows heating is caused by the sun. Green house gases only impede that heat from escaping.

Exactly.

Thanks for your kind words anyway.

 

[Wuwei]

You've actually read that third link? All of it? I just got until...

In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide
... verbiage so utterly misguided and revealing so enormous a deficit of scientific understanding as to disqualify the whole of the thing, and that was that.

Yes, I'm ashamed to say that I read all of the third link. Even a reference that he cited.

I couldn't help myself. It was like looking at a train wreck in slow motion. I had to take a shower after finishing.

 

[Wuwei]

"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S
Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.

Phoenix won't be alone in the oven. A strengthening ridge of high pressure lifting out of Mexico is on course to also scorch other parts of Arizona and southeast California, bringing potentially record-shattering temperatures.

Though accustomed to triple digits, the upcoming heat spell is a rarity in Phoenix, a desert metropolis of 1.5 million people, raising concerns of heat stroke.

Temperatures are predicted to hit 118 degrees in Phoenix on Sunday and peak at 119 degrees Monday. Such heat is "rare, dangerous and deadly," according to a National Weather Service warning.

"This is extreme even for our standards," said Matthew Hirsch, a weather service meteorologist in Phoenix.

Read more: News from The Associated Press

Not only that, but May was the hottest month ever recorded:
May was hottest globally, wettest in U.S.

 

[jc456]

"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S
Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.

Phoenix won't be alone in the oven. A strengthening ridge of high pressure lifting out of Mexico is on course to also scorch other parts of Arizona and southeast California, bringing potentially record-shattering temperatures.

Though accustomed to triple digits, the upcoming heat spell is a rarity in Phoenix, a desert metropolis of 1.5 million people, raising concerns of heat stroke.

Temperatures are predicted to hit 118 degrees in Phoenix on Sunday and peak at 119 degrees Monday. Such heat is "rare, dangerous and deadly," according to a National Weather Service warning.

"This is extreme even for our standards," said Matthew Hirsch, a weather service meteorologist in Phoenix.

Read more: News from The Associated Press

what, do they have more CO2 than the rest of us?

 

[LaDexter]

"Not only that, but May was the hottest month ever recorded:"

Sounds like you need some milk to wash down all that FUDGE in your mouth...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

2016 Is Blowing Away Global Heat Records
Source: Climate Central

Published: Jun 17th, 2016

May 2016 was the warmest May on record, 1.56°F (0.87°C) above the 20th century average. It was the first month since November 2013 to have an anomaly less than 1°C above the 20th century average, a sign of El Nino's demise.

For the year-to-date, temperatures are 1.9°F (1.08°C) above the 20th century average, according to NOAA, putting it 0.43°F (0.24°C) above where 2015 was at this point. A Climate Central analysis that averages NOAA and NASA temperature data and compares them to a 1881-1910 baseline (closer to pre-industrial temperatures) found that the year-to-date is 2.5°F (1.39°C) above that average, edging closer to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures.

So far, it is likely that 2016 will top 2015 as the warmest year on record, but that depends in part on how the rest of the year plays out. If a La Nina forms by fall, as expected, that could depress global temperatures slightly.

In a mark of how hot the last few years (which saw three consecutive record hot years) have been, NOAA compared the top 10 warmest months globally as of November 2013 to the current list. As of last month, all but one of the 10 warmest months on recorded occurred in 2016 and 2015. The lone exception was January 2007, which was tied for tenth place. Back in November 2003, it was the warmest month on record.

Read more: 2016 Is Blowing Away Global Heat Records

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lol what a fucking joke. Obama had made a mockery of NASA forcing them to tow the agw line and provide the faked data to match

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Lol what a fucking joke. Obama had made a mockery of NASA forcing them to tow the agw line and provide the faked data to match

Link goofball LOL

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear SSDD
What I'm hearing from both left and right
is acknowledgement that
1. most global warming is coming from natural sources beyond the control of man
2. the human activities causing most of the effect can't be halted, for example at any moment the activities used to till soil to grow food, collectively worldwide,
are necessary and produce more of the effects than the issues being targeted politically

What one group of progressive older school liberals came up with:
80% was from natural forces and causes including volcanic activity etc
20% at most was from human activity, and of that 20%
even if ALL the regulations proposed were followed and billions were spent
to make the changes, this would only reduce the 20% by 2%

so it is questioned if that is even worth fighting over

What I argue is to focus on not poisoning the air, water or earth with any hazardous materials, but work on cleaner energy regardless how this impacts climate; do it for the environmental restorations and sustainability