Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[SSDD]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

Frustrated by your failure to provide any observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability.....and your failure to provide any observed measured evidence establishing a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and your failure to provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by the activities of human kind were measured, and quantified and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses?

Is that what's got you down bucky?

Or might it be that you actually said that the requests for the simple, observed, measured evidence I asked for was unreasonable, outrageous, and to much to ask for when you posted HERE

If you didn't make claims that you couldn't back up, you wouldn't find yourself being made a fool of.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

 

[SSDD]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

That isn't far from the way he thinks...look at crick's quote in my sig line..

 

[joaquinmiller]

Ah. Invincible ignorance. Carry on.

 

[SSDD]

Ah. Invincible ignorance. Carry on.

Are you under the impression that there is actual observed, measured evidence supporting the man made climate change hypothesis, or are you amused to watch warmers frustrating attempts to produce what doesn't exist and the resultant lashing out?

 

[skookerasbil]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

You can't even find the website anymore in the US government..


Lol...


.

 

[joaquinmiller]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

 

[SSDD]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

 

[joaquinmiller]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

 

[SSDD]

How about "If AGW shoved itself up his ass he'd pretend it wasn't there". Better?

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

 

[joaquinmiller]

AGW AKRARRRRrrrr

DEATH TO THE DENIERS

Hillarys loss was a blessing, it prevented the AGW death cult from doing anything really stupid

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

world have taken millions of measurements and readings,



And they are comparing those millions of readings today to like a thousand in the late 1800's and saying ureka????


.

 

[joaquinmiller]

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

world have taken millions of measurements and readings,



And they are comparing those millions of readings today to like a thousand in the late 1800's and saying ureka????


.

There's a good fella. I understand reading tea leaves would be much more economical.

• Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica tell us that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations were relatively stable for thousands of years, but began to rise around 200 years ago, about the time that humans began to engage in very large-scale agriculture and industry. Concentrations for these gases are now higher than at any time for which we have ice core records, which stretch back 800,000 years.
• Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans. Their accumulation in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.
• Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a certain isotopic “signature” (an indication of atomic weight) that differs from other sources of CO2. Scientists measure the different isotopes to confirm that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is predominantly from fossil fuel combustion.

Changes in the Climate — Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

 

[Wyatt earp]

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

world have taken millions of measurements and readings,



And they are comparing those millions of readings today to like a thousand in the late 1800's and saying ureka????


.

There's a good fella. I understand reading tea leaves would be much more economical.

• Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica tell us that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations were relatively stable for thousands of years, but began to rise around 200 years ago, about the time that humans began to engage in very large-scale agriculture and industry. Concentrations for these gases are now higher than at any time for which we have ice core records, which stretch back 800,000 years.
• Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans. Their accumulation in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.
• Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a certain isotopic “signature” (an indication of atomic weight) that differs from other sources of CO2. Scientists measure the different isotopes to confirm that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is predominantly from fossil fuel combustion.

Changes in the Climate — Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Why you changing the goal posts?


This argument we are having is "scientist" comparing global temperature readings today to local weather temperature readings a 100 or so years ago ..

 

[SSDD]

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

And as I said, there isn't the first piece of observed measured evidence that fulfills any of the two very basic requests that I made, nor is there a single peer reviewed published paper that fulfills that request. I never said that there was no observed, measured data...I said that there was no observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....I said that there was no observed, measured, data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. And there isn't...but do feel free to bring a single shred of it here if you believe it does.

And I said that there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...but again, if you find one, be sure to let me see it.

Having millions of measurements is just having millions of measurements....there have been over a million radiosondes sent up into the atmosphere measuring the temperature and other atmospheric parameters as they travel up into the atmosphere...they all say that there is no tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun that was predicted to prove that we are causing warming... I note below that you provide a (LOL) hockey stick graph...there exist paper after paper after paper which show pretty clearly that the hockey stick is bullshit...as a matter of fact, the CIMP2 ice core temperature reconstruction is called (by climate science) the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...here is what it says the past 10,000 years have looked like. The hockey stick has never been characterized as the gold standard for anything but the CIMP2 has and it strongly suggests that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Then there is this map...each balloon on it represents a temperature reconstruction made in that particular location. Red balloons indicate studies that found that the temperatures of the past were warmer than the present...blue balloons indicate studies that found that the past was a bit cooler. As you can see....there are a great many more red balloons on the map than blue. The interactive map may be found HERE....click on a balloon and it will take you to the study it represents.

Considering the sheer volume of studies that indicate that the earth is presently cooler than it has been for much of the past 10,000 years, one has to be engaged in some pretty serious denial in order to believe the hockey stick is an accurate representation of past global temperatures.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

I don't listen to rush limbaugh...and I don't deny actual observed measured evidence...I have spent a great deal of time looking for it...there are mountains of it that demonstrate that the present climate is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...there is plenty of it, like the CIMP2 graph above which show climate changing far more rapidly than anything we have seen with temperature changes far greater than anything we have seen in the past 150 years. All of the real evidence out there points to the climate we are experiencing to be a bit cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years and aside from that, in no way extraordinary....Those are the facts...born out by a great deal of research and study...so what do you believe...the preponderance of the evidence or the hockey stick which is a joke and a hypothesis which has been in dispute since it came into being and has been dismissed by physicists of such stature as Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius..and after 120 years, still can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence in its support?

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

Exactly what real science has always said...the oceans are responsible...cold water can't hold as much CO2 as warm water...as the oceans have warmed they have outgassed enormous quantities of CO2. The CO2 that we produce isn't even enough to overcome the natural variability of the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year. There are quite a few published, peer reviewed studies which seriously question whether we are having any real impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here are a few of many:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clip: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

Clip: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL040613

Clip: “[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”


I could go on, but either you will read them and then perhaps do some research on your own or deny the information in favor of a hypothesis which can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports itself over natural variability.

 

[joaquinmiller]

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

world have taken millions of measurements and readings,



And they are comparing those millions of readings today to like a thousand in the late 1800's and saying ureka????


.

There's a good fella. I understand reading tea leaves would be much more economical.

• Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica tell us that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations were relatively stable for thousands of years, but began to rise around 200 years ago, about the time that humans began to engage in very large-scale agriculture and industry. Concentrations for these gases are now higher than at any time for which we have ice core records, which stretch back 800,000 years.
• Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans. Their accumulation in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.
• Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a certain isotopic “signature” (an indication of atomic weight) that differs from other sources of CO2. Scientists measure the different isotopes to confirm that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is predominantly from fossil fuel combustion.

Changes in the Climate — Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Why you changing the goal posts?


This argument we are having is "scientist" comparing global temperature readings today to local weather temperature readings a 100 or so years ago ..

I'm not. Why would you think scientific evidence only begins in the 1800's?

 

[SSDD]

There's a good fella. I understand reading tea leaves would be much more economical.

• Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica tell us that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations were relatively stable for thousands of years, but began to rise around 200 years ago, about the time that humans began to engage in very large-scale agriculture and industry. Concentrations for these gases are now higher than at any time for which we have ice core records, which stretch back 800,000 years.
• Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans. Their accumulation in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.
• Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a certain isotopic “signature” (an indication of atomic weight) that differs from other sources of CO2. Scientists measure the different isotopes to confirm that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is predominantly from fossil fuel combustion.

Changes in the Climate — Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

They don't bother to mention that for the past 14,000 years we have been climbing out of a deep interglacial...cold oceans hold far more CO2 than warmer oceans...as the oceans have warmed, they have outgassed a great deal of CO2...as the peer reviewed, published papers I posted above note, it is questionable whether we are having any effect on global CO2 concentrations at all. They also don't bother to mention to you that prior to the onset of the ice age that the earth is still existing, atmospheric CO2 levels were very close to 1000ppm...more than double the amount of CO2 we have in the atmosphere now and a deep ice age began...if you look further back in history, you will find ice ages beginning with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 3000ppm. That casts serious doubt on the claimed warming power of CO2.

It is clear that you are reading seriously cherry picked data and have little idea of the vast pool of data out there that calls the man made global warming hypothesis into question.

 

[SSDD]

I'm not. Why would you think scientific evidence only begins in the 1800's?

If you were going back any further than the 1800's you would be seeing that the temperature of the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...and CO2 is irrelevant to the discussion as there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by so called greenhouse gasses and warming in the atmosphere...

Assuming that CO2 causes warming isn't science...that is faith.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ahhh....they had 8 years to do something under Soetero and didnt do dick. Because the public doesnt care about climate change.....some stand in front of a banner and piss and moan but that is the extent of anybody caring.

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order curbing the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations, a move that represents a sharp reversal from his predecessor's position.
The Obama administration put in place a number of programs that attempted to address the impact of climate change, including rising sea levels and temperatures.
Trump said those actions harmed American businesses.

6 Obama climate policies that Trump orders change - CNNPolitics

Exactly why should tax money go into regulations aimed at reducing human induced climate change, when there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the climate?

How would you feel about regulations aimed at reducing the terrors inflicted upon humanity by leprechauns? Would you not ask for some actual observational evidence of leprechauns before you were willing to see money spent on the issue?


Leprechauns are every bit as real as man made global climate change.

What are your measurements that prove that?

Thousands of billions of dollars spent and not one piece of observed, measured evidence that supports, the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, and not a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming, supposedly caused by our burning of hydrocarbon fuels has been empirically, measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Now if you think the money has not been wasted, provide a single bit of data, or a paper that satisfies any one of the three statements above...otherwise, it is clear that the money has been wasted as there is nothing real to show for it...except perhaps for homes situated in fashionable neighborhoods, expensive personal automobiles owned by "scientists" who not so long ago, thought they were on easy street if they could land a spot on a local news network predicting the weather....except most of those climate experts couldn't pass the hard science curricula required to be a meteorologist and instead accept a soft science degree in climatology.

The OP links a 1500+ page report, chock full of measurements and trends reflecting the conclusions drawn. MIT, NASA, the ESA and scientific organizations around the world have taken millions of measurements and readings, reaching peer-reviewed conclusions regarding ACG.

Deniers deny. It's what they do. They claim a vast conspiracy, and they're largely the same Limabaugh-listeners who think Soros is behind Central American caravan (helping Trump rouse the base), that the mail-bomber was a false-flag operation, and more. Facts are irrelevant to them.

What do you think explains the spike in CO2 beginning in the mid-20th Century?

Did you factor in the RESOLUTION range of Proxy data to match up with 1950-2018 data?

Snicker...…….