Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Wyatt earp]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

How much additional heat is generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM?

They will never answer it ...



All they can do is......

 

[Sunsettommy]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Come on Crick, where is the missing "hot spot"?

My POST 42, you ignored

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper

Fake Science Paper About 'Star Trek' and Warp 10 Was Accepted by 'Predatory Journals'

Science journals publish insanely stupid, hoaxed "gender studies" science papers submitted to determine how insane "libtard science" has become

Got some links for that dubious factoid?

Are you really that dense? Go have a 3 year old teach you about hyperlinks and what they are.

BTW - why is it that my scientific superiors insist that humans can change sex on a whim?

 

[SSDD]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Do explain where this "increased" radiant heating comes from. Please provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

And explain why millions of hours of research, development and commercial and residential observation and measurement indicate that infrared radiation can not heat the air.

 

[SSDD]

Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper

Fake Science Paper About 'Star Trek' and Warp 10 Was Accepted by 'Predatory Journals'

Science journals publish insanely stupid, hoaxed "gender studies" science papers submitted to determine how insane "libtard science" has become

Science is skirting on its own repeat of the dark ages...the willingness to accept computer models as reality can simply never lead to enlightenment....computer models are based entirely on the knowledge of the programmer...new knowledge isn't going to come out of programs based on old knowledge...or wild assed guesses about what reality might be like...

Tell you what Shit. We'll let you take over the conduct of all scientific research on the planet, but in accordance with your multiply expressed views, you will not be allowed to use computer models to make predictions or projections.

Let us know how that works out for you fool.

And you still can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...nor can you produce a single peer reviewed paper in which the hypothetical warming due to the activities of mankind have been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

The atmosphere, and the climate are easily observed, and measured entities...why do you suppose there is no observed, measured evidence to support the alarmist claims? Answer: because the alarmist claims are bullshit and the evidence supporting them only exists in failing models. And you still believe...alas, skid mark, you are the fool.

 

[SSDD]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Come on Crick, where is the missing "hot spot"?

My POST 42, you ignored

Crick is grumpy lately since he got his ass handed to him on his inability to provide any actual observed measured evidence to support his claims...actual evidence of the hot spot would be among that data that he couldn't produce. He did manage to demonstrate how easily climate pseudoscience fooled him into thinking that there was actual evidence to support AGW and the greenhouse hypotheses.

At some point, he admitted that he couldn't produce the sort of empirical evidence I was asking for, and just said that the "evidence" there was sufficient to convince him...and he mewled that it was an unreasonable request to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and he said that it was outrageous to expect a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and it was just to much to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities was empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

Imagine that...unreasonable, outrageous, and just to much to ask for even one piece of observed measured evidence in support of a hypothesis that they want to spend trillions of dollars addressing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The base of the "CO2 gunna kill us" all pyramid starts with the "excess heat" generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM, what's that number? If it's zero, as we correctly suppose than isn't the AGW crowd a science hating cult?

 

[Crick]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Come on Crick, where is the missing "hot spot"?

My POST 42, you ignored

When will you fucks catch up? The tropospheric hot spot is not linked with greenhouse warming but with ANY warming.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

And read the first comment when you are done with the article.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Only 1,552 pages. I'm waiting til they make it into a movie.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Come on Crick, where is the missing "hot spot"?

My POST 42, you ignored

When will you fucks catch up? The tropospheric hot spot is not linked with greenhouse warming but with ANY warming.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

And read the first comment when you are done with the article.

You are truly stupid since the IPCC make it abundantly clear they are projecting the CO2 as the dominant cause of the Tropospheric "hot spot" as shown in their IPPC 2007 report chapter 9:


9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the Response to Different Forcings and their Uncertainties



Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

YOUR link left out a critical section from the IPCC report, which they completely IGNORED!

Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

They also ignored this from the IPCC report:

"Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c)."

red bolding mine

 

[SSDD]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Come on Crick, where is the missing "hot spot"?

My POST 42, you ignored

When will you fucks catch up? The tropospheric hot spot is not linked with greenhouse warming but with ANY warming.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

And read the first comment when you are done with the article.

You are truly stupid since the IPCC make it abundantly clear they are projecting the CO2 as the dominant cause of the Tropospheric "hot spot" as shown in their IPPC 2007 report chapter 9:


9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the Response to Different Forcings and their Uncertainties



Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

YOUR link left out a critical section from the IPCC report, which they completely IGNORED!

Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

They also ignored this from the IPCC report:

"Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c)."

red bolding mine

they don't like to be reminded of their failures...but since they have no successes, what do we have to talk about if not their failures...and there're just so many of them to talk about

 

[IanC]

The subject of this thread doesn't take into account that nothing in the world can or will do anything about global warming/climate change as long as Old Sol is in our solar system.

That is completely incorrect. Increased radiant heating dwarfs changes in solar insolation.

Come on Crick, where is the missing "hot spot"?

My POST 42, you ignored

When will you fucks catch up? The tropospheric hot spot is not linked with greenhouse warming but with ANY warming.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

And read the first comment when you are done with the article.

The IPCC predictions of doom rely on water vapour tripling the 1°C per doubling of CO2, a positive feedback.

So far it has not been seen. How can they continue to repeat their lies about certainty? Actually they keep increasing their claims of certainty with every new report.

 

[SSDD]

The IPCC predictions of doom rely on water vapour tripling the 1°C per doubling of CO2, a positive feedback.

There is no positive feedback. There is no back radiation...and there is no warming due to the absorption and emission of IR by a gas. If the frequency of the radiation being absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses is not increasing when it is emitted, then there is no warming...the only way you get warming is to increase the frequency of the radiation...You can pump as much 70 degree air into a room as you like but the temperature is never going to go above 70 degrees...You must increase the frequency if you want the temperature to rise...

Care to explain how you think that any so called greenhouse gas is increasing the frequency of the radiation it absorbs?

 

[Crick]

There is no person on the planet with even a basic education in physics who agrees with Same Shit's dismissals. The man is an idiot and a liar.

 

[SSDD]

There is no person on the planet with even a basic education in physics who agrees with Same Shit's dismissals. The man is an idiot and a liar.

And yet, you can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence to contradict me...nor can you provide a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming resulting from our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. you think consensus impresses me?

You know who is impressed by consensus?...here is a clue....they are wooly and say baaaahh. lets hear you say it skidmark...baaaahhhh.

 

[Crick]

And yet, mainstream science has provided mountains and yet, you continue to lie straight to our faces about it. Asshole.

 

[SSDD]

And yet, mainstream science has provided mountains and yet, you continue to lie straight to our faces about it. Asshole.

You lie like a rug skidmatk...but do feel free to prove that I am wrong and that you aren’t a bald faced liar by posting a single bit of observed measured evidence that challenges my assertions.

You won’t though...and I can say that with perfect confidence that you won’t because no such evidence exists. The best you can do is make the same old bullshit claim again...there certainly is no danger of you proving me wrong.

Lets hear you say it skidmatk...baaahhhhh

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The IPCC predictions of doom rely on water vapour tripling the 1°C per doubling of CO2, a positive feedback.

There is no positive feedback. There is no back radiation...and there is no warming due to the absorption and emission of IR by a gas. If the frequency of the radiation being absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses is not increasing when it is emitted, then there is no warming...the only way you get warming is to increase the frequency of the radiation...You can pump as much 70 degree air into a room as you like but the temperature is never going to go above 70 degrees...You must increase the frequency if you want the temperature to rise...

Care to explain how you think that any so called greenhouse gas is increasing the frequency of the radiation it absorbs?

There is no back radiation.

Because....dimmer switch.

and there is no warming due to the absorption and emission of IR by a gas.

What about absorption and conversion into kinetic energy?

If the frequency of the radiation being absorbed by so called greenhouse gasses is not increasing when it is emitted, then there is no warming...

What if absorption and emission really, really slows the radiation from exiting at TOA?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no person on the planet with even a basic education in physics who agrees with Same Shit's dismissals. The man is an idiot and a liar.

What's the expected temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

 

[Sunsettommy]

And yet, mainstream science has provided mountains and yet, you continue to lie straight to our faces about it. Asshole.

Yet YOU can't answer a simple question:

Post 70

Where is the "hot spot" The IPCC projected ELEVEN years ago?