Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Crick]

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

Given that you reject basic physics concepts, such as backradiation, IR heating of the atmosphere, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and others, there is no point in arguing with you. What the world's scientists understand to be solid evidence, you will simply reject out of hand. I stand by my original assertion. You're an idiot, a liar and an asshole.

If anyone wants to read about evidence that human activity is causing global warming, they should peruse "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I of the IPCC. It may be viewed and downloaded via links in this thread's top post or just google the name. In response to SSDD's (Same Shit Different Day) claim that no empirical evidence existed, I posted the executive summaries to chapters 2 and 3 (observations of the Earth's surface, atmosphere and oceans) but it was booted as a copyright violation. I then started this thread with a link to this material in the top post. The reference sections at the end of those chapters list the hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed studies from which the observational data were assembled. SSDD's claim are blatant nonsense. His positions on several basic physical principles are bizarre, unsupportable and absurd. He has no science education nor do any of his supporters at this site. I strongly recommend ignoring the man and read up on some actual research conducted by actual scientists with actual educations in these topics.

 

[Crick]

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?

The IPCC did not "project" a hot spot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Given that you reject basic physics concepts, such as backradiation, IR heating of the atmosphere, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and others, there is no point in arguing with you. What the world's scientists understand to be solid evidence, you will simply reject out of hand. I stand by my original assertion. You're an idiot, a liar and an asshole.

If anyone wants to read about evidence that human activity is causing global warming, they should peruse "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I of the IPCC. It may be viewed and downloaded via links in this thread's top post or just google the name. In response to SSDD's (Same Shit Different Day) claim that no empirical evidence existed, I posted the executive summaries to chapters 2 and 3 (observations of the Earth's surface, atmosphere and oceans) but it was booted as a copyright violation. I then started this thread with a link to this material in the top post. The reference sections at the end of those chapters list the hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed studies from which the observational data were assembled. SSDD's claim are blatant nonsense. His positions on several basic physical principles are bizarre, unsupportable and absurd. He has no science education nor do any of his supporters at this site. I strongly recommend ignoring the man and read up on some actual research conducted by actual scientists with actual educations in these topics.

How does atmospheric CO2 heat the ocean 700m deep but does not cause a troposphere hot spot?

 

[SSDD]

Given that you reject basic physics concepts, such as backradiation, IR heating of the atmosphere, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and others, there is no point in arguing with you. What the world's scientists understand to be solid evidence, you will simply reject out of hand. I stand by my original assertion. You're an idiot, a liar and an asshole.

So it is like i said...you can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements.

So you fall back to "consensus"....baaaaahhhhh... you are such a good little sheep skid mark...never questioning why climate pseudoscience hasn't provided you with any actual evidence that you might use to slap me down....baaaahhhhhh.

If anyone wants to read about evidence that human activity is causing global warming, they should peruse "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I of the IPCC. .

What you mean is that if anyone wants to read about the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, models that have fooled you they should follow your advice...because they damned sure won't find ant actual evidence to challenge my assertions..will they, skidmark?

You are such a putz...you would like nothing more than to cram some actual evidence down my throat and shut me up..and everyone here knows it...but you have none, so you mew, and bleat, and baaahhh.

 

[Crick]

Given that you reject basic physics concepts, such as backradiation, IR heating of the atmosphere, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and others, there is no point in arguing with you. What the world's scientists understand to be solid evidence, you will simply reject out of hand. I stand by my original assertion. You're an idiot, a liar and an asshole.

So it is like i said...you can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements.

And, again you lie.

So you fall back to "consensus"....baaaaahhhhh... you are such a good little sheep skid mark...never questioning why climate pseudoscience hasn't provided you with any actual evidence that you might use to slap me down....baaaahhhhhh.

It has provided me with mountains of evidence with which you are slapped down on a daily basis. But, as I said you would do, you simply reject it out of hand and lie.

If anyone wants to read about evidence that human activity is causing global warming, they should peruse "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I of the IPCC. .

What you mean is that if anyone wants to read about the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, models that have fooled you they should follow your advice...because they damned sure won't find ant actual evidence to challenge my assertions..will they, skidmark?

Why don't we let them check out the links and see what they find? I'm willing. You, apparently, are not.

You are such a putz...you would like nothing more than to cram some actual evidence down my throat and shut me up..and everyone here knows it...but you have none, so you mew, and bleat, and baaahhh.

Idiot, liar and asshole.

Read "The Physical Science Basis", chapters 2 and 3. "Observations of the Surface and Atmosphere" and "Observations of the Oceans". See for yourself how blithely SSDD lies to you all.

 

[SSDD]

And, again you lie.

Again you don't provide anything like observed, measured evidence to challenge me...and you never will. All of these people are wondering when you will show me up with some...why don't you tell them that you would love to, but there just isn't any

It has provided me with mountains of evidence with which you are slapped down on a daily basis. But, as I said you would do, you simply reject it out of hand and lie.

But then you are easily fooled. When I asked you to point out the evidence to challenge my assertions, you couldn't do it.

Why don't we let them check out the links and see what they find? I'm willing. You, apparently, are not.

Why don't you bring one shred of observed, measured evidence here to challenge my assertions and save them the trouble? Can't do it...can you?

Idiot, liar and asshole.

You are having your ass handed to you again skidmark... Say it...baaaahhhhh

 

[Crick]

I posted links to hundreds of peer reviewed studies based on empirical observations. As I said you would do, you simply lie.

 

[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?

The IPCC did not "project" a hot spot.

Your lie is exposed once again:



""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)."

Here are the Modeled and Observed temperature data for the "hot spot" region:

Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

LINK

Like I said, you need to stop lying.

 

[Sunsettommy]

To expand against your lies are some additional models that talked a very similar picture on what the IPPC said:

Modelled zonally averaged, equilibrated temperature change with altitude associated with doubling atmospheric CO2 (Lee et al. 2007). Units for modelled temperature change are given in degrees Celcius. The horizontal axis begins at 90oN to the left, and ends at 90oS to the right. The vertical axis begins at the planet surface and extends to 10 hPA (ca. 16 km height). For the 200, 300 and 1000 hPa levels (ca. 12, 9 and 0 km altitude, respectively) the observed temperature change since 1979 is shown in the diagrams below.

"The diagrams above shows how temperature changes when CO2 is doubled in 4 different General Circulation Models (Lee et al. 2007). These model runs differ from those that were run for the IPCC in that the models were simplified to isolate the effects of CO2

forcing and climate feedbacks (Lindzen 2007). Also the models were run until equilibrium was established rather than run in a transient mode in order to simulate the past. Thus, they tend to isolate greenhouse warming from other things that might be going on. ​

The model runs shown in the above diagrams all suggest warming due to CO2 doubling to peak not at the surface in the tropics, but in the troposphere near the 200-300 hPa level, roughly corresponding to 12-9 km altitude. The main reason for the inter-model variation is that the amount of water vapour differs among the models. The expected warming above the tropics is 2-3 times larger than near the surface, regardless of the sensitivity of the particular model. This is, in fact, the very signature of greenhouse warming (cf. Lindzen 2007)."

LINK

bolding mine

Stop lying, Crick!

 

[Crick]

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?

The IPCC did not "project" a hot spot.

Your lie is exposed once again:



""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)."

Here are the Modeled and Observed temperature data for the "hot spot" region:

Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

LINK

Like I said, you need to stop lying.

Yo, Dipshit, warming from ANY source should produce a hotspot. It is not a sine qua non of AGW, fool.

And if you'd like to see a hot spot, why don't you take a minute and read:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50465

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

and

https://atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2015.pdf

 

[SSDD]

I posted links to hundreds of peer reviewed studies based on empirical observations. As I said you would do, you simply lie.

liar...f'ing liar...but feel free to prove me wrong to anyone who is watching...i can state that you are a liar in perfect confidence that you will bring nothing here to contradict me...because there is no empirical evidence to contradict me.

now bleat some more for me skidmark...bleat a great big baaahhhh..because you damned sure aren't going to bring the first piece of observed measured evidence to contradict me.

 

[SSDD]

To expand against your lies are some additional models that talked a very similar picture on what the IPPC said:

Modelled zonally averaged, equilibrated temperature change with altitude associated with doubling atmospheric CO2 (Lee et al. 2007). Units for modelled temperature change are given in degrees Celcius. The horizontal axis begins at 90oN to the left, and ends at 90oS to the right. The vertical axis begins at the planet surface and extends to 10 hPA (ca. 16 km height). For the 200, 300 and 1000 hPa levels (ca. 12, 9 and 0 km altitude, respectively) the observed temperature change since 1979 is shown in the diagrams below.

"The diagrams above shows how temperature changes when CO2 is doubled in 4 different General Circulation Models (Lee et al. 2007). These model runs differ from those that were run for the IPCC in that the models were simplified to isolate the effects of CO2

forcing and climate feedbacks (Lindzen 2007). Also the models were run until equilibrium was established rather than run in a transient mode in order to simulate the past. Thus, they tend to isolate greenhouse warming from other things that might be going on. ​

The model runs shown in the above diagrams all suggest warming due to CO2 doubling to peak not at the surface in the tropics, but in the troposphere near the 200-300 hPa level, roughly corresponding to 12-9 km altitude. The main reason for the inter-model variation is that the amount of water vapour differs among the models. The expected warming above the tropics is 2-3 times larger than near the surface, regardless of the sensitivity of the particular model. This is, in fact, the very signature of greenhouse warming (cf. Lindzen 2007)."

LINK

bolding mine

Stop lying, Crick!

crick is such a putz..

 

[SSDD]

Yo, Dipshit, warming from ANY source should produce a hotspot. It is not a sine qua non of AGW, fool.

sure...if the greenhouse hypothesis were correct...it isn't.

in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yo, Dipshit, warming from ANY source should produce a hotspot. It is not a sine qua non of AGW, fool.

sure...if the greenhouse hypothesis were correct...it isn't.

in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

Um, you alter the data to fit the hypothesis, no?

 

[Crick]

I posted links to hundreds of peer reviewed studies based on empirical observations. As I said you would do, you simply lie.

liar...f'ing liar...but feel free to prove me wrong to anyone who is watching...i can state that you are a liar in perfect confidence that you will bring nothing here to contradict me...because there is no empirical evidence to contradict me.

now bleat some more for me skidmark...bleat a great big baaahhhh..because you damned sure aren't going to bring the first piece of observed measured evidence to contradict me.

Why do you believe the material in "The Physical Science Basis" does not qualify as empirical evidence?

Yo, Dipshit, warming from ANY source should produce a hotspot. It is not a sine qua non of AGW, fool.

sure...if the greenhouse hypothesis were correct...it isn't.

in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

And, as I stated, you reject basic science. Find us some real scientists that believe the greenhouse theory is not correct. There is no point in even having a discussion with you.

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"