Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Crick]

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Emperical evidence...post adjustments

 

[Crick]

I could put up a few thousand more of these. Then we could get into the hundreds of peer reviewed studies on which all these are based. I could keep posting empirical data supporting AGW, swamping every thread on this board, till AR6 is published. Do any of SSDD's supporters (Billy Boy, SunsetTommy, Crusader Frank, Skookerasnoc) care to get in here and argue on his behalf that these material are NOT empirical evidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I could put up a few thousand more of these. Then we could get into the hundreds of peer reviewed studies on which all these are based. I could keep posting empirical data supporting AGW, swamping every thread on this board, till AR6 is published. Do any of SSDD's supporters (Billy Boy, SunsetTommy, Crusader Frank, Skookerasnoc) care to get in here and argue on his behalf that these material are NOT empirical evidence?

Show us the "accurate to a tenth of a degree" data set pre-1950.

 

[The Purge]

Face it. It is BIG BUSINESS!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I could put up a few thousand more of these. Then we could get into the hundreds of peer reviewed studies on which all these are based. I could keep posting empirical data supporting AGW, swamping every thread on this board, till AR6 is published. Do any of SSDD's supporters (Billy Boy, SunsetTommy, Crusader Frank, Skookerasnoc) care to get in here and argue on his behalf that these material are NOT empirical evidence?

Tell us again how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean 700m deep, but does not cause a troposphere hot spot

 

[Crick]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

YOU ARE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR

Figure 9.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Here it is on their own damn site... And you wonder why no one takes you or your opinions seriously..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

You have still to produce even one EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED PIECE OF EVIDENCE proving or linking AGW to man or what he is doing..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

Anyone in here with evidence?

How about any lab work showing that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 raises temperature?

 

[SSDD]

View attachment 229778

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

And you think that challenges any of the statements i have made how? Does it favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? NO!! Does it establish a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? NO!! Does it empirically measure and quantify the hypothetical warming we cause and ascribe it to so-called greenhouse gasses? NO!!

So my statements remain unchallenged and you prove once again how easily you are fooled...sorry skidmark...you are a dupe.

 

[SSDD]

I could put up a few thousand more of these. Then we could get into the hundreds of peer reviewed studies on which all these are based. I could keep posting empirical data supporting AGW, swamping every thread on this board, till AR6 is published. Do any of SSDD's supporters (Billy Boy, SunsetTommy, Crusader Frank, Skookerasnoc) care to get in here and argue on his behalf that these material are NOT empirical evidence?

And none of them would challenge my statements any more than those do. congratulations, you have evidence that the climate changes...so what...you have nothing but assumptions as to why.

 

[jc456]

SOLAR MAX vs SOLAR MIN
We have nothing to do with it. It is a scam by the UN to redistribute our wealth and nothing more. When they come right out and admit it, we need to listen.....

We have everything to do with it. It is not a scam to redistribute our wealth. AGW is quite real and a real threat. Attitudes like yours are going to cost us and our children for generations to come trillions and trillions of dollars. Even if all you're worried about is your money, I strongly suggest you look at the evidence and likely results of AGW.

hly shit!!!

 

[SSDD]

hly shit!!!

Can you believe how completely he has been duped? I have been asking him for years about that evidence, which he can't produce a shred of...and he is still bleating at people to look at the evidence he can't produce.

 

[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.

YOU ARE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR

Figure 9.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Here it is on their own damn site... And you wonder why no one takes you or your opinions seriously..

You call that a "projection"? I guess when you have as little education as do you, misunderstanding basic science comes easily.

 

[Crick]

Can you believe how completely he has been duped? I have been asking him for years about that evidence, which he can't produce a shred of...and he is still bleating at people to look at the evidence he can't produce.

And... you simply keep on lying.

 

[Crick]

I could put up a few thousand more of these. Then we could get into the hundreds of peer reviewed studies on which all these are based. I could keep posting empirical data supporting AGW, swamping every thread on this board, till AR6 is published. Do any of SSDD's supporters (Billy Boy, SunsetTommy, Crusader Frank, Skookerasnoc) care to get in here and argue on his behalf that these material are NOT empirical evidence?

And none of them would challenge my statements any more than those do. congratulations, you have evidence that the climate changes...so what...you have nothing but assumptions as to why.

The Greenhouse Theory is not an assumption. It is as close to universally accepted as any theory you could name. Besides, you claimed there was NO empirical evidence in "The Physical Science Basis". What we have now is proof that you lie. And I do mean PROOF.

 

[SSDD]

I could put up a few thousand more of these. Then we could get into the hundreds of peer reviewed studies on which all these are based. I could keep posting empirical data supporting AGW, swamping every thread on this board, till AR6 is published. Do any of SSDD's supporters (Billy Boy, SunsetTommy, Crusader Frank, Skookerasnoc) care to get in here and argue on his behalf that these material are NOT empirical evidence?

And none of them would challenge my statements any more than those do. congratulations, you have evidence that the climate changes...so what...you have nothing but assumptions as to why.

The Greenhouse Theory is not an assumption. It is as close to universally accepted as any theory you could name. Besides, you claimed there was NO empirical evidence in "The Physical Science Basis". What we have now is proof that you lie. And I do mean PROOF.

Of course it is. And I have send you cannot show the first piece of absurd measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. No less than Maxwell, Clausius and Carnot said at the greenhouse hypothesis was not valid.

Always the liar aren't you skidmark. I said there was no observed and measured evidence that supported the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and that there was no observed measured evidence that established a coherent relationship between the absorption IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. I never said that there was no observed and measured evidence, that is your bullshit.

There is plenty of observed measure evidence, just none to support your claims.

 

[Crick]

What you said was "I'm going to decide what is and isn't valid based on my idiotic misinterpretations of basic physics." Well done, asshole.

 

[Crick]

Thousands of peer reviewed papers have been published over the last several decades which make clear that global warming is taking place and that it's cause is increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere as well as deforestation and loss of the ozone layer. Those here who have been attempting to tell you that this is not true have a limited repertoire: idiotic lies and pseudo science, absurd fantasies of globe-spanning conspiracies and boogey-men of every shape and color. Rejecting mainstream science because of politics is a fool's choice. The evidence clearly and inarguably says we need to act and act now. Take candidate's opinions on global warming into account when voting. Speak out when you hear denier foolishness. Act before it is too late. We have very, very little time.