So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?

[RollingThunder]

The only thing that matters is that a huge majority of Americans think that scientists still dont know dick about the climate............

Well of course everybody knows that we always settle important scientific issues with public opinion polls.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are so crazy, kooksucker.

And a liar too, of course.

In the real world.....

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US
GALLUP
MARCH 14, 2017
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

 

[SSDD]

So in the end thunder...all you have is yet another opinion piece from people carrying basket loads of sour grapes...not surprising considering what passes for evidence of man made climate change in your mind.

 

[RollingThunder]

So in the end thunder...all you have is yet another opinion piece from people carrying basket loads of sour grapes...not surprising considering what passes for evidence of man made climate change in your mind.

LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying any evidence.....like from the Gallup Polls....or from all of the world's scientists.....that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh SSoooDDumb?

I know it would make your brain melt if you admitted to yourself that at least 66% of Americans are justifiably worried about human caused global warming while only 34% are too stupid and/or brainwashed by the anti-science fossil fuel industry propaganda to be rightly worried.

 

[jc456]

So in the end thunder...all you have is yet another opinion piece from people carrying basket loads of sour grapes...not surprising considering what passes for evidence of man made climate change in your mind.

LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying any evidence.....like from the Gallup Polls....or from all of the world's scientists.....that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh SSoooDDumb?

I know it would make your brain melt if you admitted to yourself that at least 66% of Americans are justifiably worried about human caused global warming while only 34% are too stupid and/or brainwashed by the anti-science fossil fuel industry propaganda to be rightly worried.

polls showed trump was going to get his ass handed to him. How did that pan out? Polls are only for those who seek an opinion piece on their beliefs. Failing to recognize the facts don't exist. That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

 

[RollingThunder]

...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

 

[jc456]

...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

and like clockwork, an opinion piece. I rest SSDD's case.

 

[RollingThunder]

...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

and like clockwork, an opinion piece. I rest SSDD's case.

LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying the evidence from virtually all of the world's scientists that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh JustCrazy? You are sooooo pathetic!

 

[jc456]

...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

and like clockwork, an opinion piece. I rest SSDD's case.

LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying the evidence from virtually all of the world's scientists that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh JustCrazy? You are sooooo pathetic!

here:
Definition of OPINION

"Definition of opinion

1. 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.b : approval, esteem I have no great opinion of his work.
   
   
2. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge a person of rigid opinionsb : a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion"
   

 

[RollingThunder]

...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

and like clockwork, an opinion piece. I rest SSDD's case.

LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying the evidence from virtually all of the world's scientists that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh JustCrazy? You are sooooo pathetic!

here:
Definition of OPINION

"Definition of opinion

1. 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.b : approval, esteem I have no great opinion of his work.
   
   
2. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge a person of rigid opinionsb : a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion"

Your silly word games, JustCrazy, only demonstrate that you are too stupid to grasp the profound difference between the ordinary 'opinions' of the general population, that are quite often uninformed and based on ignorance, and the conclusions of professional scientists on matters within their area of expertise, which are based on the laws of physics, and lots of research and observational data.

Too bad you are so utterly clueless and retarded.

 

[jc456]

...That there are no facts on human influence on climate.

An obviously fraudulent denier cult myth that only deluded rightwingnut retards could believe.

In the real world.....

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

and like clockwork, an opinion piece. I rest SSDD's case.

LOLOLOLOL.....still desperately denying the evidence from virtually all of the world's scientists that destroys your crackpot denier cult dogmas, eh JustCrazy? You are sooooo pathetic!

here:
Definition of OPINION

"Definition of opinion

1. 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.b : approval, esteem I have no great opinion of his work.
   
   
2. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge a person of rigid opinionsb : a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion"

Your silly word games, JustCrazy, only demonstrate that you are too stupid to grasp the profound difference between the ordinary 'opinions' of the general population, that are quite often uninformed and based on ignorance, and the conclusions of professional scientists on matters within their area of expertise, which are based on the laws of physics, and lots of research and observational data.

Too bad you are so utterly clueless and retarded.

so, in climate science an opinion is declared fact? Is that what you're trying to say? if so, then post up that link that backs your claim.

 

[SSDD]

so, in climate science an opinion is declared fact? Is that what you're trying to say? if so, then post up that link that backs your claim.

That is precisely what he is trying to say...all they have is opinion...if there were actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering the global climate with his puny CO2 emissions, you wouldn't be able to escape it anywhere...it would be on billboards on the highway...it would be in every other commercial on TV...it would be front page news in bold print every damned day of the year...you would not be able to escape it...and I certainly wouldn't have had to ask for more than 2 decades without seeing the first piece of such evidence..

So yes...opinion...and weakly supported opinion is all they have...and all they will ever have.

 

[Political Junky]

"Before the Flood", a two hour show on National Geographic, should be seen by everyone.

 

[Political Junky]

It's interesting to watch the ignorant lick up the propaganda put forth by the fossil fuel industry.
The same fools believed the tobacco folks who said tobacco was harmless.

 

[SSDD]

It's interesting to watch the ignorant lick up the propaganda put forth by the fossil fuel industry.
The same fools believed the tobacco folks who said tobacco was harmless.

What is interesting is to watch people who have been duped by decades of pseudoscience try and convince those who haven't been duped to join them in their failure.

Is there anything in that National Geographic show that could be categorized as observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is causing a change in the global climate with is so called "greenhouse gas" emissions? That is what I have been looking for for more than 2 decades now and to date, not the first piece of actual evidence supporting AGW over natural variability has ever shown up. Warmers have presented mountains of evidence that the climate is changing but that was never in question...the climate has always changed...what they haven't ever shown is any sort of real evidence that favors AGW over natural variability. It has been very interesting to see what passes for actual evidence of AGW in peoples minds though. It is almost always evidence that the climate is changing with an assumption that we are causing it tacked on as an accessory.

So tell me, what sort of evidence convinced you? My bet is that it isn't of the observed, measured, quantified sort...which is what science produces....If you have accepted man made climate change based on information other than observed, measured, quantified empirical data which supports AGW over natural variability, I am afraid that it is you who falls in the category of the ignorant licking up propaganda. It wouldn't take a great deal of actual evidence which supported AGW over natural variability to convince me but in more than two decades, I have not seen even the first piece of such evidence...being a thinking person, how could I be anything other than skeptical.

By the way, do you know what the opposite of skeptical is? The opposite of skeptical is gullible, which describes people who accept pseudoscientific propaganda rather than demand actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from science....which, after all is what science is supposed to be all about.

 

[mamooth]

Is there anything in that National Geographic show that could be categorized as observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is causing a change in the global climate with is so called "greenhouse gas" emissions?

Absolutely.

The stratospheric cooling.

The increase in backradiation.

The decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

All of those are directly measured, and all have no possible natural explanation.

That is what I have been looking for for more than 2 decades now

You mean "denying for more than 2 decades now". At least you've been a steadfastly obedient political/religious cult fanatic, if nothing else. 20 years ago, you could have gotten away with denying reality like that. Now, with the mountains of data crushing your crap pseudoscience babble, not a chance. You look as ridiculous as a flat earther.

 

[SSDD]

Absolutely.

Sorry hairball...you couldn't be more wrong...

The stratospheric cooling.

Simply not so.....Your stratospheric cooling close to two decades ago...this has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you just keep right on chanting don't you?

The increase in backradiation.

You can't even show a single measurement of back radiation...much less one showing increased back radiation. But feel free to prove me wrong...lets see a single measurement of a discrete radiation band from one of the so called greenhouse gasses made with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.....we both know that no such measurement will be forthcoming.

The decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.[./quote]

Sorry again hairball...but it just isn't happening.

All of those are directly measured, and all have no possible natural explanation.

The ones that have been measured show that you are wrong...still waiting on that measurement of a discrete radiation frequency in the so called green house gas range that wasn't made with an instrument cooled to a very low temperature.

 

[mamooth]

Simply not so.....Your stratospheric cooling close to two decades ago...this has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you just keep right on chanting don't you?

Thank you for posting the graphs showing the stratospheric cooling so clearly.

I'll let you know when I need you to prove more of my points.

You can't even show a single measurement of back radiation...

A lie that big won't be dignified with a response.

Sorry again hairball...but it just isn't happening.

Then why did you present some images showing it happening? You don't seem to understand what you present.

Some of those are from Chen 2007. Unlike you, I give sources for images, so nobody has to guess if it's just a faked mystery graph pulled from a denier fraud blog, as you've presented before.

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

Red is modeled, black is measured. It shows the decline in outgoing longwave in the GHG absorption bands.

 

[Political Junky]

Just saw a spot on TV from southern Louisiana where folks are watching land disappear and trees dying from salt water, but deny it's caused by man.

 

[SSDD]

Thank you for posting the graphs showing the stratospheric cooling so clearly.

Guess you are no better at reading a graph than crick...but thanks for proving it. And aside from the fact that the cooling ended some time ago...there are thought to be multiple causes for the stratospheric cooling that ended so long ago...our CO2 was only one of them...the question of what caused it still remains unanswered

A lie that big won't be dignified with a response.

If you weren't such a liar, you would have said that inconvenient truth won't be answered...because we both know (or maybe you are so stupid you don't know) that no such measurements exist...perhaps in that twisted ball of fishing line you call a mind, you actually believe you have seen such measurements...This is just one more instance of you not being able to deliver evidence to support your claims.

Then why did you present some images showing it happening? You don't seem to understand what you present.

I didn't...just one more case of you being as bad at reading graphs as crick. Here, let me help you out...

This is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

Red is modeled, black is measured. It shows the decline in outgoing longwave in the GHG absorption bands.

And just in case there was any doubt that you are a complete idiot, you post this...and even go so far as to point out how terribly wrong you are...you point out that the red line is the output of a climate model...and the black line is observation...and then claim that by comparing a model to actual measurement you can tell that OLR has decreased? MODELS ARE NOT OBSERVATIONS....all you have shown with that graph is that the models were wrong and don't match up to observations...

Again...look up to the graphs I provided...IRIS on the top graph...TES on the bottom...Note I provide separate graphs as opposed to yours which combines them...My graphs provide a better look at what is really being measured...Both graphs show that the model (red line) has overestimated the OLR...but because I provided two graphs, you can print them both...overlay them and compare the actual IRIS observation made in the 1970's to the TES observations in 2006 and see that they are identical...No decrease in OLR in the so called greenhouse bands.

The stupidity just never stops with you does it?

By the way...I couldn't help but notice that you ran away from the conversation over on the
Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation thread...No surprise...you were proved so wrong there that I can understand your humiliation and reluctance to show up...but keep in mind that all those false statements and contradictions on your part are in one place now and easily brought forward when you make the same false claims again. That post is never going to stop following you around so long as you don't learn something from it.

 

[SSDD]

Just saw a spot on TV from southern Louisiana where folks are watching land disappear and trees dying from salt water, but deny it's caused by man.

Wow...a spot on TV....from people who would probably like some government $. Tell me, did that spot mention that in southern Louisiana, the land is sinking or did they just let you believe that it was due to rising sea levels caused by climate change? Did they mention that the rate of sea level rise has slowed since the 20th century?

News | New Study Maps Rate of New Orleans Sinking

Louisiana's coastline is disappearing at the rate of a football field an hour

How fast is New Orleans sinking? Faster and faster, says new study

Louisiana's Bayou Is Sinking: Can $50 Billion Save It?