The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[Crick]

The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.

So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.

View attachment 104375

Projecting again hairball?....

Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

The correlation of CO2 and temperature, the calculation of warming produced by the CO2 increase matching observations, the cooling in the lower stratosphere, the lack of any other cause. What have you got that says it isn't?

BTW, are you planning to repeat your claim that AR5 has no empirical data?

 

[mamooth]

Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Why? So you can run another time? You've already revealed yourself to be a piss-streaked coward meany times. What's the point of doing it again?

Understand your position in the scheme of things. You're a sociopath crying on a message board. The only purpose you serve now in the universe is as comic relief, and as an example for others of how not to behave. Nobody cares if you're stomping your widdle foot and making pouty demands. If it weren't for the internet, you'd be sporting a sandwich board on a street corner.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting, and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.

Define "way up"....

The graph from the greenland ice cores I already provided for you a couple of times shows pretty clearly that the present temperature is lower than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. It is cooler now than it has been for the past 10,000 years...how do you square that with your claim that temperatures are going way up?

well, to be specific, they say temperature is up sharply since 1880 [although lower than last 10,000 years] and this spike correlates with increased co2. And???

 

[ding]

I didn't say it did, dumbass. I corrected your ignorant statement that IR warms the skin. Your explanation was idiotic.

My explanation is supported by the direct measurements. The data says I'm right, and you're wrong. That's not up for debate.

You could have said it differently and I would have agreed, dumbass.

Ding, you're just one babbling cult loser on the internet. Cranks like you are nothing special. Nobody cares about your kook 'tard science.

So, you and SSDD will just have to deal with being thought of as cult losers for the rest of your lives. I'd ask how you handle all the laughter directed at you, but the answer is clearly "not well", given your hysterical postings.

Can you explain how solar radiation is responsible for heating the skin, but it is IR that heats the water above the skin? Because as near as I can tell solar radiation dominates the temperature profile except at the skin where evaporative cooling dominates the temperature profile.

What do you do for a living?

 

[mamooth]

Can you explain how solar radiation is responsible for heating the skin, but it is IR that heats the water above the skin?

Of course not. Don't expect me to explain your nutty theories.

Because as near as I can tell solar radiation dominates the temperature profile except at the skin where evaporative cooling dominates the temperature profile

And what does that have to do with your deranged and totally unsupported claim that every single bit of IR instantly goes into evaporative cooling, and not a single erg of that energy enters the ocean?

The measurements say that claim is nonsense. Hence, it is nonsense, and repeating it over and over doesn't cause it to somehow become sensible.

That issue isn't going away just because you run from it over and over. The measurements say you are full of shit, hence, you are full of shit. Would it help if I explained that in smaller words?

What do you do for a living?

What does that have to do with anything? You're clueless no matter what your occupation, and I'm damn smart no matter what my occupation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.

So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.

View attachment 104375

Funny little hairball..

But you still haven't shown the math or ruled out other sources of warming.. So once again your talking shit out of both mouths..

 

[mamooth]

But you still haven't shown the math

Shown what math? Be specific. And then very specifically explain why that particular "math" has to be shown.

or ruled out other sources of warming..

Sure they have. Do learn the basics. You wouldn't get so embarrassed if you did.

Oh, if you disagree, show what the real source of the warming is. With the hard data, and the precise math, since you're so big on such things.

 

[Muhammed]

I said the same thing to American airlines. The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far. The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.

And of course everybody here who is not a dumbass knows you are simply lying. And even some of the dumbasses know you are lying too.

 

[ding]

Can you explain how solar radiation is responsible for heating the skin, but it is IR that heats the water above the skin?

Of course not. Don't expect me to explain your nutty theories.

Because as near as I can tell solar radiation dominates the temperature profile except at the skin where evaporative cooling dominates the temperature profile

And what does that have to do with your deranged and totally unsupported claim that every single bit of IR instantly goes into evaporative cooling, and not a single erg of that energy enters the ocean?

The measurements say that claim is nonsense. Hence, it is nonsense, and repeating it over and over doesn't cause it to somehow become sensible.

That issue isn't going away just because you run from it over and over. The measurements say you are full of shit, hence, you are full of shit. Would it help if I explained that in smaller words?

What do you do for a living?

What does that have to do with anything? You're clueless no matter what your occupation, and I'm damn smart no matter what my occupation.

You are a fake.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But you still haven't shown the math

Shown what math? Be specific. And then very specifically explain why that particular "math" has to be shown.

or ruled out other sources of warming..

Sure they have. Do learn the basics. You wouldn't get so embarrassed if you did.

Oh, if you disagree, show what the real source of the warming is. With the hard data, and the precise math, since you're so big on such things.

I am not embarrassed at all, you should be.. Your lack of intelligence is stunning.. But it is why you are easily duped.

The hard data does not indicate a specific source from within our atmosphere which is responsible for our current rise in temperature. You have not shown any causal link, nor have you mathematically shown how it can be the only answer, by eliminating all other potential sources.

Until that science is actually done your AGW fantasy will remain a wild ass guess at best.

 

[Crick]

If you want to see quantitative analyses (the plural of analysis jc) of CO2 warming, I suggest you visit and review How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? as much as I'm sure you hate the site.

 

[SSDD]

BTW, are you planning to repeat your claim that AR5 has no empirical data?

Again...a bald faced lie....ever wonder why liberals are such damned liars...you lie even when there is nothing to be gained by it... That is pathological and yet, it is a common liberal trait.

I have said that AR5 has no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....I have never said that it contains no empirical data....again...if they bothered to mention the temperature in the room they wrote that steaming pile in...that would be empirical data.

Perhaps you should start asking yourself why you lie so pathologically...and why you would lie when there was nothing to be gained by telling the lie.

 

[SSDD]

Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Why? So you can run another time? You've already revealed yourself to be a piss-streaked coward meany times. What's the point of doing it again?

Thanks for maintaining your perfect record of not being able to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....even when material that you apparently believe supports the hypothesis is brought right here and laid out...when asked which you believe supports the hypothesis and why, the best you can do is hurl an impotent insult.

 

[SSDD]

[
well, to be specific, they say temperature is up sharply since 1880 [although lower than last 10,000 years] and this spike correlates with increased co2. And???

OK...here is the temperature increase since 1880..this spans about 135 years. That appears to be about a degree and a half in the past 135 years...I will say that I believe a fair amount of that is due to data manipulation but that is fodder for another discussion....lets say for the purpose of this discussion about a degree and a half.

Now lets refer back to that graph taken from the Greenland ice core...look at the period from about 8210 to about 8029... that is about 180 years or so and it appears to show a temperature increase of about 3.3 degrees and if you go on out to about 7900 , an additional 129 years, the temperature increase tops out at at 3.7 degrees in about 310 years.....how does that compare to our 1.5 degrees in 135 years? And as you look across the graph...you see other periods when the temperatures appear to be increasing must more rapidly than anything we have seen... So again...do you really see anything there to be concerned about...or any reason to believe that the temperature increase we have seen is in any way approaching the boundaries of natural variability?...

 

[SSDD]

You are a fake.

Don't tell me that you are just figuring that out...if you do, you are going to drop 4 points on my respectometer...

 

[danielpalos]

we know climate change happens; we just need to work on "Stargate: Atlantis" technology. but, that is just, left wing fantasy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you want to see quantitative analyses (the plural of analysis jc) of CO2 warming, I suggest you visit and review How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? as much as I'm sure you hate the site.

BWhaaaaaa Crayon kids site (skeptical science LIARS) And they don't have the empirical evidence or math to back up their assumptions.. Color me NOT surprised..

 

[Crick]

Color you having not even looked at it. Shall we pull that page up piece by piece and you can try your damnedest to tell us what's wrong with their information? Sounds good to me.

Figure 1: Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over both the last 1000 years and the preceding 400,000 years as measured in ice cores

As a greenhouse gas, this increase in atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of downward longwave radiation from the atmosphere, including towards the Earth's surface.

 

[Crick]

Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.



Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

 

[Crick]

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.

Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?