Why cant the AGW contingent make their case??

[Old Rocks]

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Old Rocks]

Real scientists, not horseshit peddlers you fellows post.

 

[jc456]

Real scientists, not horseshit peddlers you fellows post.

so curious, without reading all of that, is there an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?

If not, then they lack in their science skills.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real scientists, not horseshit peddlers you fellows post.

so curious, without reading all of that, is there an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?

If not, then they lack in their science skills.

In other words, you damned well are not going to read anything written by a real scientist. And, yes, there are 'experiments', conducted on a planetary scale showing that increased amounts of CO2, in our present continental geographical and atmospheric regime, does increase the temperature. 320,000 years ago the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today, and the CO2 was at 300 ppm, about 20 ppm higher than it has been during this interglacial.

Now your and Frankie boys constant demand for an experiment to show that CO2 is a GHG is simply a liars gambit, since that was taken care of with Tyndall's experiment in 1858.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real scientists, not horseshit peddlers you fellows post.

so curious, without reading all of that, is there an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?

If not, then they lack in their science skills.

In other words, you damned well are not going to read anything written by a real scientist. And, yes, there are 'experiments', conducted on a planetary scale showing that increased amounts of CO2, in our present continental geographical and atmospheric regime, does increase the temperature. 320,000 years ago the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today, and the CO2 was at 300 ppm, about 20 ppm higher than it has been during this interglacial.

Now your and Frankie boys constant demand for an experiment to show that CO2 is a GHG is simply a liars gambit, since that was taken care of with Tyndall's experiment in 1858.

Experiment on a planetary scale is just another way of the AGWCult admitting that the laboratory spanks them into submission

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Old Rocks]

Tyndall did the experiment in 1858, and it has been repeated many times in many ways since. Frankie boy, you simply repeat your silly lie because you are too lazy to make up another.

The Modern Temperature Trend

The heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is the most comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet (the oceans contain far more of any new heat added than the thin atmosphere). As seen in hundreds of thousands of measurement analyzed by three independent groups, it began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important. A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up. (For latest updates see NOAA's ocean heat content site.)

Levitus et al., Geophysical Research Letters 36 (2009): L07608.
Copyright © 2009 American Geophysical Union, reproduced by permission
Back to earlier text.

Mann et al. (1999), p. 761, copyright © 1999 American Geophysical Union, reproduced by permission. Lower:IPCC (2007b) p. 467.
A graph showing a dozen studies separately is here.

The 1999 graph shows "proxy" temperatures (for example from tree rings) averaged over the Northern Hemisphere, plus measured temperatures for the past century. The dark solid line shows temperatures averaged over each half-century or so, and the shaded area gives the range of possible averages. An apparent downward trend since medieval times (thought to possibly reflect a natural drift toward the next ice age) is interrupted by a steep recent rise. In 2004 some teams pointed out that the huge gaps and uncertainties in the pre-19th century data, and the methods used to average the data, could conceal changes of temperature in the past that might have been as large and abrupt as anything seen in modern times. Indeed the way the popular press often displayed the "hockey stick" graphic, as a single, stout, level line hooking up at the end, gave a misleading impression of past stability. A main purpose of the original publication had been to establish the limits of uncertainty, but even if publications did show the broad gray band of shading, it was easy to overlook that it might conceal big climate shifts. The National Academy of Sciences responded to the controversy by asking a panel to review all the evidence. In 2006 the panel announced that while some mistakes had been made (as usually happens in frontier science), the main original conclusions held. The world had indeed grown warmer since the 1980s in a way that was without precedent, at least in the past four centuries for which a reliable record could be reconstructed. While earlier data were much less reliable, the panel found it "plausible" that the world was now

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real scientists, not horseshit peddlers you fellows post.

so curious, without reading all of that, is there an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?

If not, then they lack in their science skills.

In other words, you damned well are not going to read anything written by a real scientist. And, yes, there are 'experiments', conducted on a planetary scale showing that increased amounts of CO2, in our present continental geographical and atmospheric regime, does increase the temperature. 320,000 years ago the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today, and the CO2 was at 300 ppm, about 20 ppm higher than it has been during this interglacial.

Now your and Frankie boys constant demand for an experiment to show that CO2 is a GHG is simply a liars gambit, since that was taken care of with Tyndall's experiment in 1858.

Tyndall's experiment...what a loon

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[mamooth]

Answer the question hairball....CRN, a triple redundant network so meticulously placed that it requires no "adjustment" says that the US is getting cooler and has been for the past 10 years.

See if you can figure out what word in there makes you look dishonest and stupid.

I'll help you out. The word is "US". You're declaring that a US-only dataset over a few years disproves warming. That's either very stupid or very dishonest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

^ No lab experiments that show a 120PPM increase in CO2 raising temperature

Weird

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crock is a coward because he demands proof for Youch's extraordinary claims? I don't think so. But making such a charge is just the sort of shite I'd expect from you.

Youch, let's see your evidence that the world is getting cooler. Maybe your buddies can help you out. C'mon DENIERS, let's see some evidence that the world is getting COOLER like your good buddy Youch tells us! ! ! You guys gotta stand together or you're gonna fall apart. C'mon everyybody ! LET'S SEE YOUR DATA ! ! ! ! ! !

The most advanced, perfectly placed continental temperature network on earth says that it is getting cooler here....what makes you think that if that network were expanded to cover the entire earth the result wouldn't be the same?

Well it once was. Now they have dropped 4500 or so weather stations that were rural sited and now exclusively use urban stations. Accuracy has gone out the window in favor of politically motivated falsification of data.

I'm talking about CRN....it is triple redundant and so meticulously placed that no "adjustment" is necessary....it says that the US has been cooling for the entire time it has been online...the same time GISS et all say that it has either been not warming or warming slightly....when the most advanced network ever put into use says that the old system and what it is saying is wrong, you listen...unless you are a warmer and that advanced network isn't saying what you want it to say.

CRN is showing a -0.6 deg C Drop over the last 12 years. Its not just not warming it is showing a rapid cooling trend that our alarmists morons do not want to acknowledge. The cool of the NH over the last 12 years has wiped out all warming over the last 100 years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Answer the question hairball....CRN, a triple redundant network so meticulously placed that it requires no "adjustment" says that the US is getting cooler and has been for the past 10 years.

See if you can figure out what word in there makes you look dishonest and stupid.

I'll help you out. The word is "US". You're declaring that a US-only dataset over a few years disproves warming. That's either very stupid or very dishonest.

Exposing the FRAUD by the establishment and eco nuters is well documented. CRN just cements that belief that NONE of the so called groups of informed scientists is telling the truth. But keep than head firmly planted in your rectum...

 

[Crick]

The cool of the NH over the last 12 years has wiped out all warming over the last 100 years.

My god are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Crock is a coward because he demands proof for Youch's extraordinary claims? I don't think so. But making such a charge is just the sort of shite I'd expect from you.

Youch, let's see your evidence that the world is getting cooler. Maybe your buddies can help you out. C'mon DENIERS, let's see some evidence that the world is getting COOLER like your good buddy Youch tells us! ! ! You guys gotta stand together or you're gonna fall apart. C'mon everyybody ! LET'S SEE YOUR DATA ! ! ! ! ! !

The most advanced, perfectly placed continental temperature network on earth says that it is getting cooler here....what makes you think that if that network were expanded to cover the entire earth the result wouldn't be the same?

Well it once was. Now they have dropped 4500 or so weather stations that were rural sited and now exclusively use urban stations. Accuracy has gone out the window in favor of politically motivated falsification of data.

I'm talking about CRN....it is triple redundant and so meticulously placed that no "adjustment" is necessary....it says that the US has been cooling for the entire time it has been online...the same time GISS et all say that it has either been not warming or warming slightly....when the most advanced network ever put into use says that the old system and what it is saying is wrong, you listen...unless you are a warmer and that advanced network isn't saying what you want it to say.

CRN is showing a -0.6 deg C Drop over the last 12 years. Its not just not warming it is showing a rapid cooling trend that our alarmists morons do not want to acknowledge. The cool of the NH over the last 12 years has wiped out all warming over the last 100 years.
View attachment 33181

Combine that with the fact that the southern oceans are cooling and you have a real problem if you are a warmer...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tyndall did the experiment in 1858, and it has been repeated many times in many ways since. Frankie boy, you simply repeat your silly lie because you are too lazy to make up another.

The Modern Temperature Trend

The heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is the most comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet (the oceans contain far more of any new heat added than the thin atmosphere). As seen in hundreds of thousands of measurement analyzed by three independent groups, it began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important. A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up. (For latest updates see NOAA's ocean heat content site.)

Levitus et al., Geophysical Research Letters 36 (2009): L07608.
Copyright © 2009 American Geophysical Union, reproduced by permission
Back to earlier text.

Mann et al. (1999), p. 761, copyright © 1999 American Geophysical Union, reproduced by permission. Lower:IPCC (2007b) p. 467.
A graph showing a dozen studies separately is here.

The 1999 graph shows "proxy" temperatures (for example from tree rings) averaged over the Northern Hemisphere, plus measured temperatures for the past century. The dark solid line shows temperatures averaged over each half-century or so, and the shaded area gives the range of possible averages. An apparent downward trend since medieval times (thought to possibly reflect a natural drift toward the next ice age) is interrupted by a steep recent rise. In 2004 some teams pointed out that the huge gaps and uncertainties in the pre-19th century data, and the methods used to average the data, could conceal changes of temperature in the past that might have been as large and abrupt as anything seen in modern times. Indeed the way the popular press often displayed the "hockey stick" graphic, as a single, stout, level line hooking up at the end, gave a misleading impression of past stability. A main purpose of the original publication had been to establish the limits of uncertainty, but even if publications did show the broad gray band of shading, it was easy to overlook that it might conceal big climate shifts. The National Academy of Sciences responded to the controversy by asking a panel to review all the evidence. In 2006 the panel announced that while some mistakes had been made (as usually happens in frontier science), the main original conclusions held. The world had indeed grown warmer since the 1980s in a way that was without precedent, at least in the past four centuries for which a reliable record could be reconstructed. While earlier data were much less reliable, the panel found it "plausible" that the world was now

One failed experiment from 1858, then you wonder why we think you're an insane death worshipping Marxist run cult

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[SSDD]

The cool of the NH over the last 12 years has wiped out all warming over the last 100 years.

My god are you stupid.

Proof that if you tamper with the data enough, and have a stupid enough group to promote your tampering as science, you can fool a lot of people.

Once again crick, if the most advanced, meticulously placed continental monitoring network ever put into use says that the US is cooling at a fairly rapid clip, and has been since it was put into service while at the same time, the conventional network says no warming to slight warming (which is obviously wrong) why do you think that if the network were expanded to cover the entire earth, the finding would not be the same...after all, the same sort of "adjustments" are being done with the worldwide temperature data set as are being done with the US data set and CRN says that the adjustments being done here are wrong...do you think CRN is wrong?

 

[SSDD]

Tyndall did the experiment in 1858, and it has been repeated many times in many ways since. Frankie boy, you simply repeat your silly lie because you are too lazy to make up another.

The Modern Temperature Trend

The heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is the most comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet (the oceans contain far more of any new heat added than the thin atmosphere). As seen in hundreds of thousands of measurement analyzed by three independent groups, it began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important. A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up. (For latest updates see NOAA's ocean heat content site.)

Levitus et al., Geophysical Research Letters 36 (2009): L07608.
Copyright © 2009 American Geophysical Union, reproduced by permission
Back to earlier text.

Mann et al. (1999), p. 761, copyright © 1999 American Geophysical Union, reproduced by permission. Lower:IPCC (2007b) p. 467.
A graph showing a dozen studies separately is here.

The 1999 graph shows "proxy" temperatures (for example from tree rings) averaged over the Northern Hemisphere, plus measured temperatures for the past century. The dark solid line shows temperatures averaged over each half-century or so, and the shaded area gives the range of possible averages. An apparent downward trend since medieval times (thought to possibly reflect a natural drift toward the next ice age) is interrupted by a steep recent rise. In 2004 some teams pointed out that the huge gaps and uncertainties in the pre-19th century data, and the methods used to average the data, could conceal changes of temperature in the past that might have been as large and abrupt as anything seen in modern times. Indeed the way the popular press often displayed the "hockey stick" graphic, as a single, stout, level line hooking up at the end, gave a misleading impression of past stability. A main purpose of the original publication had been to establish the limits of uncertainty, but even if publications did show the broad gray band of shading, it was easy to overlook that it might conceal big climate shifts. The National Academy of Sciences responded to the controversy by asking a panel to review all the evidence. In 2006 the panel announced that while some mistakes had been made (as usually happens in frontier science), the main original conclusions held. The world had indeed grown warmer since the 1980s in a way that was without precedent, at least in the past four centuries for which a reliable record could be reconstructed. While earlier data were much less reliable, the panel found it "plausible" that the world was now

One failed experiment from 1858, then you wonder why we think you're an insane death worshipping Marxist run cult

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

They never mention that Roberts falsified the findings of that quaint experiment less than a year after it was done....idiots...the lot of them.

 

[IanC]

SSDD, your cult has been predicting the imminent new ice age for over a decade now. How many more years of embarrassing abject failure will it take before you admit you were bamboozled by paid professional liars?

Any deniers, give us a number. How many more years of warming before you throw in the towel?

If the data contradicts your hypothesis, you don't respond by twiddling the data like deniers keep doing, you abandon the hypothesis. Deniers need to stop twiddling the data and explain why their theories have failed so consistently and so completely.

Answer the question hairball....CRN, a triple redundant network so meticulously placed that it requires no "adjustment" says that the US is getting cooler and has been for the past 10 years...10 years, by the way in which the ground stations say no warming to very slight warming....what makes you think that if such a meticulously placed network were expanded to cover the globe, that it wouldn't expose the adjustments worldwide to be as bogus as those being done here....CRN puts the lie to the claims of warmest this or that here in the US, and there is no reason to think that it would't be the same worldwide.

exactly!!!

there was a NOAA experiment a coupla years ago that put a station together with multiple thermometers of several types. the initial results were quite startling. the presence of a building nearby cause a substantial UHI effect even in a perfect rural location. the TOB effect was considerably less than assumed.

and to nobody's surprise, we havent heard any updates since.

Westwall- I think you were the one to post on this experiment. do you think you could find the link again? I looked unsuccessfully.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD, your cult has been predicting the imminent new ice age for over a decade now. How many more years of embarrassing abject failure will it take before you admit you were bamboozled by paid professional liars?

Any deniers, give us a number. How many more years of warming before you throw in the towel?

If the data contradicts your hypothesis, you don't respond by twiddling the data like deniers keep doing, you abandon the hypothesis. Deniers need to stop twiddling the data and explain why their theories have failed so consistently and so completely.

Through trail and error, the Marxist have learned how to take control of their subjects minds. Mamooth and the other AGWCulters think they are "Thinking" their own "thoughts" without ever realizing they constantly and perfectly parrot back whatever "ideas" are fed into the AGWCult Collective. You have to give the Masters credit for training the seals so completely and thoroughly. The Seals are absolutely impervious to any outside information

 

[skookerasbil]

I see a lot of graphs.......I see a lot of tired old links.........all from the AGW crowd.

I guess to them, its making their case but only to their choir........ but heres the thing. Outside of the internet, its not mattering at all. Been saying to these people for years now, time for Plan B. The people aren't caring in 2014. This robotic display of data/theory that is decades old is falling on deaf ears.

Still haven't made the case.........its not even debatable.


These people really have to take a look at something like YOURMARKETINGSUCKS.com

 

[jc456]

Real scientists, not horseshit peddlers you fellows post.

so curious, without reading all of that, is there an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?

If not, then they lack in their science skills.

In other words, you damned well are not going to read anything written by a real scientist. And, yes, there are 'experiments', conducted on a planetary scale showing that increased amounts of CO2, in our present continental geographical and atmospheric regime, does increase the temperature. 320,000 years ago the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today, and the CO2 was at 300 ppm, about 20 ppm higher than it has been during this interglacial.

Now your and Frankie boys constant demand for an experiment to show that CO2 is a GHG is simply a liars gambit, since that was taken care of with Tyndall's experiment in 1858.

I see, so you admit you have no experimental evidence to support your claim. Nice, Thanks that is called GRAND WiNNiNg