Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW

[SSDD]

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here

 

[Crick]

There is a great deal of observational data in AR5 that supports the idea that the observed warming is caused by human activities.

Poster SSDD makes the mistake of assuming he knows the motivations of others and that it has any bearing on our discussions. I was not prompted to put up that poll from anyone challenging me to produce empirical data from "The Physical Science Basis". I was prompted to put up that poll from two posters claiming that there simply was no empirical data there. I never made any attempt in that poll to connect the presence or absence of empirical data with the validity of the AGW theory.

 

[SSDD]

There is a great deal of observational data in AR5 that supports the idea that the observed warming is caused by human activities.

Poster SSDD makes the mistake of assuming he knows the motivations of others and that it has any bearing on our discussions. I was not prompted to put up that poll from anyone challenging me to produce empirical data from "The Physical Science Basis". I was prompted to put up that poll from two posters claiming that there simply was no empirical data there. I never made any attempt in that poll to connect the presence or absence of empirical data with the validity of the AGW theory.

Really? Give us an example that does not also fall within the boundaries of natural variability...

And your motivations were obvious crick...I challenged you to provide some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...you then put up a poll that says that I claimed that there was no empirical data in AR5....a bald faced lie.

There are 3 pencils, 6 pens, a sharpie, two highlighters and a stick eraser in the pen holder on my desk...that is observed, measured, quantified data but it does not support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

And of course you were crick prompted by challenges....explicit challenges to produce some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW......more lies on your part...damned but you are a liar. But hell, that is par for the course for you and everyone already knows it without me pointing it out...I offered up a more honest poll and even gave you an out which allowed you to claim that you believe the requested data is there but you can't find it...which is clearly the case since you obviously can't produce any of it here.

 

[Crick]

You waste everyone's time here SID

 

[SSDD]

You waste everyone's time here SID

It is a waste of time to ask for actual data that supports your claim?...Interesting. I would say that you are wasting more time making claims that you can not support with actual data...

 

[SSDD]

So crick... clearly you voted that AR5 was chock full of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW....find any to bring here yet?

 

[Crick]

The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.

The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.

Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.

You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof". And that's because the science DOES support AGW.

 

[SSDD]

The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.

So you finally admit that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW and the entire house of cards is built upon correlation....which does not equal causation....

The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.

The fact that there is nothing happening in the present climate that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability pretty much smashes that bit of stupid thinking....and are you suggesting that at present we know all of the variables that affect the climate and the degree to which they have such an effect? Are you really claiming that?

Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.

Except for the little fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...all models all the time. The atmosphere is a physical, observable, measurable quantifiable entity...doesn't it strike you as odd that the only data supporting the claim that man is altering the climate with his so called greenhouse emissions are unobserved, unmeasured output from failing computer models?

You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof". And that's because the science DOES support AGW.

Thought I would make it easy for you ...and you can't even provide observed, measured, quantified evidence that even supports the claim....the best you can do is admit that it is all correlation and that there is no observed, measured quantified empirical data supporting the claim even though the atmosphere is observable, measurable, testable, and quantifiable..then to claim you have won is just hilarious....

 

[jc456]

The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.

The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.

Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.

You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof". And that's because the science DOES support AGW.

correlation does not equal causation, annnnt, try again.

 

[Crick]

The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.

So you finally admit that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW and the entire house of cards is built upon correlation....which does not equal causation....

This statement makes no difference from what I have always said on this topic. You did not ask that we demonstrate whatever it is you actually mean by "equals causation". You asked for information that "supports the A in AGW". Correlation does not PROVE causation, but all causation will show it. You cannot have causation without correlation and no one on either side of this argument has ever successfully shown us ANYTHING except CO2 that has the necessary correlation - as well as the basic physical mechanisms - to be responsible for the observed warming.

The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.

The fact that there is nothing happening in the present climate that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability pretty much smashes that bit of stupid thinking....and are you suggesting that at present we know all of the variables that affect the climate and the degree to which they have such an effect? Are you really claiming that?

Since you begin that paragraph with a claim to know the boundaries of natural variability, you're attempting to have your cake and eat it too. My position is that until we find something else that might be causing it, we have to assume - for this and many other logical reasons - that CO2 is the cause of the observed warming. To do otherwise is to reject all of natural science. You seem here to be shifting back from "supports the A in AGW" to an unreasonable demand for "proof"; moving the goalposts.

Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.

Except for the little fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...all models all the time.

This is not a model:

Nor this:

So, what part of the long-established mechanism by which the greenhouse effect warms the planet are you rejecting?

The atmosphere is a physical, observable, measurable quantifiable entity...doesn't it strike you as odd that the only data supporting the claim that man is altering the climate with his so called greenhouse emissions are unobserved, unmeasured output from failing computer models?

No. Because they are not. Mountains of empirical data support AGW. My short list was certainly not meant to be complete. For example, have you a non greenhouse-effect cause for the cooling of the lower stratosphere, cause, the only explanation mainstream science has ever come up with was the greenhouse effect. And cooling of the lower stratosphere is nearly universal worldwide.

You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof". And that's because the science DOES support AGW.

Thought I would make it easy for you

You fucked up and asked for what you should have asked for.

...and you can't even provide observed, measured, quantified evidence that even supports the claim.

I can and have, but I cannot stop you from lying about it.

...the best you can do is admit that it is all correlation

Still lying.

and that there is no observed, measured quantified empirical data supporting the claim

Still lying.

even though the atmosphere is observable, measurable, testable, and quantifiable..then to claim you have won is just hilarious....

I'm glad you're entertained, because science has won, quite some time back. The only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you don't know how it works, and that you're perfectly willing to lie your ass off.

 

[IanC]

The IPCC references empirical data on CO2 concentration. And how mankind has disturbed the natural balance .

There is ample empirical data to support CO2 hindering the loss of certain IR bands directly to space.

I personally believe that the warming influence of CO2 is exaggerated but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Comparison to past CO2/temperature relationships is highly uncertain because we have altered it unnaturally.

 

[SSDD]

The IPCC references empirical data on CO2 concentration. And how mankind has disturbed the natural balance .

There is ample empirical data to support CO2 hindering the loss of certain IR bands directly to space.

Really? Lets see it.

I personally believe that the warming influence of CO2 is exaggerated but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

It is zero or less.

 

[SSDD]

[
This is not a model:

Of course not...but like I said...there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that absorption and emission equals warming...the claim arises from an ad hoc construct...not any observed, measured data... Your whole claim is based on an unsubstantiated assumption....

 

[Crick]

but like I said...there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that absorption and emission equals warming...the claim arises from an ad hoc construct...not any observed, measured data... Your whole claim is based on an unsubstantiated assumption....

Please explain what measurement you wish to be made.

 

[SSDD]

some that support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate would be nice. There is no evidence that absorption and emission equal warming so that spectroscopy you keep posting as evidence isn't....

 

[Crick]

Of course there is evidence - the laws of basic physics. Do you have some other suggestions as to what the CO2 might be doing with the energy it absorbs and what the rest of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface might be doing with the energy it emits?

The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect. The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.

 

[Crick]

And when I asked you what measurement you wished to be made, replying "some that support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate" is pure weasel.

 

[SSDD]

Of course there is evidence - the laws of basic physics. Do you have some other suggestions as to what the CO2 might be doing with the energy it absorbs and what the rest of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface might be doing with the energy it emits?

The laws of physics suggest that the presence of greenhouse gasses would have a cooling effect....it is ignorance to suggest that the presence of radiative gasses would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself....if our atmosphere were devoid of greenhouse gasses, the temperature would be higher as there would only be convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere.

The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect. The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.

No they don't...but I don't doubt that you believe that.. Convenient that you ignore that the stratospheric temperatures have flat lined since 1998 corresponding with the flatlining of surface temperatures....while CO2 has been increasing all along. You would find a better correlation in the stratosphere with ozone than you would CO2.

 

[Crick]

The laws of physics suggest that the presence of greenhouse gasses would have a cooling effect....it is ignorance to suggest that the presence of radiative gasses would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself....if our atmosphere were devoid of greenhouse gasses, the temperature would be higher as there would only be convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere.

Wow. There's one that needs to be saved for posterity.

1) Where do radiative gases acquire the energy that they radiate? Magic? They absorb it, of course. From radiation and from collisions with other gas molecules.

2) And what is the difference between a photon's worth of energy that travels directly to space and one that is absorbed and radiated over and over again on its way there? Time.

3) And what happens to the equilibrium temperature of ANY system if you decrease the RATE at which it cools itself? It rises.

4) You state that the only way a planet without greenhouse gases can cool itself is through convection and conduction. Would you care to explain how transfer of heat to a vacuum takes place?

The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect. The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.

No they don't...but I don't doubt that you believe that..

They don't what? Show cooling of the lower stratosphere or support greenhouse warming? In either case, I invite you to find us some data that supports whatever ignorant shite you're pushing.

Convenient that you ignore that the stratospheric temperatures have flat lined since 1998 corresponding with the flatlining of surface temperatures....while CO2 has been increasing all along. You would find a better correlation in the stratosphere with ozone than you would CO2.

You're trying to detour away from the argument you're losing here. You claimed that no empirical data supported AGW. I've named several. Time for you to retract.

 

[SSDD]

3) And what happens to the equilibrium temperature of ANY system if you decrease the RATE at which it cools itself? It rises.

And there we are...right back to the absence of a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that CO2 is decreasing the rate at which the atmosphere cools itself...