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

[Crick]

I see you've wandered off in LaLa Land.

Temperatures rising
Human-sourced CO2 rising
Cooling in the lower stratosphere
Increasing radiative imbalance at the ToA

These are all empirical evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Time for SSDD to make a retraction

 

[SSDD]

I see you've wandered off in LaLa Land.

La la land is where you reside crick...I try not to go there.

Temperatures rising

For the past 14,000 years....so what?

Human-sourced CO2 rising

So what...you have still not provided any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming.'

Cooling in the lower stratosphere

Closer correlation with increased O3...but we remain unsure as to exactly why the stratosphere is cooling.

Increasing radiative imbalance at the ToA

Sorry bout outgoing LW at the TOA is increasing and has been for some time.

These are all empirical evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Some are evidence of warming...none are empirical evidence of anthropogenic warming.

Time for SSDD to make a retraction

Time for you to admit that you just can't find anything like the data I have asked for. I can see though why you hesitated for so long before posting that weak waisted limp dick attempt at proving AGW.

 

[Crick]

What it is time for - and I think I can speak for everyone here - is for you to stop telling lies.

 

[SSDD]

What it is time for - and I think I can speak for everyone here - is for you to stop telling lies.

We have already established that you are the congenital liar here crick....the fact that you can't bring yourself to admit that you can find no observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW and all the while keep claiming that it exists is just more evidence of the fact....your latest attempt at such evidence was laughable...it shows that you will drag your intellect (if in fact you have one) through any amount of sewage in an attempt to get people to believe as you do. You exemplify the unfalsifiable nature of climate science...you glom onto anything and claim that it is evidence of AGW even in cases when climate science is clearly guessing as to causes....like the stratospheric cooling.

Here...NASA admits that at this point they are just guessing and relying on questionable models...

NASA GISS: Research Features: Ozone and Climate Change

The concept that stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss may lead to a delay in recovery of the ozone layer has fallen on fertile ground. Scientists running different kinds of global models are finding similar results. "That gives us confidence," says Dr. Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory. "We're confident in our assessment, because the models can help us to understand the observed ozone and temperature changes on a global scale."

Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons. One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat, and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere. Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere. However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. "The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."

 

[Crick]

What you've just posted is an explanation of the LACK of a requirement for the greenhouse effect to produce a tropospheric hotspot. That ozone depletion increases solar irradiation at the surface is not a good thing and is one more factor in human-caused warming.

 

[SSDD]

What you've just posted is an explanation of the LACK of a requirement for the greenhouse effect to produce a tropospheric hotspot. That ozone depletion increases solar irradiation at the surface is not a good thing and is one more factor in human-caused warming.

I am sure that you believe your tripe crick....do you eat where you $h!t as well?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.

Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..

 

[SSDD]

Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.

Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..

When you really press him, he posts a graph of absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and never fails to post a graph of the emission spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and doesn't even come close to posting any sort of observational evidence that absorption and emission equals warming. Like you said...simply amazing what passes for science in their minds.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.
no it doesn't.

Can you say chocolate syrup, or fudged?

Still waiting crick for your evidence, still zippola

 

[IanC]

Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.

Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..

When you really press him, he posts a graph of absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and never fails to post a graph of the emission spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and doesn't even come close to posting any sort of observational evidence that absorption and emission equals warming. Like you said...simply amazing what passes for science in their minds.

I am embarrassed to have some of these guys speaking nonsense and claiming they represent the skeptical side.

Absorption and emission don't equal warming? The surface emits lots of CO2 reactive IR, most of it doesn't come out from the other side of the atmosphere. That energy is incorporated into the atmosphere's energy and contributes to temperature.

This is observed empirical evidence that these clowns keep screeching for but totally ignore when it is presented.

Temperature is a function of energy in, minus energy out. CO2 specific IR would immediately be lost to space without CO2. Does the energy eventually leave? Of course, but not before it affects the temperature. Warming it at the surface bottleneck but then helping to radiate it away at higher altitude.

This is basic physics. I deny the exaggerated feedbacks but the basic Greenhouse Effect is uncontestable.

 

[jc456]

Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.

Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..

When you really press him, he posts a graph of absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and never fails to post a graph of the emission spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and doesn't even come close to posting any sort of observational evidence that absorption and emission equals warming. Like you said...simply amazing what passes for science in their minds.

I am embarrassed to have some of these guys speaking nonsense and claiming they represent the skeptical side.

Absorption and emission don't equal warming? The surface emits lots of CO2 reactive IR, most of it doesn't come out from the other side of the atmosphere. That energy is incorporated into the atmosphere's energy and contributes to temperature.

This is observed empirical evidence that these clowns keep screeching for but totally ignore when it is presented.

Temperature is a function of energy in, minus energy out. CO2 specific IR would immediately be lost to space without CO2. Does the energy eventually leave? Of course, but not before it affects the temperature. Warming it at the surface bottleneck but then helping to radiate it away at higher altitude.

This is basic physics. I deny the exaggerated feedbacks but the basic Greenhouse Effect is uncontestable.

funny stuff Ian. Asked and never answered, how much warmer does CO2 make the surrounding area. It's all we've asked for. Why are you embarrassed? Are you saying I have no right to ask? BTW, Even you don't believe fully in the exaggerated feedbacks. Why not? Cause it isn't documented that's why.

 

[IanC]

You can ask all you want but you are too stupid to understand the answers.

 

[jc456]

You can ask all you want but you are too stupid to understand the answers.

in other words you have no idea right> So you can't say what adding 20 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere will warm its surrounding air. Simply amazing that we wish to restrict an element not tested. Nor know its ability to do damage to the planet. We do know that the more CO2 the better our plants lives. Seems it's the folks who can't produce the problem or the fix that are the stupid ones.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.

Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..

When you really press him, he posts a graph of absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and never fails to post a graph of the emission spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and doesn't even come close to posting any sort of observational evidence that absorption and emission equals warming. Like you said...simply amazing what passes for science in their minds.

I am embarrassed to have some of these guys speaking nonsense and claiming they represent the skeptical side.

Absorption and emission don't equal warming? The surface emits lots of CO2 reactive IR, most of it doesn't come out from the other side of the atmosphere. That energy is incorporated into the atmosphere's energy and contributes to temperature.

This is observed empirical evidence that these clowns keep screeching for but totally ignore when it is presented.

Temperature is a function of energy in, minus energy out. CO2 specific IR would immediately be lost to space without CO2. Does the energy eventually leave? Of course, but not before it affects the temperature. Warming it at the surface bottleneck but then helping to radiate it away at higher altitude.

This is basic physics. I deny the exaggerated feedbacks but the basic Greenhouse Effect is uncontestable.

Tell me again where in our atmosphere this hot spot (bottleneck) resides..

 

[IanC]

If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.

Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.

 

[SSDD]

If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.

Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.

Except the surface isn't warming either, except in the minds of data altering mainstream climate science...is it Ian...even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise....and the fact remains that at the TOA...ougoing LW continues to rise. These predictions were made and touted to be the smoking guns...the fingerprints of AGW...and yet, they haven't come to pass...in real science Ian, when a hypothesis fails a single predictive test, it is tossed in favor of a different hypothesis which is better able to explain and predict....but you still believe Ian....what exactly do you have invested that would prompt you to continue to believe in a hypothesis which has littered the landscape with failed predictions? How far must it go before you actually admit that you were wrong?...would a long period of cooling convince you?...even if CO2 continues to increase?....what would it take to falsify the hypothesis in your mind Ian?

 

[IanC]

If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.

Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.

Except the surface isn't warming either, except in the minds of data altering mainstream climate science...is it Ian...even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise....and the fact remains that at the TOA...ougoing LW continues to rise. These predictions were made and touted to be the smoking guns...the fingerprints of AGW...and yet, they haven't come to pass...in real science Ian, when a hypothesis fails a single predictive test, it is tossed in favor of a different hypothesis which is better able to explain and predict....but you still believe Ian....what exactly do you have invested that would prompt you to continue to believe in a hypothesis which has littered the landscape with failed predictions? How far must it go before you actually admit that you were wrong?...would a long period of cooling convince you?...even if CO2 continues to increase?....what would it take to falsify the hypothesis in your mind Ian?

The warming influence is still there whether the overall surface temperature is warming or cooling. I have never said CO2 was the only contributing factor, or even the most important. Quite the opposite actually. But the CO2 portion of the Greenhouse Effect obviously exists. The amount of influence is what is in question, and very difficult to determine because of all the other factors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AR5 claims the oceans are absorbing "excess heat" whatever the **** that non-scientific term is, and passes itself off as "Science"

 

[IanC]

AR5 claims the oceans are absorbing "excess heat" whatever the **** that non-scientific term is, and passes itself off as "Science"

Totally agree.

A few years ago a paper came out on ocean heat content. The big story was how OHC was quickly rising yet nothing was publicized that OHC was much higher during ALL of the past 5000 years. No scare stories of how we were slipping back into an Ice Age but got a reprieve.

 

[SSDD]

If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.

Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.

Except the surface isn't warming either, except in the minds of data altering mainstream climate science...is it Ian...even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise....and the fact remains that at the TOA...ougoing LW continues to rise. These predictions were made and touted to be the smoking guns...the fingerprints of AGW...and yet, they haven't come to pass...in real science Ian, when a hypothesis fails a single predictive test, it is tossed in favor of a different hypothesis which is better able to explain and predict....but you still believe Ian....what exactly do you have invested that would prompt you to continue to believe in a hypothesis which has littered the landscape with failed predictions? How far must it go before you actually admit that you were wrong?...would a long period of cooling convince you?...even if CO2 continues to increase?....what would it take to falsify the hypothesis in your mind Ian?

The warming influence is still there whether the overall surface temperature is warming or cooling. I have never said CO2 was the only contributing factor, or even the most important. Quite the opposite actually. But the CO2 portion of the Greenhouse Effect obviously exists. The amount of influence is what is in question, and very difficult to determine because of all the other factors.

Magical CO2 at work again....causing warming even when there is no warming...do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? There is one effect of warming....and that is increasing temperatures...if it isn't getting warmer.....then it isn't warming...CO2 has no effect on the temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere....