Evidence supporting AGW

[mamooth]

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

Since that exact thing, was just provided to to you again by ifitz, you're just being your usual pathological liar self again. It's getting boring. We know you're a pissy crybaby and pathological liar. There's no need for you to keep demonstrating it.

If you want to discuss the science, do so. Otherwise, you shouldn't be here. All you're doing is deliberately disrupting discussions that the grownups are trying to have. Is that all your cult is capable of now?

 

[Kosh]

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

Since that exact thing, was just provided to to you again by ifitz, you're just being your usual pathological liar self again. It's getting boring. We know you're a pissy crybaby and pathological liar. There's no need for you to keep demonstrating it.

If you want to discuss the science, do so. Otherwise, you shouldn't be here. All you're doing is deliberately disrupting discussions that the grownups are trying to have. Is that all your cult is capable of now?

No it was not!

Talk about lies!

But then again the AGW cult that is all they have for their religion.

 

[Crick]

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

I used to think it was from aerosols from the explosives of World War II. However, I looked up the explosive equivalent for Mt Pinatubo and compared that to the total of all explosives detonated in the war. I can't remember what the numbers were though I posted it here (I think as Abraham3) and I might be able to find it. Anyway, given that Pinatubo's aerosol cooling didn't last much more than 3 years, there was just no way that the explosives from the war could have lasted for 30. What I think happened is the same thing that's happening now. The 3 decades before the war showed global temperatures rising rapidly - very similar to what they did from 1980 to 2000. The big cooling period may have been just another hiatus, where the rapidly rising temperatures caused a change in tropical wind patterns and a kink in the normal ENSO cycle.

Just a thought.

 

[mamooth]

WWII destruction would have emitted much more black carbon than sulfur dioxide, so would have pushed temperatures higher.

The 1943-1965 slight cooling was primarily driven by the increasing burning of sulfur-heavy coal, resulting in an ongoing sulfur dioxide aerosol injection into the atmosphere.

The big eruption of Mt. Agung in Indonesia in 1963 also had a cooling effect. There's a significant dip at that time. The warming trends begins a couple years after it.

 

[Crick]

Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.

It is not dogma. It is widely accepted theory.

CO2 does not drive climate.

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

No scientific proof has been provided to prove that.

CO2's absorption of infrared radiation has been clearly demonstrated in the lab. The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments, by observation and by fundamental theoretical physics. From Wikipedia's article on the greenhouse effect:

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.

If you want to reject CO2 warming the planet via the greenhouse effect, you're going to have to find something else to provide that 33C of warming. Do you have something?

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

Everyone here is now fully aware that you have been given these datasets and GCM source codes, is fully aware that you continue to pretend you have not and is fully aware that you haven't the faintest idea what to do with the source code or the data. I really think you ought to drop this particular line.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you not understand the question?

I'd ask you the same. You don't seem to know what you're babbling about; you now just reflexively autospew it without thinking about it. It's almost as if it were a religious mantra you use so you can avoid thinking. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

What temperature increase, if any, is caused by a 120ppm increase in CO2.

Now you post something completely irrelevant and insult me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WWII destruction would have emitted much more black carbon than sulfur dioxide, so would have pushed temperatures higher.

The 1943-1965 slight cooling was primarily driven by the increasing burning of sulfur-heavy coal, resulting in an ongoing sulfur dioxide aerosol injection into the atmosphere.

The big eruption of Mt. Agung in Indonesia in 1963 also had a cooling effect. There's a significant dip at that time. The warming trends begins a couple years after it.

Or maybe CO2 does not drive climate as shown by 600,000 year record at Vostock

 

[Kosh]

Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.

It is not dogma. It is widely accepted theory.

CO2 does not drive climate.

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

No scientific proof has been provided to prove that.

CO2's absorption of infrared radiation has been clearly demonstrated in the lab. The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments, by observation and by fundamental theoretical physics. From Wikipedia's article on the greenhouse effect:

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.

If you want to reject CO2 warming the planet via the greenhouse effect, you're going to have to find something else to provide that 33C of warming. Do you have something?

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

Everyone here is now fully aware that you have been given these datasets and GCM source codes, is fully aware that you continue to pretend you have not and is fully aware that you haven't the faintest idea what to do with the source code or the data. I really think you ought to drop this particular line.

The burden of proof is not on me it is on the AGW cult to prove their religion.

Please post one link with datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Have yet to see one.

So where is your proof?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 does not drive climate.

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

I always thought time of day, time of year and latitude had a greater impact on average temperature than CO2. Was I mistaken?

 

[westwall]

CO2 does not drive climate.

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

I always thought time of day, time of year and latitude had a greater impact on average temperature than CO2. Was I mistaken?

Clearly. CO2 by man is magical in every respect. There is NOTHING that it seemingly can't do!

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, remember the science?

Of course you don't. You've never been introduced.

 

[Crick]

CO2 does not drive climate.

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

I always thought time of day, time of year and latitude had a greater impact on average temperature than CO2. Was I mistaken?

Yes you were, quite.

There are a number of sources these days where one can find the Earth's average temperature plotted against date, with ranges from 5 years to 5,000 years and beyond. On a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate Time of Day? On a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate Time of Year? And on a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate latitude?

I don't know what you were trying to say there but I want to be honest here. Greenhouse warming from added CO2 is not an overwhelming forcing factor (and I've never said it was). It has frequently been overcome by other factors or combination of factors. Notably, aerosol cooling from volcanic eruptions will make the slope of the temperature trend negative quicker than you can say Bob's your uncle. A shift in the ENSO cycle has been able to hide it all for many years now. But those aerosols will settle out in a few years. The sun's cycle turns every five-and-a-half years. A kick-ass El Nino is coming that's gonna kick our ass. But that CO2 is going to be there for decades and since our emissions are still growing, that situation isn't going to be getting better anytime soon. It's the rabbit and the hare. The CO2 will keep nudging us up and up and up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

I always thought time of day, time of year and latitude had a greater impact on average temperature than CO2. Was I mistaken?

Yes you were, quite.

There are a number of sources these days where one can find the Earth's average temperature plotted against date, with ranges from 5 years to 5,000 years and beyond. On a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate Time of Day? On a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate Time of Year? And on a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate latitude?

I don't know what you were trying to say there but I want to be honest here. Greenhouse warming from added CO2 is not an overwhelming forcing factor (and I've never said it was). It has frequently been overcome by other factors or combination of factors. Notably, aerosol cooling from volcanic eruptions will make the slope of the temperature trend negative quicker than you can say Bob's your uncle. A shift in the ENSO cycle has been able to hide it all for many years now. But those aerosols will settle out in a few years. The sun's cycle turns every five-and-a-half years. A kick-ass El Nino is coming that's gonna kick our ass. But that CO2 is going to be there for decades and since our emissions are still growing, that situation isn't going to be getting better anytime soon. It's the rabbit and the hare. The CO2 will keep nudging us up and up and up.

why would you indicate Time of Day?

Why? It's often 20 degrees warmer during the day here in Chicago.

why would you indicate Time of Year?

Why? It's often warmer in June than in January.

why would you indicate latitude?

Why? Latitudes nearer the equator are warmer than those further from the equator.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is a much larger factor than the difference between 398 ppm and 400 ppm.

And what is the force behind those 3 things?

 

[jc456]

1) By applying the laws of physics.

2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.

3) Observation of its effect on past climate.

Then why are the models all wrong?

They aren't.

the models are all wrong! Go read the IPCC AR5 report.

 

[jc456]

Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity. We know this because its the only way the models work.

So you have no evidence?

What are you disputing exactly?

When global atmospheric sulphate emission levelled off, the cooling ceased. Plus we know measurements of solar activity.

I and others are disputing the fact that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You have no proof.

 

[jc456]

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

Since that exact thing, was just provided to to you again by ifitz, you're just being your usual pathological liar self again. It's getting boring. We know you're a pissy crybaby and pathological liar. There's no need for you to keep demonstrating it.

If you want to discuss the science, do so. Otherwise, you shouldn't be here. All you're doing is deliberately disrupting discussions that the grownups are trying to have. Is that all your cult is capable of now?

hahahahahahahahahahaha, you're rich.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then why are the models all wrong?

They aren't.

the models are all wrong! Go read the IPCC AR5 report.

Tell me on which page it says the models are wrong. I can't find it.

 

[jc456]

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

I used to think it was from aerosols from the explosives of World War II. However, I looked up the explosive equivalent for Mt Pinatubo and compared that to the total of all explosives detonated in the war. I can't remember what the numbers were though I posted it here (I think as Abraham3) and I might be able to find it. Anyway, given that Pinatubo's aerosol cooling didn't last much more than 3 years, there was just no way that the explosives from the war could have lasted for 30. What I think happened is the same thing that's happening now. The 3 decades before the war showed global temperatures rising rapidly - very similar to what they did from 1980 to 2000. The big cooling period may have been just another hiatus, where the rapidly rising temperatures caused a change in tropical wind patterns and a kink in the normal ENSO cycle.

Just a thought.

Well at least you admit you don't know. I commend you for that. What it does indicate is that increased levels of CO2 didn't warm the planet.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you have no evidence?

What are you disputing exactly?

When global atmospheric sulphate emission levelled off, the cooling ceased. Plus we know measurements of solar activity.

I and others are disputing the fact that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You have no proof.

Uhh, Ok. What the hell does that have to do with aerosol cooling in the 50's and 60's?

Are you disputing that the effective temperature of emitted radiation goes down with increasing altitude? Are you disputing that CO2 has three IR absorption bands? Are you disputing that Earth would be many degrees cooler without the greenhouse effect? What exactly is your issue with the evidence?

 

[jc456]

Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.

It is not dogma. It is widely accepted theory.

CO2 does not drive climate.

This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet. How is it that doesn't bother you? And why should anyone believe you? You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.

No scientific proof has been provided to prove that.

CO2's absorption of infrared radiation has been clearly demonstrated in the lab. The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments, by observation and by fundamental theoretical physics. From Wikipedia's article on the greenhouse effect:

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.

If you want to reject CO2 warming the planet via the greenhouse effect, you're going to have to find something else to provide that 33C of warming. Do you have something?

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

Everyone here is now fully aware that you have been given these datasets and GCM source codes, is fully aware that you continue to pretend you have not and is fully aware that you haven't the faintest idea what to do with the source code or the data. I really think you ought to drop this particular line.

Sorry Crick, no evidence to support CO2 driving climate. zero, none, nadda. You seemingly keep wanting to use models as proof, and that isn't so. Sorry Charlie! or Cricky!

You have no evidence that can show that CO2 can increase temperature, doesn't exist. Find that one and then the discussion will change. Until then, I and all others who have been asking will continue to keep asking especially everytime you post this nonsense.