In Support of the A in AGW

[Billy_Bob]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

LOL...

AR5 is a political pile of modeled crap..

Empirical real world evidence shows AGW a failed hypothesis. I dont suppose you would like to post up the relevant sections of AR5 which show the empirical evidence (model outputs are not empirical evidence of any kind) and are not fantasy modeling which has failed empirical review and have no predictive powers. Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

 

[IanC]

BillyBob. You quoted this graph once before and it was never ever published by NOAA, despite the fraudulant title. It came from http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab140/Billy_Bob_photos/GlobaltempChange.jpg. I think you or someone else Photoshopped that Photobucket photo.

Please cite a legitimate NOAA source and not something from your personal bucket of photos.

W - you seem to be as bad as crick at reading graphs. did you read the title of the graph? did you read the caption? do you understand what the graph is illustrating?

the graph itself states where it is from, the address of the NOAA data it used (although undoubtedly out of date now), and the source of the CO2 data.

to make things simpler for you in the future, I will give you an easy tip. if you are using Chrome simply right click the graph and select 'search google for this image'



what is the graph showing????

20 year temperature changes. eg the first point is the difference between Jan 1880 and Jan 1900. repeat until the end of the data. the blue line is the five year average. it of course doesnt start til 1905, and my one complaint about this graph is that they extrapolated the last five years with a straight line ending with an arrow. they should have just cut it off at 2007.

this type of graph is somewhat odd, although I have seen it before, most recently in the study of UHI in Japan. it emphasizes the change in trend without completely losing temperature context like a first derivative acceleration graph would.

 

[Crick]

what a waste of time you are.

1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
3) You go downhill from there.

Good for you..you found a misspelled word...got a special victory dance for that?

I don't see a correction? What word did you intend to be there? Ah... Column. Tough one.

However, as expected, you ignored the point that almost NONE of the atmosphere's thermal energy radiates to space from water vapor. It radiates from the extremely dry stratosphere. Remember? They told you that in Atmospheric Physics for Dummies 101R.

 

[SSDD]

As best I know,

And that pretty much sums up the state of climate science....we are just beginning to scratch the surface in knowing what drives the climate and warmers are already claiming that the debate is settled...it isn't even close...

When what you are observing out in the real world is well within the bounds of natural variability, and you want to go claiming an unnatural cause, you better have some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world...and you better be able to thoroughly explain, and prove natural variation and show that what you are observing simply isn't...climate science hasn't come close to that bar yet and probably won't for some time....or at least till they scrap the failed AGW hypothesis and work on something that takes a closer look at natural variability and uncertainty.


i

 

[SSDD]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

 

[PK1]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

 

[PK1]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

---
See my response to your ignorant buddy BBob.
.

 

[elektra]

Is the Climate changing, no, it is the same as it was yesterday, and the day before, the same as the last century, changing weather is what the climate is, it is never the same, the average always changes, a giant ball in space bombarded with radiation from the sun and idiots believe they can take the temperature at one time, one day, and that years from now at that spot in space, which has long since passed, the temperature should be exactly the same, and if not, the climate has changed?

Still funnier, is representing this point in time as a picture, a dot on a graph.

Until we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth in an exact time and point in space, in relation to an exact output of the sun's energy, all your arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Olde Europe]

And that pretty much sums up the state of climate science....we are just beginning to scratch the surface in knowing what drives the climate and warmers are already claiming that the debate is settled...it isn't even close...

When what you are observing out in the real world is well within the bounds of natural variability, and you want to go claiming an unnatural cause, you better have some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world...and you better be able to thoroughly explain, and prove natural variation and show that what you are observing simply isn't...climate science hasn't come close to that bar yet and probably won't for some time....or at least till they scrap the failed AGW hypothesis and work on something that takes a closer look at natural variability and uncertainty.

Stunning, really. Frankly, your scientific semi-literacy is of such a magnitude, it is topped by nothing except by your vastly overblown certainty.

Of course, if you want to claim "natural variability", you better have "some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world" when otherwise the only significantly changing parameters are increased GHG concentrations due to human activity.

Moreover, climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) which ranges from GHG emissions due to human activity, to increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, to complex interaction with the earth's energy budget and irradiation / albedo, to even more complex causes for changing weather patterns and ice melting etc. etc. etc. Note, too, that causal chains cannot be directly observed, and neither can they be measured. All that can be done is take the most accurate measurements we can (GHGs, temperatures, cloud formation and duration, ice volume and extent, sea levels, etc. etc. etc.), and reconstruct past data as best we can, and bind these together into a theory that involves physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to try to explain what we are seeing. Climate science is at a state where GW and its human causation is well-established science, while uncertainties exist, to various degrees, in vast areas over the exact causal chains, second- and third-order effects, and future developments.

But hey, pounding your chest and pontificating over things you haven't begun to understand certainly seems to be fun to you, so knock yourself out.

 

[SSDD]

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...I have been asking for a very long time for those who believe it is to cut and paste anything from that steaming pile of pseudoscience to bring forward anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and still no one, including yourself can seem to find any...

For all your talk...the clear fact is that you can't find it either.....not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

 

[SSDD]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

---
See my response to your ignorant buddy BBob.
.

Saw it...sorry, it isn't there regardless of your claims...do feel free to bring forward what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence taken from out here in the real, observable, measurable, quantifiable world...It was interesting to see what passes for evidence supporting the A in AGW in cricks and rocks mind...it will be equally interesting to see what passes for it in yours...it is a sure bet that it won't be anything like actual evidence though...but by all means, step on up and as they say...put up or shut up.

 

[PK1]

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

..not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

---
Apparently, you did not read the evidence indicated or you did not understand it.
Thousands of scientists throughout the WORLD concur with that evidence.
Obviously, you're not a scientist and are bitching out of your league.
Go get a lollipop and read first grade stories, like in the Bible; more your speed.
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

Please feel free to post up the empirical, quantifiable, observed evidence, where and when it was obtained, and what it's error bounds are..

 

[PK1]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

---
See my response to your ignorant buddy BBob.
.

Saw it...sorry, it isn't there regardless of your claims...

---
Saw it?
You are a fucking liar.
.

 

[PK1]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

---
You are a climate scientist?
Who cares what you think!
You are a nobody in science.
Why don't you cite a credible authority who disputes the evidence presented in that WG1 AR5 report ...
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And that pretty much sums up the state of climate science....we are just beginning to scratch the surface in knowing what drives the climate and warmers are already claiming that the debate is settled...it isn't even close...

When what you are observing out in the real world is well within the bounds of natural variability, and you want to go claiming an unnatural cause, you better have some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world...and you better be able to thoroughly explain, and prove natural variation and show that what you are observing simply isn't...climate science hasn't come close to that bar yet and probably won't for some time....or at least till they scrap the failed AGW hypothesis and work on something that takes a closer look at natural variability and uncertainty.

Stunning, really. Frankly, your scientific semi-literacy is of such a magnitude, it is topped by nothing except by your vastly overblown certainty.

Of course, if you want to claim "natural variability", you better have "some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world" when otherwise the only significantly changing parameters are increased GHG concentrations due to human activity.

Moreover, climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) which ranges from GHG emissions due to human activity, to increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, to complex interaction with the earth's energy budget and irradiation / albedo, to even more complex causes for changing weather patterns and ice melting etc. etc. etc. Note, too, that causal chains cannot be directly observed, and neither can they be measured. All that can be done is take the most accurate measurements we can (GHGs, temperatures, cloud formation and duration, ice volume and extent, sea levels, etc. etc. etc.), and reconstruct past data as best we can, and bind these together into a theory that involves physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to try to explain what we are seeing. Climate science is at a state where GW and its human causation is well-established science, while uncertainties exist, to various degrees, in vast areas over the exact causal chains, second- and third-order effects, and future developments.

But hey, pounding your chest and pontificating over things you haven't begun to understand certainly seems to be fun to you, so knock yourself out.

" climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) "

A chain your theoretical models have failed horribly to emulate, so badly that they fail by 100% within 30 days.. ALL OF THEM! and they are so far outside 2 standard deviations by 2 years that the failure of your authorities understanding of the climate system is stunning...

 

[Billy_Bob]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

---
You are a climate scientist?
Who cares what you think!
You are a nobody in science.
Why don't you cite a credible authority who disputes the evidence presented in that WG1 AR5 report ...
.

LOL...

Keep believing that.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

I find it rather interesting how the alarmists claim that 'Global Warming' can only be man made and omit the A. Its part of the disinformation campaign to cloud and hide the need to link the anthroprogenic portion to the natural one.. Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

 

[PK1]

Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

---
Agenda? That's what you're doing; trying to confuse the gullible public to promote your greedy political agenda.

The scientists are doing scientific work, which you cannot dispute from a scientific view.
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

---
Agenda? That's what you're doing; trying to confuse the gullible public to promote your greedy political agenda.

The scientists are doing scientific work, which you cannot dispute from a scientific view.
.

I am using verifiable facts.. repeatable science..

If you think for one minuet that fantasy modeling is accurate, I want some of what your smoking... You claim you have science as your root but you produce none.. Why is that?

I have produced simple, empirical, verifiable, observed evidence of the hypothesis's failure. You counter with failed modeling... Its pretty obvious who is blowing smoke..