Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW.. plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !

 

[Grumblenuts]

And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?

From your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!

LOL

Normal is not 240ppm. There would be little or no plant life at that level. From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease. The paleo record show that our average CO2 on earth is well over 2,500ppm.

Ah, that was you, not SSDD. I clearly said:

From simply glancing at this image:

Continue jumping up and down all you want. When you're done being foolish.. read the damn chart. You'l find the average there to be "about 240 ppm." Yeah, no plant life likely, no kidding. Said that too.

Note that the Earth has normally been frozen, i.e.very unsupportive of life except for relatively short periods such as our current one.

 

[Grumblenuts]

From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.

No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again,

Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..

..without soil, no significant terrestrial plant life,.. no trees, no significant fossil fuel deposits, plant or animal respiration, humans to worry about.. entirely different world and only increasingly so as one looks back in time. Pointless then going back there to find what most accurately affects us today. 400,000,000 years is more than enough. 200,000,000 better...

 

[jc456]

Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence

Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.

During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.

Earth's atmosphere traps some of the Sun's heat, preventing it from escaping back into space at night. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are changing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.

NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Why do you think we need arctic ice? You do know it once didn’t have ice right? You have a brain? You ever use it?

 

[Oddball]

From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.

No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?

Warmers wrong again....
420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made

 

[Grumblenuts]

Climate Time Machine

 

[jc456]

Climate Time Machine

Did you think the ice age was natural?

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.

No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?

All areas of "crossover" are lagging the change.. Your delusional..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Time Machine

Old Crock reincarnation....

 

[Billy_Bob]

I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW.. plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !

How many times must you be told that a Model, which can not predict anything, IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Billy-Bob:

“I grew up Democratic. I’ve always voted Democratic. And I’m a liberal person. That’s just who I am naturally,” he said. “[As a parent] you wonder about your kid’s future and all that. But to tell you the truth, I don’t talk about politics publicly because I think, I’m in the entertainment business—who cares what I have to say? I think they only care in a curiosity sense. I think they want you to comment on politics, because then they can hand your ass to you.”
...
Instead of hating on the people trying to do good in the world, Thornton suggested, why don’t we celebrate? “I just think it’s ridiculous. If somebody’s going to try and do something with their lives, tip your hat to them.”

Somehow, I gather that's not you

 

[SSDD]

Wrong. There is a demonstrable interdependence.

You like definitions....here is one for you.

Demonstrable -
adjective
able to be demonstrated or proved

So you claimed a demonstrable interdependence. Let’s see it. This goes straight to my statement that there has never been a scientific paper peer reviewed and published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified nd ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

In order to demonstrate that CO2 can lead to warming, you are going to need to show some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Good luck with either of those. You have just come face to face with one of the great assumptions of climate science...everyone “knows” that CO2 causes warming...bit there isn’t any actual observed, measured evidence to establish any truth to the assumption.

Don’t worry about not being able to provide any evidence to support your claim that CO2 causing warming is demonstrable. I have been asking for, and looking for such evidence for 3 decades now...it doesn’t exist.

Either is clearly likely to "cause" the other. Indeed, a positive feedback loop exists as well.

Yet another assumption for which no evidence exists...Again,dont sweat not bring able to provide evidence to support your claim that the relationship is demonstrable.

the addition of our AGW component leaves us now facing runaway warming unless we take drastic preventative measures.

At what concentration does this ‘runaway” warming kick in? The present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 at 2000 ppm and atmospheric CO2 has been in excess of 7000 ppm with no runaway warming efffect...how much CO2 is required to set a runaway effect into motion? And is that demonstrable as well? You say it as if it is...

Yeah, sure. Impose a system with no life upon one with abundant life in a situation pertaining to life. No you can't be the one in denial. NEVER!

How long do you think life has been on the planet. Most forms of life alive today had evolved to their present state prior to the onset of the present ice age...again, the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels of about 1000 ppm.. Further, the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, and the Tertiary periods all had atmospheric CO2 levels ranging from close to 3000ppm down to about 1000ppm with no runaway warming effect. The fact of history itself refutes your belief in a run away warming effect on earth...but again, at what concentration do you believe this runaway effect will kick in?

 

[SSDD]

And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?

From your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!

And what chart was that? If you are talking about Billy’s chart, it most certainly doesn’t show 240 ppm being normal on earth...it shows normal in excess of 2000ppm.

 

[SSDD]

Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence

Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.

During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.

Earth's atmosphere traps some of the Sun's heat, preventing it from escaping back into space at night. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are changing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.

NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I have asked before which part of that you think is observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...thus far, no answer

 

[SSDD]

I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW.. plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !

It science does empirically measure and quantify effects. Thus far, no paper has been published in which the warming due to our activities has been empirically measured...and yet, all of you warmers seem to know how much warming we have caused...where did you get that number?...since it certainly wasn’t from any peer reviewed, published paper.

 

[SSDD]

Continue jumping up and down all you want. When you're done being foolish.. read the damn chart. You'l find the average there to be "about 240 ppm." Yeah, no plant life likely, no kidding. Said that too.

Can you even read a graph? This one is so straight forward that I am embarrassed for you. The heavy blue line is Temperature, denoted by the temperature bar on the right hand side of the graph...clearly what you were reading as CO2... The black line represents CO2, and the concentration bar is on the left hand side of the graph...where it says “Atmospheric CO2 (ppm)”. As you can see, the “average” is nothing like 240ppm. And also as you can see, CO2 drops to very low levels during ice ages.. Try looking again and tell me what you think the actual average CO2 concentration on planet earth is.

 

[SSDD]

Again,

Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..

..without soil, no significant terrestrial plant life,.. no trees, no significant fossil fuel deposits, plant or animal respiration, humans to worry about.. entirely different world and only increasingly so as one looks back in time. Pointless then going back there to find what most accurately affects us today. 400,000,000 years is more than enough. 200,000,000 better...

The scale of your graph is billions of years....clearly scale is difficult for you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Try not to spend all that Koch money in one place, son.

30 years and still in complete denial, eh? Reading really isn't that hard compared to all that gum flapping you do:

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[7] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by measuring radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[8] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.

.
-More-

 

[SSDD]

Try not to spend all that Koch money in one place, son.

30 years and still in complete denial, eh? Reading really isn't that hard compared to all that gum flapping you do:

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[7] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by measuring radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[8] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.

.
-More-

So when you come face to face with the fact that none of the claims of demonstrable you revert to logical fallacy...and the completely asinine suggestion that I am getting Koch money>. Really?

Fourier, whose hypothesis was demonstrated to be fatally flawed by professor Woods and his experiment very shortly after it was published. He media invariably fails to note that fact.

Tyndall, who also noted that CO2 was the most feeble of the IR absorbing gasses.

If you have any scientific ability at all, you know that Foote demonstrated that water vapor warms more efficiently than dry gasses...big surprise.

And Savante Arrhenius...what was he known for again? Hats right..he was a chemist who theorized a radiative greenhouse effect. What your sources fail to mention is that no less than James C. Maxwell, one of the biggest of the big dogs didn’t think much of Savante’s hypothesis. And then there was Clausius, ever hear of him? He practically invented the science of thermodynamics, which oddly enough deals with Savante’s hypothesis...he didn’t think much of the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect either.

Don’t you find it interesting that in an effort to demonstrate the science of a radiative greenhouse effect, you m use resort to quaint 19th century science which demonstrated very little and was mostly disregarded as fantasy by some od the biggest names of the period? And the “science” hasn’t advanced beyond that quaint 19th century hobby level endeavoClearly you cant de”demonstrate ant sort of interdependence between CO2 and temperature beyond the demonstrable fact that increased CO2 is the result of higher temperatures, not the cause of higher ntemperatures.

It’s sobering to come face to face with the sheer paucity of actual science that supports your beliefs isn’t it/? By the way, i don’t guess you realize that all your “science”is based on models, not empirical science. No actual science has been done in the field since those 19th century scientist performed their science fair level experiments by todays standards. Isn’t it odd that climate pseudoscience would rly on failed models when. Dealing with an entity as eminently observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it.

And i cant help but notice that you failed to mention your abject failure at reading a simple graph...and you didn’t say at what CO2 level this runaway greenhouse effect you believe in so fervently kicks in.