Solar Output Not CO2 Drives the Climate.

[westwall]

There is no correlation or forcing factor... None... In fact there is a dampening effect as compared to the LOG of CO2 in the lab. The increase we should see from CO2 alone is cut down by 80%. The last 100 years shows that natural variation is the only thing attributable to any rise in temperature.

There is a correlation. See the NAS final report for details.

There may be a forcing factor. See the same report for details.

Big deal. When correlation equals causation you might have a point. It doesn't though....does it...

Are you giving a statement or asking a question?

I am merely repeating a fundamental scientific fact. The whole AGW meme is built on correlation. Now that CO2 levels have risen to "extraordinary highs" and there has been no concurrent increase in temps, you no longer even have that rickety leg to stand on.

There's no "AGW meme."

The science is based on correlation and other factors as CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor.

Finally, skeptics have confirmed what science groups have said through an independent study:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

The theory of AGW has failed every test. That's why they no longer make testable predictions. So yes, AGW is a meme. Correlation does not equal causation, and never will. The whole "theory of AGW" is based on nothing more than computer models and correlation. The correlation has now failed as well which is why they are going back 50 years to alter the historical data record to try and prop up the fraudulent claims that this year is the most warm ever recorded.

It's all a lie. And they rely on scientific illiterates such as yourself to continue supporting them.

 

[westwall]

Show us how you follow the scientific method and how it leads you wherever they hell you're at.

The scientific method requires you to release ALL of your data and methods so that others may check it for repeatability. In other words if a scientist requests your data you are supposed to give it to him. Period. With the climate mafia they even refuse FOIA requests which are legal avenues that have been used to try and obtain that which the taxpayers have paid for.

The information does not belong to the scientists. It belongs to the people who have paid for it...the taxpayers.

CRU Refuses FOI Request
CRU Refuses FOI Request Climate Audit - mirror site OBSOLETE

 

[jc456]

Co

There is a correlation. See the NAS final report for details.

There may be a forcing factor. See the same report for details.

Big deal. When correlation equals causation you might have a point. It doesn't though....does it...

Are you giving a statement or asking a question?

I am merely repeating a fundamental scientific fact. The whole AGW meme is built on correlation. Now that CO2 levels have risen to "extraordinary highs" and there has been no concurrent increase in temps, you no longer even have that rickety leg to stand on.

There's no "AGW meme."

The science is based on correlation and other factors as CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor.

Finally, skeptics have confirmed what science groups have said through an independent study:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

The theory of AGW has failed every test. That's why they no longer make testable predictions. So yes, AGW is a meme. Correlation does not equal causation, and never will. The whole "theory of AGW" is based on nothing more than computer models and correlation. The correlation has now failed as well which is why they are going back 50 years to alter the historical data record to try and prop up the fraudulent claims that this year is the most warm ever recorded.

It's all a lie. And they rely on scientific illiterates such as yourself to continue supporting them.

correlation farts!

 

[jc456]

Show us how you follow the scientific method and how it leads you wherever they hell you're at.

The scientific method requires you to release ALL of your data and methods so that others may check it for repeatability. In other words if a scientist requests your data you are supposed to give it to him. Period. With the climate mafia they even refuse FOIA requests which are legal avenues that have been used to try and obtain that which the taxpayers have paid for.

The information does not belong to the scientists. It belongs to the people who have paid for it...the taxpayers.

CRU Refuses FOI Request
CRU Refuses FOI Request Climate Audit - mirror site OBSOLETE

Not if you are a warmer it's anything they say anything is! I would like to know if theywin lotteries since they get to manufacture any data.

 

[Crick]

2009? McIntyre and CRU? Are you kidding? There are gigabytes of data and code and methods available. Pathetic, dude, truly pathetic.

 

[jc456]

2009? McIntyre and CRU? Are you kidding? There are gigabytes of data and code and methods available. Pathetic, dude, truly pathetic.

Oh please, more falsified data!

 

[westwall]

2009? McIntyre and CRU? Are you kidding? There are gigabytes of data and code and methods available. Pathetic, dude, truly pathetic.

Link to them then dude.

 

[Crick]

Or what?!?

ESRL PSD All Gridded Datasets

Datasets Climate Data Online CDO National Climatic Data Center NCDC

RealClimate Data Sources

Open Data Resources for Climate Change Data

Data

The Observed Climate

So, you admit you don't know how to operate a search engine. We'll try to take that into consideration next time.

 

[ralfy]

There is a correlation. See the NAS final report for details.

There may be a forcing factor. See the same report for details.

Big deal. When correlation equals causation you might have a point. It doesn't though....does it...

Are you giving a statement or asking a question?

I am merely repeating a fundamental scientific fact. The whole AGW meme is built on correlation. Now that CO2 levels have risen to "extraordinary highs" and there has been no concurrent increase in temps, you no longer even have that rickety leg to stand on.

There's no "AGW meme."

The science is based on correlation and other factors as CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor.

Finally, skeptics have confirmed what science groups have said through an independent study:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

The theory of AGW has failed every test. That's why they no longer make testable predictions. So yes, AGW is a meme. Correlation does not equal causation, and never will. The whole "theory of AGW" is based on nothing more than computer models and correlation. The correlation has now failed as well which is why they are going back 50 years to alter the historical data record to try and prop up the fraudulent claims that this year is the most warm ever recorded.

It's all a lie. And they rely on scientific illiterates such as yourself to continue supporting them.

Read the article carefully: an independent study funded by skeptics confirms AGW. Another study even confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Further studies even confirm previous ones:

Global warming predictions prove accurate Environment The Guardian

 

[westwall]

Big deal. When correlation equals causation you might have a point. It doesn't though....does it...

Are you giving a statement or asking a question?

I am merely repeating a fundamental scientific fact. The whole AGW meme is built on correlation. Now that CO2 levels have risen to "extraordinary highs" and there has been no concurrent increase in temps, you no longer even have that rickety leg to stand on.

There's no "AGW meme."

The science is based on correlation and other factors as CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor.

Finally, skeptics have confirmed what science groups have said through an independent study:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

The theory of AGW has failed every test. That's why they no longer make testable predictions. So yes, AGW is a meme. Correlation does not equal causation, and never will. The whole "theory of AGW" is based on nothing more than computer models and correlation. The correlation has now failed as well which is why they are going back 50 years to alter the historical data record to try and prop up the fraudulent claims that this year is the most warm ever recorded.

It's all a lie. And they rely on scientific illiterates such as yourself to continue supporting them.

Read the article carefully: an independent study funded by skeptics confirms AGW. Another study even confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Further studies even confirm previous ones:

Global warming predictions prove accurate Environment The Guardian

Yeah, sure. Try reading the comments sections.

 

[Crick]

The comments? Do you hear yourself? Don't read the science, read what uneducated fools have to say.

You say AGW has failed every test. What tests would those be?

Your position would require you to believe that CO2 has no warming effect whatsoever; that it does not absorb IR. If so, how do you explain the reams of data showing that it does? All conspiratorial lies?

 

[jc456]

The comments? Do you hear yourself? Don't read the science, read what uneducated fools have to say.

You say AGW has failed every test. What tests would those be?

Your position would require you to believe that CO2 has no warming effect whatsoever; that it does not absorb IR. If so, how do you explain the reams of data showing that it does? All conspiratorial lies?

so do you understand how CO2 works? Just curious, you sure don't post like it. you make this stupid statement that we don't believe CO2 absorbs. Sure it does, and when you look at its characteristics, you'd know that eventually the IR does not get absorbed after a specific point. you know that right? Please answer. It IS LOGARITHMIC. Do you even know what that means?

Edit: BTW, that's why I requested the experiment that shows what happens adding 20 PPM to 280 PPM does. Do you understand that? See, that tells me you don't know the characteristics. Which then means, I question your science knowledge. The answers are on the internet.

 

[westwall]

The comments? Do you hear yourself? Don't read the science, read what uneducated fools have to say.

You say AGW has failed every test. What tests would those be?

Your position would require you to believe that CO2 has no warming effect whatsoever; that it does not absorb IR. If so, how do you explain the reams of data showing that it does? All conspiratorial lies?

Yes, the comments show why the post is false. That's why most alarmist sites no longer allow comments. The real information is always presented within them that refutes the original story.

 

[Crick]

What tests has AGW failed?

If you reject the idea that CO2 absorbs infrared, how do you explain the reams of data showing that it does?

 

[jc456]

What tests has AGW failed?

If you reject the idea that CO2 absorbs infrared, how do you explain the reams of data showing that it does?

so the question is if it absorbs IR, does it get warmer? That is the challenge you all have had to prove. Still haven't. Waiten on that there experimentation thingamajig.

 

[Crick]

You wonder whether or not a material absorbing radiant thermal energy gets warmer? What other change do you think might occur?

 

[jc456]

You wonder whether or not a material absorbing radiant thermal energy gets warmer? What other change do you think might occur?

isn't that what an experiment would do?

 

[Crick]

Experiments test hypotheses. Hypotheses start from observations and our knowledge of related science. If you don't have a hypothesis, you have nothing to test by experimentation.

What do you THINK happens to CO2 that absorbs infrared thermal radiation? Feel free to spitball if you must, though I'd suggest you apply whatever knowledge you have, from education, from experience, from deduction, induction, logic and reasoning. For instance, what have you seen happen to other materials that absorbed infrared thermal radiation?

 

[jc456]

Experiments test hypotheses. Hypotheses start from observations and our knowledge of related science. If you don't have a hypothesis, you have nothing to test by experimentation.

What do you THINK happens to CO2 that absorbs infrared thermal radiation? Feel free to spitball if you must, though I'd suggest you apply whatever knowledge you have, from education, from experience, from deduction, induction, logic and reasoning. For instance, what have you seen happen to other materials that absorbed infrared thermal radiation?

nothing happens to CO2 other than it absorbs the IR. It does not get warmer than the air around it.

And feel free if you do believe it does get warmer to post up that there experimentation thingamajig.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Experiments test hypotheses. Hypotheses start from observations and our knowledge of related science. If you don't have a hypothesis, you have nothing to test by experimentation.

What do you THINK happens to CO2 that absorbs infrared thermal radiation? Feel free to spitball if you must, though I'd suggest you apply whatever knowledge you have, from education, from experience, from deduction, induction, logic and reasoning. For instance, what have you seen happen to other materials that absorbed infrared thermal radiation?

nothing happens to CO2 other than it absorbs the IR. It does not get warmer than the air around it.

And feel free if you do believe it does get warmer to post up that there experimentation thingamajig.

You Are CORRECT JC! The photon is captured by CO2 and when it is released the energy is almost equal to its absorption wavelength. IT is very different if water absorbes it. The photon causes excitement of the water molecule and that excitement creates heat. It also slows the photons final emitted wavelength due to the cooling of the water molecule at the top of the atmosphere where it re-nucleates and forms water droplets.