Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cold outbreaks are not caused by global warming

Physical Evidence shows AGW a farce... LOL

Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.

Are you a secret warmer?

Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...

Go look at ANY periodic table

Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?

Be specific.

the molecular build of every element.

When you sober up, can you translate that into English?

 

[Crick]

That is a funny turn of phrase. Billy Bob's, I mean.

 

[SSDD]

1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.

Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.

More weaseling...just because there is evidence there does not mean that there is observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...That is what I am asking for and you keep stating that there is "evidence" there...of that there is no question...the question is evidence of what? Can you bring any observed measured evidence from that site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or not?

The answer is a resounding NO, YOU CAN NOT. You are the troll...making claims that you can't support.. This is a discussion forum regarding the climate, and the man made climate change hypothesis. Exactly how is it trolling for me to ask for some observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability? I get that it upsets you, but then you are making claims that observed, measured evidence exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability which you don't seem to be able to provide...

When you make the claim, I ask for the evidence and you get your panties in a twist because you can't provide it...hardly trolling...simply me zeroing in on the inherent weakness of your argument...

 

[SSDD]

1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.

Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.

Come on Crick... Copy and paste the relevant sections you think prove your assertion..

Being asked to point out that which you believe is evidence is not trolling. Screaming like a little bitch that someone else be banned because you have no evidence is trolling..

The entire work is, as entitled, the physical science basis for the conclusions reached by the IPCC: that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of our climate. Read the whole fucking thing, fool. Compared to your doctorate work load, it's both trivial and pertinent.

How about the part that suggests that there has been only 0.1 C of warming in the past 50 years? Is that settled too? And did they post notices of papers that have been retracted, or altered since they "settled" their conclusions? Could you post the location of those notices and where one might see the alterations of their conclusions based on said retractions?

 

[Crick]

What is your point? Were you expecting the world's oceans to warm at the same rate as the atmosphere? If so, I suggest you go see if they'll let you back into Remedial Thermodynamics for Trolling Rat Brains.

 

[jc456]

1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.

Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.

Come on Crick... Copy and paste the relevant sections you think prove your assertion..

Being asked to point out that which you believe is evidence is not trolling. Screaming like a little bitch that someone else be banned because you have no evidence is trolling..

The entire work is, as entitled, the physical science basis for the conclusions reached by the IPCC: that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of our climate. Read the whole fucking thing, fool. Compared to your doctorate work load, it's both trivial and pertinent.

too fking funny. dude, we challenged you and you keep failing and flailing around in here. can't copy and paste any of it to prove your point is on you. There is no way for us to pull the piece that shows observed AGW since it doesn't exist there. you keep saying it does, well post it.

Your stupid is noted however.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cold outbreaks are not caused by global warming

Physical Evidence shows AGW a farce... LOL

Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.

Are you a secret warmer?

Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...

Go look at ANY periodic table

Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?

Be specific.

the molecular build of every element.

When you sober up, can you translate that into English?

Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cold outbreaks are not caused by global warming

Physical Evidence shows AGW a farce... LOL

Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.

Are you a secret warmer?

Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...

Go look at ANY periodic table

Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?

Be specific.

the molecular build of every element.

When you sober up, can you translate that into English?

Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

Focus. You said photons were magnetic. Are you now saying photons are molecules?

No luck finding the mass of a photon yet?

 

[Billy_Bob]

1800 pages of evidence for AGW may be found in "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.

Poster SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is a lying troll that ought to be banned from USMB.

Come on Crick... Copy and paste the relevant sections you think prove your assertion..

Being asked to point out that which you believe is evidence is not trolling. Screaming like a little bitch that someone else be banned because you have no evidence is trolling..

The entire work is, as entitled, the physical science basis for the conclusions reached by the IPCC: that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of our climate. Read the whole fucking thing, fool. Compared to your doctorate work load, it's both trivial and pertinent.

How about the part that suggests that there has been only 0.1 C of warming in the past 50 years? Is that settled too? And did they post notices of papers that have been retracted, or altered since they "settled" their conclusions? Could you post the location of those notices and where one might see the alterations of their conclusions based on said retractions?

It seems that old crick cant get a paper to get outside of Natural Variation ranges or rates of change....LOL..

I have to wonder how these rapid changes could have occurred before man? Maybe the solar drop out in the UV bands has something to do with it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cold outbreaks are not caused by global warming

Physical Evidence shows AGW a farce... LOL

Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.

Are you a secret warmer?

Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...

Go look at ANY periodic table

Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?

Be specific.

the molecular build of every element.

When you sober up, can you translate that into English?

Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

Focus. You said photons were magnetic. Are you now saying photons are molecules?

No luck finding the mass of a photon yet?

NO need to further respond to you. You simply do not
have the ability to comprehend the properties of molecular bonds.

Let me know when you come to the realization that all matter is formed of energy...

 

[Crick]

Is your pretty little table there showing us "the molecular build of elements"?

BTW, that's NOT a copy of the periodic table. That would look like this:

Hmm... photons... photons... is that 15 (P), or perhaps 78 (Pt)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Speaking of evidence, I've noticed you haven't posted any that back up your
"photons are magnetic and have mass", claims.

Are you a secret warmer?

Wow... Go look at ANY periodic table showing the molecular build of every element...

Go look at ANY periodic table

Does the periodic table tell you that photons are magnetic?
Where does the periodic table tell you the mass of a photon?

Be specific.

the molecular build of every element.

When you sober up, can you translate that into English?

Every molecule has polarity.. Every molecule has an electrical charge. Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

Thus every molecule has magnetic properties.

Focus. You said photons were magnetic. Are you now saying photons are molecules?

No luck finding the mass of a photon yet?

NO need to further respond to you. You simply do not
have the ability to comprehend the properties of molecular bonds.

Let me know when you come to the realization that all matter is formed of energy...

You simply do not
have the ability to comprehend the properties of molecular bonds.

Compared to you with your claims about "covailent bonds", I'm a goddamn bond expert.

Let me know when you come to the realization that all matter is formed of energy.

Let me know when you find proof for your claims that "photons are magnetic" and that "photons have mass".

Or runaway again, pussy.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy, molecules with mirror symmetry do NOT have a dipole moment: such as N2, O2, CO2 and CCl4. Such molecules do NOT have magnetic properties. And most atoms and most molecules have a balance between electrons and protons and thus have NO electric charge. None of that would be learned from the periodic table. What was it you thought we would see about PHOTONS in the periodic table?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Boy, molecules with mirror symmetry do NOT have a dipole moment: such as N2, O2, CO2 and CCl4. Such molecules do NOT have magnetic properties. And most atoms and most molecules have a balance between electrons and protons and thus have NO electric charge. None of that would be learned from the periodic table. What was it you thought we would see about PHOTONS in the periodic table?

LOL

I see you failed basic chemistry..

Neither of you two morons have a clue...

 

[Crick]

Are you stating that you believe N2, O2, CO2 and CCL4 have a dipole moment? How about identifying the source of your image?

Never mind, I found it. Polarizability Chemistry. So, are you or are you not stating that all molecules have a dipole moment? Is that your doctorate level understanding?

 

[Billy_Bob]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

You fail to understand the mechanical functions and actions of our atmosphere.

SO lets explore your fantasy warming...

Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made. The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

Its been a while and its time to revisit this post. Crick has never answered any of these basic questions which disprove AGW at its root. Still no empirical evidence to prove AGW has any merit...

 

[Crick]

Like that.

 

[Crick]

Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made.

Obviously natural variation did not stop. And you choosing narrow time intervals to compare is obviously cherry picking. But...

...this tells us that CO2, CH4 (methane) and halocarbons (CFCs) are the largest radiative forcing factors. And isotopic analysis has shown that virtually every molecule above the pre-industrial 280 ppm CO2 and the 500 ppb methane and every molecule of CFCs are of human origin. Thus, humans are responsible for the observed warming.

SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

No one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped. The temperature data plotted against several ranges of time which I displayed in the prior post clearly show that contemporary warming exceeds natural variation and that you are blatantly guilty of cherry picking.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

See above

3. What the result of a 120 ppm rise since 1890 has done

It is clearly displayed on the bottom of the graphic above: it has produced 2.29 W/m^2 of warming.

how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming

It has not been ruled out. It has been taken into account by all models. I hope you didn't think you were being clever.

and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

Because that has also been taken into account. Note "Changes in solar irradiance" in the graphic above. And since power is an integration of the spectral curve, all spectral changes are included.

Still no empirical evidence to prove AGW has any merit...

And still you lie. To claim that the thousands of research papers that have been published on this topic, which are virtually ALL based on empirical data taken from the environment and which virtually ALL support AGW, contain no empirical evidence to support AGW indicates you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest*.

Evidence behind AGW may be reviewed in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be downloaded from www.ipcc.ch.

* and since you have never retracted your claim to be working on a PhD in atmospheric physicists while making a continuous series of 7th grade level mistakes (and worse), I would have to vote for BOTH DISHONEST AND STUPID

 

[Billy_Bob]

Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made.

Obviously natural variation did not stop. And you choosing narrow time intervals to compare is obviously cherry picking. But...

...this tells us that CO2, CH4 (methane) and halocarbons (CFCs) are the largest radiative forcing factors. And isotopic analysis has shown that virtually every molecule above the pre-industrial 280 ppm CO2 and the 500 ppb methane and every molecule of CFCs are of human origin. Thus, humans are responsible for the observed warming.

SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

No one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped. The temperature data plotted against several ranges of time which I displayed in the prior post clearly show that contemporary warming exceeds natural variation and that you are blatantly guilty of cherry picking.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

See above

3. What the result of a 120 ppm rise since 1890 has done

It is clearly displayed on the bottom of the graphic above: it has produced 2.29 W/m^2 of warming.

how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming

It has not been ruled out. It has been taken into account by all models. I hope you didn't think you were being clever.

and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

Because that has also been taken into account. Note "Changes in solar irradiance" in the graphic above. And since power is an integration of the spectral curve, all spectral changes are included.

Still no empirical evidence to prove AGW has any merit...

And still you lie. To claim that the thousands of research papers that have been published on this topic, which are virtually ALL based on empirical data taken from the environment and which virtually ALL support AGW, contain no empirical evidence to support AGW indicates you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest*.

Evidence behind AGW may be reviewed in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be downloaded from www.ipcc.ch.

* and since you have never retracted your claim to be working on a PhD in atmospheric physicists while making a continuous series of 7th grade level mistakes (and worse), I would have to vote for BOTH DISHONEST AND STUPID

Every item you post is from FAILED MODELING... You are liar and a fool.

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over.. It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position. You attack me because you have no other recourse. You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack.. Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

Not one of your graphs and their respective papers/articles answer the questions I put to you. You post up gibberish that has no basis in reality. Hell, you don't even understand what it is the graphs actually represent.

 

[SSDD]

And still you lie. To claim that the thousands of research papers that have been published on this topic, which are virtually ALL based on empirical data taken from the environment and which virtually ALL support AGW, contain no empirical evidence to support AGW indicates you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest*.

The only thing that graph is empirical evidence of is how easily you are fooled...If that graph is the result of empirical measurements, then there must exist a paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.... Please provide it....or the title and the author.

We both know no such paper exists...that graph is the product of failed models...nothing more...but it does have pretty colors, and says what you want to hear so it is good enough to fool you...

engineer my shiny metal ass...