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

[SSDD]

"Photons have always been and will always be radiation, since they are massless."

You guys never research anything...you simply assume that because you think it is true, that it must be true....wrong again...

engineer my ass...

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf

https://www.physics.uci.edu/Tajima-Symposium-Presentations/Ryutov.pdf

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2015042114060745.pdf

The measurement of the mass of an ion before and after emitting a photon has been done by David Pritchard at MIT.

E=mc2 passes tough MIT test

"The mass difference was measured by comparing the cyclotron orbit frequencies of two single molecules trapped in a strong magnetic field for several weeks" . In the case of you affecting your weight by jumping on your bathroom scales, you will not get an accurate measurement while you are accelerating. So for the ion, you need to measure the mass of the ion before and after it emits the photon, but not during the short time in which it is emitting the photon (a few nanoseconds).

Physicists analyze rotational dynamics of galaxies and influence of the photon mass

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fad8/57a399f2c530ba1918e6b94d1b0c8aeb1634.pdf

 

[SSDD]

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.

Some material above, including experimental evidence that photons have mass above...don't know if you have seen all of it or not...Just shows once again that the depth of their scientific knowledge may be measured in nanometers..it is all on the surface...no underlying knowledge at all...

 

[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

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

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

 

[jc456]

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.

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either you dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

maybe you should look up the word calculation. just saying.

 

[jc456]

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.

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

well if you can't prove something, how is it you know what something is? too fking funny.

I'm 63 years young and I still haven't observed global warming. Yet, you keep yelling that there is. Now, you have a dilemma, I'm not the only one, and if you can't prove something, people like me are going to piss on your models because our observations don't match your fking models.

Oh, and I don't accept cause you said so.

You first show me the CO2 heating piece. that is something that can be done in an experiment. Next, you have to tell me how much of the planet is monitored. And Satellite data isn't reliable. Then you need someone other than a guy named Michael Mann. just saying, I don't believe liars.

I want to see the procedure to separate out human CO2 and natural variable CO2.

Then i want you to give me the solution to stopping it if it is a problem. go for it, golden opportunity. Do you want us all to die? is that your solution? haven't seen anything yet.

 

[Crick]

"Photons have always been and will always be radiation, since they are massless."

You guys never research anything...you simply assume that because you think it is true, that it must be true....wrong again...

engineer my ass...

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf

https://www.physics.uci.edu/Tajima-Symposium-Presentations/Ryutov.pdf

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2015042114060745.pdf

The measurement of the mass of an ion before and after emitting a photon has been done by David Pritchard at MIT.

E=mc2 passes tough MIT test

"The mass difference was measured by comparing the cyclotron orbit frequencies of two single molecules trapped in a strong magnetic field for several weeks" . In the case of you affecting your weight by jumping on your bathroom scales, you will not get an accurate measurement while you are accelerating. So for the ion, you need to measure the mass of the ion before and after it emits the photon, but not during the short time in which it is emitting the photon (a few nanoseconds).

Physicists analyze rotational dynamics of galaxies and influence of the photon mass

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fad8/57a399f2c530ba1918e6b94d1b0c8aeb1634.pdf

Look up "rest mass" and see if you can see where you fucked up.

Besides, absurd interpretations of speculative studies do not corroborate Billy Bob's (and now, apparently, your) claim that mainstream science holds the photon to have mass.

 

[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.

Some material above, including experimental evidence that photons have mass above...don't know if you have seen all of it or not...Just shows once again that the depth of their scientific knowledge may be measured in nanometers..it is all on the surface...no underlying knowledge at all...

I choose not to get in this deep with anyone here. They have no concept of the process and most, if not all, have no ability to grasp the basic concepts let alone the ones that require those to understand the more complex concepts. Its called arguing with idiots, nope, wont do it here any more.

Just look at the graphics you quoted from Crick. Crick is still using 250 year proxies with 5 year instrument record plotted in the same graph without attribution and without explaining the hockey schtick is a matter of artifact. Yet he reposts it over and over again to 'prove AGW' even though he has been called out for it over and over again. He is DISHONEST and an outright LIAR as he has been told about this deception but he continues to use it.

There is no debating this kind of dishonesty and it must be called out.

 

[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.

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

well if you can't prove something, how is it you know what something is? too fking funny.

I'm 63 years young and I still haven't observed global warming. Yet, you keep yelling that there is. Now, you have a dilemma, I'm not the only one, and if you can't prove something, people like me are going to piss on your models because our observations don't match your fking models.

This is the standard answer today. They think if it can not be "falsified" then the lie can continue unscathed. It is a deception and a lie. It is an afront to real science and nothing more than astrology in meteorology. IE: faith based bull shit!

 

[jc456]

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.

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

well if you can't prove something, how is it you know what something is? too fking funny.

I'm 63 years young and I still haven't observed global warming. Yet, you keep yelling that there is. Now, you have a dilemma, I'm not the only one, and if you can't prove something, people like me are going to piss on your models because our observations don't match your fking models.

This is the standard answer today. They think if it can not be "falsified" then the lie can continue unscathed. It is a deception and a lie. It is an afront to real science and nothing more than astrology in meteorology. IE: faith based bull shit!

well the answer is, "believe me cause you're all too stupid to understand that warmers are trying to fk you all slow".

 

[Crick]

Photon - Wikipedia
The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum. [Relativity tells us that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light - another problem for you to lie your way around]

What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts

• They [photons] have zero mass and rest energy. They only exist as moving particles.

What are Photons - Universe Today
They have interesting characteristics that are not commonly observed. First, as of right now physicists theorize that photons have no mass. They have some characteristics of particles like angular momentum but their frequency is independent of the influence of mass They also don’t carry a charge.

photon | Definition & Discovery
Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light
They have zero mass

What Exactly Is a Photon?

• have zero mass and rest energy

What exactly is a photon?
The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic four-potential, and therefore the massless bosonic particle associated with the electromagnetic force, commonly also called the 'particle of light'...

I would carry on, but my wife has given me an urgent errand to run.

 

[jc456]

Photon - Wikipedia
The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum. [Relativity tells us that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light - another problem for you to lie your way around]

What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts

• They [photons] have zero mass and rest energy. They only exist as moving particles.

What are Photons - Universe Today
They have interesting characteristics that are not commonly observed. First, as of right now physicists theorize that photons have no mass. They have some characteristics of particles like angular momentum but their frequency is independent of the influence of mass They also don’t carry a charge.

photon | Definition & Discovery
Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light
They have zero mass

What Exactly Is a Photon?

• have zero mass and rest energy

What exactly is a photon?
The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic four-potential, and therefore the massless bosonic particle associated with the electromagnetic force, commonly also called the 'particle of light'...

I would carry on, but my wife has given me an urgent errand to run.

what a waste of space.

 

[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.

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

Amazing that I share actual experiments (work I perform, making this observed, first hand, evidence) and you are incapable of answering basic questions. You repost the same failed and deceptive crap over and over again. You are aware that many of the "papers" you claim are good have been shown false and wrong, yet you still use them. This is why your pile of papers, by alarmist buddies, approved by circle jerk peer review, are not worth the paper they are printed on. It's called successive failure or systemic failure as a failure is being used as the basis for the next paper.

The only thing clear is your inability to think cognitively. You stating that climate science can never be falsified is a LIE! Its a ruse to fool the masses into thinking anything you fools say is gospel. At least try to hide that you are lying..

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Some material above, including experimental evidence that photons have mass above...don't know if you have seen all of it or not...Just shows once again that the depth of their scientific knowledge may be measured in nanometers..it is all on the surface...no underlying knowledge at all...

I choose not to get in this deep with anyone here. They have no concept of the process and most, if not all, have no ability to grasp the basic concepts let alone the ones that require those to understand the more complex concepts. Its called arguing with idiots, nope, wont do it here any more.

Just look at the graphics you quoted from Crick. Crick is still using 250 year proxies with 5 year instrument record plotted in the same graph without attribution and without explaining the hockey schtick is a matter of artifact. Yet he reposts it over and over again to 'prove AGW' even though he has been called out for it over and over again. He is DISHONEST and an outright LIAR as he has been told about this deception but he continues to use it. There is no debating this kind of dishonesty and it must be called out.

I learned in College about Cations exchangeability, why following fertilizing directions that matches soil types is a proper way to reduce leaching rate of various types of nitrogen from the soil root zone profile as shown HERE

Soilquality.org

"Background
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a measure of the soil’s ability to hold positively charged ions. It is a very important soil property influencing soil structure stability, nutrient availability, soil pH and the soil’s reaction to fertilizers and other ameliorants (Hazleton and Murphy 2007).

What are exchangeable cations?

The clay mineral and organic matter components of soil have negatively charged sites on their surfaces which adsorb and hold positively charged ions (cations) by electrostatic force. This electrical charge is critical to the supply of nutrients to plants because many nutrients exist as cations (e.g. magnesium, potassium and calcium). In general terms, soils with large quantities of negative charge are more fertile because they retain more cations (McKenzie et al. 2004) however, productive crops and pastures can be grown on low CEC soils.

The main ions associated with CEC in soils are the exchangeable cations calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) (Rayment and Higginson 1992), and are generally referred to as the base cations. In most cases, summing the analysed base cations gives an adequate measure of CEC (‘CEC by bases’). However, as soils become more acidic these cations are replaced by H+, Al3+ and Mn2+, and common methods will produce CEC values much higher than what occurs in the field (McKenzie et al. 2004). This ‘exchange acidity’ needs to be included when summing the base cations and this measurement is referred to as effective CEC (ECEC)."

====================================================

ELECTROSTATIC FORCE

 

[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.

Some material above, including experimental evidence that photons have mass above...don't know if you have seen all of it or not...Just shows once again that the depth of their scientific knowledge may be measured in nanometers..it is all on the surface...no underlying knowledge at all...

I choose not to get in this deep with anyone here. They have no concept of the process and most, if not all, have no ability to grasp the basic concepts let alone the ones that require those to understand the more complex concepts. Its called arguing with idiots, nope, wont do it here any more.

Just look at the graphics you quoted from Crick. Crick is still using 250 year proxies with 5 year instrument record plotted in the same graph without attribution and without explaining the hockey schtick is a matter of artifact. Yet he reposts it over and over again to 'prove AGW' even though he has been called out for it over and over again. He is DISHONEST and an outright LIAR as he has been told about this deception but he continues to use it. There is no debating this kind of dishonesty and it must be called out.

I learned in College about Cations exchangeability, why following fertilizing directions that matches soil types is a proper way to reduce leaching rate of various types of nitrogen from the soil root zone profile as shown HERE

Soilquality.org

"Background
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a measure of the soil’s ability to hold positively charged ions. It is a very important soil property influencing soil structure stability, nutrient availability, soil pH and the soil’s reaction to fertilizers and other ameliorants (Hazleton and Murphy 2007).

What are exchangeable cations?

The clay mineral and organic matter components of soil have negatively charged sites on their surfaces which adsorb and hold positively charged ions (cations) by electrostatic force. This electrical charge is critical to the supply of nutrients to plants because many nutrients exist as cations (e.g. magnesium, potassium and calcium). In general terms, soils with large quantities of negative charge are more fertile because they retain more cations (McKenzie et al. 2004) however, productive crops and pastures can be grown on low CEC soils.

The main ions associated with CEC in soils are the exchangeable cations calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) (Rayment and Higginson 1992), and are generally referred to as the base cations. In most cases, summing the analysed base cations gives an adequate measure of CEC (‘CEC by bases’). However, as soils become more acidic these cations are replaced by H+, Al3+ and Mn2+, and common methods will produce CEC values much higher than what occurs in the field (McKenzie et al. 2004). This ‘exchange acidity’ needs to be included when summing the base cations and this measurement is referred to as effective CEC (ECEC)."

====================================================

ELECTROSTATIC FORCE

Basic concepts that they can not grasp..

 

[SSDD]

Photon - Wikipedia
The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum. [Relativity tells us that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light - another problem for you to lie your way around]

What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts

• They [photons] have zero mass and rest energy. They only exist as moving particles.

What are Photons - Universe Today
They have interesting characteristics that are not commonly observed. First, as of right now physicists theorize that photons have no mass. They have some characteristics of particles like angular momentum but their frequency is independent of the influence of mass They also don’t carry a charge.

photon | Definition & Discovery
Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light
They have zero mass

What Exactly Is a Photon?

• have zero mass and rest energy

What exactly is a photon?
The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic four-potential, and therefore the massless bosonic particle associated with the electromagnetic force, commonly also called the 'particle of light'...

I would carry on, but my wife has given me an urgent errand to run.

Common misconception...dumbed down for the great unwashed...not scientifically accurate but good enough to fool you...

 

[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

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

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

well if you can't prove something, how is it you know what something is? too fking funny.

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

It is decided by a preponderance of the evidence. It would be refuted by a falsification of any of its fundamentals. That's the way it works oh ignorant one.

I'm 63 years young

I'm 65 years old. And apparently not playing make believe with myself about the process of aging.

and I still haven't observed global warming.

HAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa...

Yet, you keep yelling that there is.

Yes I do. And I will be yelling that till the day I die because we're not going to stop warming till long, long after I'm gone. That you should think your observations have any merit in this discussion is really amusing.

Now, you have a dilemma

Not where you think I have.

I'm not the only one

That's right. Sad but true, there's got to be three or four more of you at least. Unsurprisingly, though, none of you are scientists and none of you have demonstrated the most basic of science educations. I think we see the problem right there.

, and if you can't prove something, people like me are going to piss on your models because our observations don't match your fking models.

This is the standard answer today. They think if it can not be "falsified" then the lie can continue unscathed. It is a deception and a lie. It is an afront to real science and nothing more than astrology in meteorology. IE: faith based bull shit!

AGW is eminently faslifiable. Mamooth and I are no experts, but we have both provided you extensive lists of potential falsification. Several of these are points SSDD and you already claim to have falsified: ex: the greenhouse effect which you both reject. A contention that tens of thousands of climate researchers from every nation on the planet are involved in a mass deception is the affront to science

 

[jc456]

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.

Eh? The calculation of warming by factors is from models?

The fact that no one has ever claimed that natural variation has stopped is from modeling?

The summation of anthropogenic warming is from models?

The calculation of outgassing from the ocean based on its measured temperature is from modeling?

The measurement of the power of solar radiation is from modeling?

The observation that you make an awful lot of stupid physics mistakes for someone who claims to be a physics doctoral student is from modeling?

Every single time you are called out you repost the same bull shit over and over..

That would be because the facts do not change.

It is clear you have no empirical, observed, verified and quantified evidence to support your position.

I have the same data that convinced >98% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid; that the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. If you want to claim that evidence includes NO empirical data, you announce yourself as either exceedingly stupid, exceedingly dishonest or both.

You attack me because you have no other recourse.

I attack you because your own statements indicate you are exceedingly dishonest. I attack your positions on a number of matters because they are demonstrably WRONG.

You have no proof so all you have left is personal attack..

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

Your scientific ability is that of a preschooler..

My scientific ability is that of someone who got a BSc in Ocean Engineering. Send me a PM and I will send you a photograph of my diploma. And simultaneously, you can send me a photograph of your Masters.

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.

The information I posted answered every question you posed. That you claim everything I put up came from models is nonsensical. I only posted one graph in my response and provided NO links to ANY papers or articles. Perhaps you've gotten your posts criss-crossed.

I spent most of my professional life conducting performance evaluations on naval sensor systems. I would process the data acquired and perform statistical analyses on the results. I would then write reports on the testing which included hundreds of graphs. You put up a cartoon-like graphic one-third of which consists of an item labeled "neutral species" and then tell us that all molecules have a dipole moment; that there are no neutral species. You are obviously and blatantly lying about your education which - surprise surprise - makes it very difficult to accept your technical ability on any question. Your claim that photons respond to magnetic fields, that gravity has some relationship to magnetism, that it is magnetism that holds the atmosphere in place, that all matter responds to magnetic fields, that photons have mass... these are NOT the statements of anyone with an actual science education.

If you want anyone here to take your word on anything, I'd suggest you come clean regarding your actual qualifications. When you first got here, you were a retired police officer taking a class in meteorology. I assume that was the last honest word you've spoken regarding your qualifications.

The science literature contains thousands of studies on global warming topics. Dr James L Powell former member of the National Science Board, in three separate studies, identified a total of 40,418 papers, studies and articles on AGW, published between 1991 and 2015. Significantly less than 1% in every case rejected AGW. To suggest that over 40,000 papers could be published on a topic whose fundamental metrics are measured climatic parameters could contain NO empirical data is just the height of absolute lunacy and that you and others should make the claim is, once again, clearly indicative of either your dishonesty, your ignorance or both.

We will never have "proof" because global warming is an issue in the natural sciences. That you should continue to demand "proof" after the many times this point has been made here is just another indicator that you've never been anywhere near an advanced science education.

well if you can't prove something, how is it you know what something is? too fking funny.

It is decided by a preponderance of the evidence. It would be refuted by a falsification of any of its fundamentals. That's the way it works oh ignorant one.

I'm 63 years young

I'm 65 years old. And apparently not playing make believe with myself about the process of aging.

and I still haven't observed global warming.

HAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa...

Yet, you keep yelling that there is.
[/quote]

Yes I do. And I will be yelling that till the day I die because we're not going to stop warming till long, long after I'm gone. That you should think your observations have any merit in this discussion is really amusing.

Now, you have a dilemma

Not where you think I have.

I'm not the only one

That's right. Sad but true, there's got to be three or four more of you at least. Unsurprisingly, though, none of you are scientists and none of you have demonstrated the most basic of science educations. I think we see the problem right there.

, and if you can't prove something, people like me are going to piss on your models because our observations don't match your fking models.

This is the standard answer today. They think if it can not be "falsified" then the lie can continue unscathed. It is a deception and a lie. It is an afront to real science and nothing more than astrology in meteorology. IE: faith based bull shit!

AGW is eminently faslifiable. Mamooth and I are no experts, but we have both provided you extensive lists of potential falsification. Several of these are points SSDD and you already claim to have falsified: ex: the greenhouse effect which you both reject. A contention that tens of thousands of climate researchers from every nation on the planet are involved in a mass deception is the affront to science[/QUOTE]
It is decided by a preponderance of the evidence. It would be refuted by a falsification of any of its fundamentals. That's the way it works oh ignorant one.

Isn't evidence proof? your comment was you had no proof. so which is it a preponderance of evidence or no evidence?

You ain't too bright there pal. derp

AGW is eminently faslifiable. Mamooth and I are no experts, but we have both provided you extensive lists of potential falsification.

models!!! fk your models.

 

[Crick]

You could not believe how tiresome it is to deal with your ignorance.

 

[Wuwei]

Photon - Wikipedia
The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum. [Relativity tells us that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light - another problem for you to lie your way around]

What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts

• They [photons] have zero mass and rest energy. They only exist as moving particles.

What are Photons - Universe Today
They have interesting characteristics that are not commonly observed. First, as of right now physicists theorize that photons have no mass. They have some characteristics of particles like angular momentum but their frequency is independent of the influence of mass They also don’t carry a charge.

photon | Definition & Discovery
Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light
They have zero mass

What Exactly Is a Photon?

• have zero mass and rest energy

What exactly is a photon?
The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic four-potential, and therefore the massless bosonic particle associated with the electromagnetic force, commonly also called the 'particle of light'...

I would carry on, but my wife has given me an urgent errand to run.

You forgot to add that smart photons don't exist.

"Photons have always been and will always be radiation, since they are massless."

You guys never research anything...you simply assume that because you think it is true, that it must be true....wrong again...

engineer my ass...

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf

https://www.physics.uci.edu/Tajima-Symposium-Presentations/Ryutov.pdf

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2015042114060745.pdf

The measurement of the mass of an ion before and after emitting a photon has been done by David Pritchard at MIT.

E=mc2 passes tough MIT test

"The mass difference was measured by comparing the cyclotron orbit frequencies of two single molecules trapped in a strong magnetic field for several weeks" . In the case of you affecting your weight by jumping on your bathroom scales, you will not get an accurate measurement while you are accelerating. So for the ion, you need to measure the mass of the ion before and after it emits the photon, but not during the short time in which it is emitting the photon (a few nanoseconds).

Physicists analyze rotational dynamics of galaxies and influence of the photon mass

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fad8/57a399f2c530ba1918e6b94d1b0c8aeb1634.pdf

That is among your less thought out posts.
If something has a mass that is supposed to be zero, many experiments occur to test that. Nobody can prove that mass is exactly zero because of the accuracy of experiments. What they can do is give the mass an upper bound. That is what the papers you cited discussed. One paper showed the photon mass was less than 1 / 10 ²⁷ grams. Theory says it's exactly zero.

You were fooled by the titles or a few sentences that included "photon mass". A couple of papers were "what-if" studies.

Ironically the one paper where you give a quote from MIT was not measuring photon mass but measured the mass of an ion to test relativity.

This is just another post by you where you do a search with key words and think the results are supporting you. What a waste of time.

.

 

[jc456]

You could not believe how tiresome it is to deal with your ignorance.

not as much as having to deal with yours!!