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

[SSDD]

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy[sic].. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

Why don't you show us one solitary reference that states science is uncertain whether or not a photon might be matter? Just one. Now pardon me while I add this to my sig... which I also love.

You guys living under the illusion that you know it all crack me up...how incredibly naive you have to be to believe such a thing. Here...how about 3.

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25325003.pdf
Paragraph 61

http://www.mnkjournals.com/ijlrst_f...-28062014 MICRON-SIZED PHOTONS OF THE SUN.pdf
Read the abstract

 

[Billy_Bob]

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy[sic].. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

Why don't you show us one solitary reference that states science is uncertain whether or not a photon might be matter? Just one. Now pardon me while I add this to my sig... which I also love.

You guys living under the illusion that you know it all crack me up...how incredibly naive you have to be to believe such a thing. Here...how about 3.

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25325003.pdf
Paragraph 61

http://www.mnkjournals.com/ijlrst_files/Download/Vol 3 Issue 3/23-94-28062014 MICRON-SIZED PHOTONS OF THE SUN.pdf
Read the abstract

Many of the concepts I use are far beyond where these people are. Sadly I have sorely misjudged the ability levels of most here..


Matter and Energy in the Universe

"Another place we encounter words of this type is in the history and properties of the cosmos as a whole. We read about matter, radiation, dark matter, and dark energy. The use of the words by cosmologists is quite different from what you might expect — and it actually involves two or three different meanings, and depends strongly on context."

"Energy exists as a wave. A wave has momentum. Either that momentum is dedicated to travelling through space at some fraction of the speed of light, or it is turned in on itself as a standing wave to stay in one place as “mass.” Even as mass, it is still a wave. That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space."

Is a photon energy or matter? "Photons are particles just as electrons are particles; they both are ripples in a corresponding field, and they both have energy."

Thank You for reminding me with whom it is I am trying to debate. Without a proper contextual base there is no way to debate people here. That was my error. Most here are incapable of even debating AGW as they do not have a grasp of even the basic hypothesis let alone what evidence actually is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy[sic].. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

Why don't you show us one solitary reference that states science is uncertain whether or not a photon might be matter? Just one. Now pardon me while I add this to my sig... which I also love.

Please do.. Your a pathetic piece of shit who would not know science if it bit you in the ass.. So now to see just how pathetic you really are, tell us how a photon, which is a particle and has mass, affects a warmer body than its radiated temperature.

Ill wait for this pathetic lie you will now have to concoct. BE sure and show your work..

 

[Crick]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

 

[JLW]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

Given Billy's last post, #23, you have won the day. Good job.

 

[Billy_Bob]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

a colder mass a
Given Billy's last post, #23, you have won the day. Good job.

Wow..

You believe like Crick that a colder mass can warm a warm one?

You are easily fooled just like he is..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mathematical modeling illusions

"Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.

They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken described early in the last century: “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The dangerous human-caused climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from a threat for which there is not a shred of meaningful physical evidence that climate fluctuations and weather events we are experiencing today are different from, or worse than, what our near and distant ancestors had to deal with – or are human-caused."

The article continues and it lays waste to every single alarmist argument...

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

Mans impact is local and limited. Land use, structures, surface change, etc. This is clearly seen in what is called a thermal island which all cities have. Regions of deforestation also exhibit some warming. Our primary impact is garbage and waste, things that are easily managed. CO2 is not a pollutant and is needed for all life on earth.

 

[SSDD]

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy[sic].. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

Why don't you show us one solitary reference that states science is uncertain whether or not a photon might be matter? Just one. Now pardon me while I add this to my sig... which I also love.

You guys living under the illusion that you know it all crack me up...how incredibly naive you have to be to believe such a thing. Here...how about 3.

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25325003.pdf
Paragraph 61

http://www.mnkjournals.com/ijlrst_files/Download/Vol 3 Issue 3/23-94-28062014 MICRON-SIZED PHOTONS OF THE SUN.pdf
Read the abstract

Many of the concepts I use are far beyond where these people are. Sadly I have sorely misjudged the ability levels of most here..


Matter and Energy in the Universe

"Another place we encounter words of this type is in the history and properties of the cosmos as a whole. We read about matter, radiation, dark matter, and dark energy. The use of the words by cosmologists is quite different from what you might expect — and it actually involves two or three different meanings, and depends strongly on context."

"Energy exists as a wave. A wave has momentum. Either that momentum is dedicated to travelling through space at some fraction of the speed of light, or it is turned in on itself as a standing wave to stay in one place as “mass.” Even as mass, it is still a wave. That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space."

Is a photon energy or matter? "Photons are particles just as electrons are particles; they both are ripples in a corresponding field, and they both have energy."

Thank You for reminding me with whom it is I am trying to debate. Without a proper contextual base there is no way to debate people here. That was my error. Most here are incapable of even debating AGW as they do not have a grasp of even the basic hypothesis let alone what evidence actually is.

These guys are bots...they regurgitate what either what they are instructed to regurgitate or what they believe they are supposed to regurgitate...they deify science as if it were omniscient. They recite hypothesis based on models as if it were reality because it came from science...give them a few years...by then, the proposition that photons can be considered to be matter will have had time to sink further into the literature and you will see these same bots who are laughing at the idea today, arguing viciously with anyone who claims that photons are not matter. And my bet is that they will have no effective memory of ever having laughed at the very idea that photons can be considered to be matter. Bots..

 

[SSDD]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

Put me on ignore as well...a doofus who can't read a simple graph and is unable to support his beliefs with anything more than what was good enough to fool him is nearly as tedious as wuwei....

 

[SSDD]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

Exactly what reasons do you have? It certainly can't be the evidence. I started a thread titled no evidence No Evidence where I put forward the following three declarative statements regarding the "evidence" that mankind is altering the global climate via so called greenhouse gasses:


1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

The thread has 1183 posts at this time and not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge a single one of the above statements. Plenty of model output...plenty of claims that such evidence exists...admissions that what is out there is good enough to fool them, claims that asking for evidence to challenge the statements above is unreasonable, outrageous, and just too hard....and a plethora of posts that serve no other purpose than to detract from the fact that no evidence is being offered to challenge the statements above.

Given that...exactly what do you base your belief upon? If not evidence, then what?

 

[jc456]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

Given Billy's last post, #23, you have won the day. Good job.

naw, what's happened here is crickster doesn't answer direct questions. and he uses his same old same old that is boring to say the least. It sounds like crickster is unwilling to continue the debate, so, not sure how you feel he won anything. he's a quitter and that is all with that previous post. you are just a fool munching popcorn thinking you know what you don't. but you provide a laugh when you do speak out in here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

You're right. You have no ability to deal with this from a scientific point of view so running from it will keep you from further embarrassing yourself. It is best you ignore it.

 

[jc456]

William, I am going to put you on ignore and I would ask or suggest you do the same to me. Our continued conversation is not in anyone's best interests.

You're right. You have no ability to deal with this from a scientific point of view so running from it will keep you from further embarrassing yourself. It is best you ignore it.

there you go!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am amazed at the vitriol of the alarmists when they are forced to give physical, empirically observed evidence, to support their belief in AGW. Loose correlations, failed modeling, Alyisnky rules and tactics to belittle those who do not toe the line and every sort of logical fallacy are tried.

The American Meteorological Association just lost a member when they followed CBS and the hard left wing with the proclamations and fabrications they are choosing to make. Their choice to follow false/deceptive narratives and confusing rhetoric was the line they crossed. They no longer follow strict rules of science but now follow rules of propagandists as they will now refuse to provide empirical evidence to prove their assertions. I am not alone in leaving the group as several hundred of my colleagues are canceling their memberships as well.

Just when the empirical evidence is showing the AGW deceptions breadth and width they now want to run from any responsibility for the deception. These people are desperate to keep the lies hidden..

A very sad day indeed..

 

[SSDD]

I am amazed at the vitriol of the alarmists when they are forced to give physical, empirically observed evidence, to support their belief in AGW. Loose correlations, failed modeling, Alyisnky rules and tactics to belittle those who do not toe the line and every sort of logical fallacy are tried.

That is how it is with cults...if you aren't in...you are out, and a heretic, a denier, you hate your children and your children's children, and don't like dogs.

Just when the empirical evidence is showing the AGW deceptions breadth and width they now want to run from any responsibility for the deception. These people are desperate to keep the lies hidden..

A very sad day indeed..

If I was responsible for a trillion dollar lie and the chickens were on the verge of coming home to roost, I would probably want to keep it hidden as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Onerous? Again?

The conclusions of the IPCC are based on the conclusions of more than 98% of the applicable published scientific climate studies of the last three decades. Those studies have convinced more than 98% of the world's publishing climate scientists that global warming is real, that it is primarily caused by human GHG emissions and that it is a threat to the well being of our species and the rest of life on this planet. That you find all that insufficient - that you should find it anything whatsoever - doesn't bother me in the least.

LOL

Is this all you got?

An Appeal to your authorities who base their belief's on failed modeling? Consensus that your models fail without exception! Bravo!

That's it? Really?




I have shown over and over again that you have no empirical evidence to base you're belief on and that Natural variation dwarfs your supposed "mans influence" and to date you have produced NOTHING.

I have shown over and over again that you have no empirical evidence

Plus, magic energy eating tube!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have shown us over and over again that you lack the technical competence to get involved in any discussion outside the curriculum of a meteorology 101 class (and even there you're shaky). The ratio of your unsubstantiated to substantiated assertions approaches 20:1. Your error rate is ridiculously high and your errors are those of a school child. All of which, of course, brings your honesty SERIOUSLY into question.

I accept the conclusions of the IPCC. So do the vast majority of actual climate scientists on this planet. I am quite certain they know this topic orders of magnitude better than you or anyone else on this message board. So, pardon me if I have to say again that your disapproval on this topic means absolutely, positively, unabashedly, and completely without reservation; did-duh-lee-squat.

Your error rate is ridiculously high and your errors are those of a school child. All of which, of course, brings your honesty SERIOUSLY into question.

True.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy[sic].. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

Why don't you show us one solitary reference that states science is uncertain whether or not a photon might be matter? Just one. Now pardon me while I add this to my sig... which I also love.

You guys living under the illusion that you know it all crack me up...how incredibly naive you have to be to believe such a thing. Here...how about 3.

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25325003.pdf
Paragraph 61

http://www.mnkjournals.com/ijlrst_files/Download/Vol 3 Issue 3/23-94-28062014 MICRON-SIZED PHOTONS OF THE SUN.pdf
Read the abstract

Many of the concepts I use are far beyond where these people are. Sadly I have sorely misjudged the ability levels of most here..


Matter and Energy in the Universe

"Another place we encounter words of this type is in the history and properties of the cosmos as a whole. We read about matter, radiation, dark matter, and dark energy. The use of the words by cosmologists is quite different from what you might expect — and it actually involves two or three different meanings, and depends strongly on context."

"Energy exists as a wave. A wave has momentum. Either that momentum is dedicated to travelling through space at some fraction of the speed of light, or it is turned in on itself as a standing wave to stay in one place as “mass.” Even as mass, it is still a wave. That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space."

Is a photon energy or matter? "Photons are particles just as electrons are particles; they both are ripples in a corresponding field, and they both have energy."

Thank You for reminding me with whom it is I am trying to debate. Without a proper contextual base there is no way to debate people here. That was my error. Most here are incapable of even debating AGW as they do not have a grasp of even the basic hypothesis let alone what evidence actually is.

"Energy exists as a wave. A wave has momentum. Either that momentum is dedicated to travelling through space at some fraction of the speed of light, or it is turned in on itself as a standing wave to stay in one place as “mass.” Even as mass, it is still a wave. That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space."

Who are you quoting? Yourself?