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

[jc456]

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!!

glad to see you don't dispute no empirical evidence as he said.

and technically agree that none has been provided, welcome aboard.

 

[Crick]

It is the first link SSDD supplied

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

 

[Oddball]

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.

Appeals to authority are not scientific proof.

 

[Crick]

From Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy:

"Matter... can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.) "

"There’s an alternate (but very different) division that makes sense: what I called matter particles all happen to be fermions, and what I called force particles all happen to be bosons. But this could change too with new discoveries."

[Photons are bosons. Photons are NOT fermions.]

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

So, Dr Strassler's text does NOT support Billy Bob's or Same Shit's bizarre contentions regarding photons.

 

[Crick]

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.

Appeals to authority are not scientific proof.

View attachment 243249

In an instance in which the authorities referred to are genuinely expert in the field in which their opinion is being utilized, appeal to authority is valid. And since I have repeatedly pointed out here that the field of natural science contains no proofs, it is extremely unlikely (actually, demonstrably false) that I should claim the opinions of authority were proof.

 

[Oddball]

In an instance in which the authorities referred to are genuinely expert in the field in which their opinion is being utilized, appeal to authority is valid. And since I have repeatedly pointed out here that the field of natural science contains no proofs, it is extremely unlikely (actually, demonstrably false) that I should claim the opinions of authority were proof.

"Experts in their field" who have repeatedly been caught red-handed rigging the data, excluding and smearing contravening experts, refusing to comply with FOIA requests, and generally acting like a junior high school clique.

Yeah, valid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is the first link SSDD supplied

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

His links are awesome!!
Always refuting his claims.

Almost as funny as when he cited Dr. Raeder.

 

[SSDD]

From Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy:

"Matter... can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.) "

"There’s an alternate (but very different) division that makes sense: what I called matter particles all happen to be fermions, and what I called force particles all happen to be bosons. But this could change too with new discoveries."

[Photons are bosons. Photons are NOT fermions.]

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

So, Dr Strassler's text does NOT support Billy Bob's or Same Shit's bizarre contentions regarding photons.

Unfortunate to be locked in a box of ignorance...but that's where you are comfortable...right?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Appeals to authority are not scientific proof.

View attachment 243249

In an instance in which the authorities referred to are genuinely expert in the field in which their opinion is being utilized, appeal to authority is valid. And since I have repeatedly pointed out here that the field of natural science contains no proofs, it is extremely unlikely (actually, demonstrably false) that I should claim the opinions of authority were proof.

Laughing out loud in your face...imagine, being duped by such pseudoscience that you believe them to be "experts"....we know so little about the climate, and what drives it that there are no experts...the best there are are just scratching at the surface of what there is to know regarding the climate...and the more they learn, the lower that climate sensitivity to CO2 goes...germans are now saying less than 1.3 per doubling...always trending towards zero...

 

[Crick]

You claim we know almost nothing about it then make claims of near absolute knowledge on your own (uneducated) part. These people are PhDs being paid to do research. You're an internet troll. Take a guess who's the real authority.

 

[jc456]

You claim we know almost nothing about it then make claims of near absolute knowledge on your own (uneducated) part. These people are PhDs being paid to do research. You're an internet troll. Take a guess who's the real authority.

no, that is not what he said. wow. you are struggling dude.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

 

[SSDD]

You claim we know almost nothing about it then make claims of near absolute knowledge on your own (uneducated) part. These people are PhDs being paid to do research. You're an internet troll. Take a guess who's the real authority.

So I repeat...

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 in any published paper...

Without actual evidence to put those three basic questions to rest...all your "experts" have exactly squat...failed models is all they have to work with and all they are likely to have till such time as they give up on the impossibility of radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere completely dominated by conduction and convection. You are a dupe who has deified science...your god is failing.

 

[SSDD]

You claim we know almost nothing about it then make claims of near absolute knowledge on your own (uneducated) part. These people are PhDs being paid to do research. You're an internet troll. Take a guess who's the real authority.

no, that is not what he said. wow. you are struggling dude.

I wonder if the fact that they can't read has led to them being duped?

 

[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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

 

[jc456]

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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

dude, how do you suppose the LWIR is carried out of the strotosphere? How many collisions are there? what happens after those collisions?

 

[Crick]

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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

And what does Stefan-Boltzman tell you that indicates?

That the planet is getting hotter.

 

[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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

LOL..

Your paper has been shown Incorrect by empirical evidence. The CRES satellite shows that surface warming and LWIR escape are liner and trend with 100% correlation. Thus the energy striking the surface is released to space at the same rate. This is why there is no Tropospheric 'hot spot' and no warming.

Epic fail..

 

[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.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Fooled by graphing.. You an crick must be from the same mold..

Your graph is of BANDPASS it make no assertion to heat being held. Your assuming things that are not so. Again your "trapped in the atmopshere " BS has been proven wrong..