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

[otto105]

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.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

Of course, stopping the heat from leaving at the speed of light and eventually letting it leave, is your idea of shedding heat more efficiently. DURR.

So you’re trying to convince us that the atmosphere is a constant?


I call BS right here.

 

[SSDD]

[There is no point in having this discussion with you. You make claims that have ZERO evidentiary support and reject out of hand thousands of published scientific studies and the conclusions held by over 98% of the experts in the field.

I understand your reluctance to discuss the topic with me. After all, I keep asking you for actual evidence rather than model output.. I suppose that can be disquieting to an AGW believer since there is so little that qualifies as actual evidence in support of anything...

Climate science has mountains of data, but data isn't evidence unless it supports the claims being made...and the data just doesn't support the hypothesis.

I have been asking for decades for: a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or 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....or a published paper in which the the hypothetical 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....and to date, not a single such piece of evidence has been forthcoming.

You and yours have posted a certain amount of data that you believe to be evidence that might answer any of my requests...but when asked how you believe the data you presented answers the challenge...all I ever get is the sound of crickets...

A request for just a single piece of observed, measured data for any of the above is not unreasonable....especially for a hypothesis in which climate science itself claims that the science is settled...if no data exists to satisfy the above requests, then the science is so far from settled that it is hard to call it science at all.

You claim those scientists are all lying or incompetent yet have presented not one shred of evidence to support that insane charge.

I keep asking..and you guys keep delivering...and according to you, what you present, while not answering any of the 3 very basic requests above, is good enough to fool you.

You have steadily ignored the FACT that your contentions violate numerous fundamental laws of nature. Speaking with you on this topic is like the battle with the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

How does a request for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability violate a law of nature...or a single observed, measured bit of evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere...which law of nature does that violate?

And asking for a single paper in which the warming supposedly caused by us has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?...that violates a law of nature? Which one?

 

[Crick]

When you tell us that you accept that the greenhouse effect is causing the planet to warm, I will present you with evidence that human activity has enhanced the greenhouse effect. Till then, you can whine yourself to sleep troll.

PS, else you could provide some empirical evidence of your magically smart photons.

 

[Crick]

Grant even piped up in the comments trying to defend his position but Bob shredded him with Judith Currie's work.. It was priceless..

Grant popped up twice and both times politely asked Tisdale a simple question about warming values in the early 20th century. Both times Tisdale acted like a school child and refused to answer, insulted Grant and dropped the subject. I found his fear of actually engaging Grant palpable. Not surprised you thought it admirable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

Of course, stopping the heat from leaving at the speed of light and eventually letting it leave, is your idea of shedding heat more efficiently. DURR.

So you’re trying to convince us that the atmosphere is a constant?


I call BS right here.

So you’re trying to convince us that the atmosphere is a constant?

Not even a little. Idiot.

 

[Crick]

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.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

You can apply SB to a gas but I didn't. I applied it to a planet. The planet is getting warmer.

As Todd clearly pointed out to you, adding a component that slows the release of IR from the surface is NOT the way to cool a planet more effectively.

For those of you wondering how SSDD can believe there is no greenhouse effect on a planet whose temperature is 33C warmer than its blackbody temperature, he gives credit to the compression of the atmosphere caused by gravity. SSDD believes that this compression has warmed the planet for the last 3.5+ billion years, emitting zettawatts and zettawatts and more endless zettawatts of energy to space. He recently accused me of believing in perpetual motion machines. If SSDD were correct about atmospheric compression providing endless energy I do not know WHY we would ever have burned a drop of fossil fuel. Do you?

 

[SSDD]

I have posted all the information that you need to activite your critical thinking skills. You have then shown no evidence that you have the ability.

So, can you provide one peer reviewed scientific study which supports your belief the AGW is not happening.

Actually, all you have posted is evidence that the climate changes...you have no argument there....I don't know of anyone who doesn't think the climate changes...except for, perhaps, michael mann who went to great lengths to make the medieval warm period and the little ice age disappear...giving the impression that the climate has been pretty much bland for the past few thousand years.

Evidence that the climate is changing, or has changed is not evidence of what caused the change...You are providing evidence that the climate changes and hanging an assumption on that evidence that we are the cause...

If you are going to make the remarkable claim that mankind is altering the global climate, then you should have remarkable evidence. I am not asking for remarkable evidence...I am not asking for proof, I am not even asking for a preponderance of evidence...I am just asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence to satisfy a couple of questions...or a single paper... Do you really think that is to much to ask?

So again...

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...

Lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence to satisfy either of the first two, or a published paper to satisfy the third. You suggested that I use my brain...I suggest that you use yours when you find that you can't even begin to challenge a single one of those statements with anything like observed, measured evidence. What do you think that means?

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

 

[SSDD]

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.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

Of course, stopping the heat from leaving at the speed of light and eventually letting it leave, is your idea of shedding heat more efficiently. DURR.

So you’re trying to convince us that the atmosphere is a constant?


I call BS right here.

Of course not...but we are barely scratching the surface as to what drives the climate....the claim that a trace gas in the atmosphere does it by allowing the earth to warm itself with its own radiation is absolutely preposterous...which physical law do you believe suggests that a body can warm itself with its own radiation?

 

[SSDD]

When you tell us that you accept that the greenhouse effect is causing the planet to warm, I will present you with evidence that human activity has enhanced the greenhouse effect. Till then, you can whine yourself to sleep troll.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...That is why I keep asking for a single piece of evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius's radiative greenhouse hypothesis was nonsense...

PS, else you could provide some empirical evidence of your magically smart photons.

I don't think they are smart...you are the one who believes that they must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...like smart rocks knowing which way to fall when you drop them..and smart rivers knowing that they are supposed to flow downhill, and smart air that knows that it can't rush into a pumped up tire when you open the valve...according to you some sort of intelligence is required to simply follow the laws of physics.

 

[SSDD]

You can apply SB to a gas but I didn't. I applied it to a planet. The planet is getting warmer.

Really? Here is the SB law in the form of an equation...See the "A" that is area...what is the area of a gas?

As Todd clearly pointed out to you, adding a component that slows the release of IR from the surface is NOT the way to cool a planet more effectively.

The only thing toddster ever shows is that he can't defend his position...like you...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can apply SB to a gas but I didn't. I applied it to a planet. The planet is getting warmer.

Really? Here is the SB law in the form of an equation...See the "A" that is area...what is the area of a gas?

As Todd clearly pointed out to you, adding a component that slows the release of IR from the surface is NOT the way to cool a planet more effectively.

The only thing toddster ever shows is that he can't defend his position...like you...

The only thing toddster ever shows is that he can't defend his position...

I love YOUR position....

phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...

If it's not spontaneous, that means cooler matter is allowed to radiate toward warmer matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly.

 

[SSDD]

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly.

Does solar radiation emit from the surface of the earth? I was under the impression that solar radiation was mostly in the UV and visible wavelengths and earth emits IR....is that not true? Energy emitting from the surface of the earth is earth's radiation...

A body can not warm itself with its own radiation...not even a perfect black body...which earth isn't...

 

[justoffal]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

I found it! Between 25 and 30 seconds

 

[AveryJarhman]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

I believe, global warming is a smoke screen, designed to deflect attention from and insulate from criticism, a growing population of single or married teen and adult mothers responsible for causing and maintaining our globe's *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

A Child Care Health Crisis that for more than a decade Childhood Development Researchers and medical professionals practicing all around our globe have been attempting to make the public aware of.

Ms. Ocasio Cortez spent much of her life witnessing with her own eyes, fellow citizens, WHO THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, experience a potentially life scarring childhood and teen upbringing.

Medical science offers solid, well researched human studies explaining why far too many perfectly healthy newborns mature into emotionally or mentally ill teens and adults.

Yet, Congresswoman Cortez chooses to become immersed in a topic backed by questionable and highly contested research.

I'm sorry to say this, but the time has come for American men to begin holding accountable women who seemingly have lost all sense of priority and logic.

The same women responsible for creating our Nation's CHILD CARE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

​

Peace.

 

[AveryJarhman]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

I found it! Between 25 and 30 seconds

I am fairly confident that long before our Sun swallows up our home, we will experience a few more Mass Extinction events BEFORE a sizeable object crashes into Mother Earth exposing her molten core and frying whatever life remains.

In the meantime Have a Great Life...

Peace.

 

[Crick]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

I believe, global warming is a smoke screen, designed to deflect attention from and insulate from criticism, a growing population of single or married teen and adult mothers responsible for causing and maintaining our globe's *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

A Child Care Health Crisis that for more than a decade Childhood Development Researchers and medical professionals practicing all around our globe have been attempting to make the public aware of.

Ms. Ocasio Cortez spent much of her life witnessing with her own eyes, fellow citizens, WHO THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, experience a potentially life scarring childhood and teen upbringing.

Medical science offers solid, well researched human studies explaining why far too many perfectly healthy newborns mature into emotionally or mentally ill teens and adults.

Yet, Congresswoman Cortez chooses to become immersed in a topic backed by questionable and highly contested research.

I'm sorry to say this, but the time has come for American men to begin holding accountable women who seemingly have lost all sense of priority and logic.

The same women responsible for creating our Nation's CHILD CARE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

View attachment 244012 ​

Peace.

This is not my thread to defend, but I'd say you were looking for excuses to spam. You sound like some woman kicked your ass in divorce court and took your money and your kids. Why don't you find somewhere a little more apropos to post your misogynist whining? There's a good boy.

 

[AveryJarhman]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

I believe, global warming is a smoke screen, designed to deflect attention from and insulate from criticism, a growing population of single or married teen and adult mothers responsible for causing and maintaining our globe's *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

A Child Care Health Crisis that for more than a decade Childhood Development Researchers and medical professionals practicing all around our globe have been attempting to make the public aware of.

Ms. Ocasio Cortez spent much of her life witnessing with her own eyes, fellow citizens, WHO THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, experience a potentially life scarring childhood and teen upbringing.

Medical science offers solid, well researched human studies explaining why far too many perfectly healthy newborns mature into emotionally or mentally ill teens and adults.

Yet, Congresswoman Cortez chooses to become immersed in a topic backed by questionable and highly contested research.

I'm sorry to say this, but the time has come for American men to begin holding accountable women who seemingly have lost all sense of priority and logic.

The same women responsible for creating our Nation's CHILD CARE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

View attachment 244012 ​

Peace.

This is not my thread to defend, but I'd say you were looking for excuses to spam. You sound like some woman kicked your ass in divorce court and took your money and your kids. Why don't you find somewhere a little more apropos to post your misogynist whining? There's a good boy.

Hello, Crick. So, you believe I'm a crock...sorry you feel that way, my friend.

Peace.

 

[justoffal]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

I found it! Between 25 and 30 seconds

I am fairly confident that long before our Sun swallows up our home, we will experience a few more Mass Extinction events BEFORE a sizeable object crashes into Mother Earth exposing her molten core and frying whatever life remains.

In the meantime Have a Great Life...

Peace.

Indeed....they are certainly out there and always a possibility. Anything more than a half mile wide is very bad news.

Jo