The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[ding]

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm

Just what are you babbling about?

Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

Don't ask us to explain your science.

Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about. What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm

Just what are you babbling about?

Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

Don't ask us to explain your science.

Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about. What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

a 2.5 doubling of 1 deg C or about 2.5 deg C....LOG scales are so much fun...

 

[ding]

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm

Just what are you babbling about?

Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

Don't ask us to explain your science.

Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about. What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

a 2.5 doubling of 1 deg C or about 2.5 deg C....LOG scales are so much fun...

Should have been a ~7C decrease in associated temperature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm

Just what are you babbling about?

Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

Don't ask us to explain your science.

Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about. What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

a 2.5 doubling of 1 deg C or about 2.5 deg C....LOG scales are so much fun...

Should have been a ~7C decrease in associated temperature.

Above 550ppm its roughly 1.1 deg C per doubling.

550+550=1,100ppm / 1.1 Deg C
1,100+1,100=2,200ppm /1.1 deg C
2,200+2,200=4,400ppm /1.1 deg C

If we subtract 3,500 from 4,400 we get 900ppm/2,200 = essentially 0.5 deg C

2.2 Deg C + 0.5 Deg C = 2.7 deg C in rise or fall according to observed data without any other influences..

When you consider the oceans and the time factor it takes for that size in mass to cool it is very likely that the majority of that cooling was mass related and not CO2 related.

 

[ding]

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm

Just what are you babbling about?

Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

Don't ask us to explain your science.

Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about. What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

a 2.5 doubling of 1 deg C or about 2.5 deg C....LOG scales are so much fun...

Should have been a ~7C decrease in associated temperature.

View attachment 104219

View attachment 104222

Above 550ppm its roughly 1.1 deg C per doubling.

550+550=1,100ppm / 1.1 Deg C
1,100+1,100=2,200ppm /1.1 deg C
2,200+2,200=4,400ppm /1.1 deg C

If we subtract 3,500 from 4,400 we get 900ppm/2,200 = essentially 0.5 deg C

2.2 Deg C + 0.5 Deg C = 2.7 deg C in rise or fall according to observed data without any other influences..

When you consider the oceans and the time factor it takes for that size in mass to cool it is very likely that the majority of that cooling was mass related and not CO2 related.

delta T = 5.35 * ln (600/3500) *.8 = -7.548159175 C

 

[ding]

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 104222

Your using the 2.43/doubling forcing table... Used in modeling.

That is a high estimate table. Empirical observations are at 1.1/doubling .

 

[ding]

View attachment 104222

Your using the 2.43/doubling forcing table... Used in modeling.

That is a high estimate table. Empirical observations are at 1.1/doubling .

I am using their formula to show them their error.

 

[SSDD]

Show us a cause and its effect that has no correlation fool.

Just because you have correlation does not imply that you have cause...only idiots assume cause as a result of correlation...

There is almost perfect correlation between autism and organic food sales...does that mean that organic food causes autism...to you, it must since the correlation is so good...

there is a high degree of correlation between the internet explorer market share and the US murder rate...since you simply assume that correlation equals causation do you assume that IE causes a rise in murder or that murder causes a rise in IE?

There is a high degree of correlation between active face book users and the 10 year yield on Greek government bonds...which causes an increase or decrease in the other..it must be true due to the degree of correlation between the two according to you...

You must establish cause before correlation can be realistically claimed...and to date, there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions is causing a change in the global climate...and before you refer me to your bit of dogma from the ipcc..claiming a physical basis..how about you go bring some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from that steaming pile that supports the AGW claim....just one piece....since you claim to be so familiar with it, it should be little trouble for you to bring just one small piece of such evidence from that paper to here....but you have proven over and over that you can't....and why can't you?...because there is none there regardless of what they call it...just because it has a title doesn't mean it isn't fiction...

 

[SSDD]

Mr Balamonte,

If you are asking help to make a case against AGW, it indicates you feel you do not have enough information to make a convincing case that AGW is invalid. Rather than making the assumption that it is without sufficient evidence, why don't you simply follow where the evidence leads. If you are objective and stay away from prejudices and unsupported assertions, I'm quite confident you will find that the overwhelming majority of evidence support the validity of AGW.

the actual evidence leads to the conclusion that AGW is bullshit without regard to the story line....if I am mistaken, lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

 

[mamooth]

The temperature profile, Einstein. Evaporation only occurs at the skin, and we know that evaporation is the major component of heat loss by water bodies.

Red herring, based on a colossal logic failure.

The issue isn't that evaporation occurs. It does.

The issue is that you're making the hilariously stupid and completely unsupported claim that the IR instantly vaporizes the skin layer, and thus adds no heat to the ocean. You've shown nothing to support such a crazy claim, and I've shown you the papers that directly refute it.

Hence, you're still just waving your hands around and yelling "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

You do realize the skin is cooling down, right? Not heating up. If it is not evaporative COOLING that is responsible for the skin COOLING down, prey tell, what is? Your argument that IR is heating up the skin is ridiculous.

Again, that's your hilariously stupid logic failure in action. "Evaporation exists" is a totally different thing than "The energy from the IR instantly vaporizes the skin layer and the heat instantly leaves the ocean."

If you need me to dumb that down further for you ... you're out of luck. Science can only be dumbed down so far.

 

[mamooth]

The absolute best argument to use against the AGW argument is to simply ask warmers to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis.

And we've given it to you, over and over.

In response, you always squeal out some excuse how the observed data doesn't count because your cult says it doesn't count.

So thanks for that. Your behavior demonstrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the denier cult. It shows why you're called deniers. If the evidence contradicts your cult, you simply deny it.

 

[mamooth]

Obviously Crick knows what I am talking about. What is the predicted temperature change from the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 falls from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

So why are you babbling about 3500 ppm and 12 million years? Show where those number came from. Give sources. Spell out your logic clearly, step by step.

That is, act like we do, and make a point simply, directly and honestly, instead of playing games. That is, if you're capable of doing so.

 

[jc456]

I said the same thing to American airlines. The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far. The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.

can you tell us what your point is if you know??

you ain't to bright there bubba.

 

[jc456]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

#1. What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up. Both GHG numbers and temperature. And there has been over a dozen independent studies since then, all confirming the Hockey Stick. One of those was conducted by the National Academy of Science.

#2. No, 'they' did not say that AGW began in 1900. What is said is that when we began to add large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere, that was the beginning of AGW. That would be at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. On the contrary, the temperature was about 1.5 C above the pre-industrial temperatures last year.

#3. Bullshit. We have measured it with instruments, and by the affects on the cryosphere.

#4. My goodness. You are an amateur at lying. You can go to the sites of Swiss Re and Munich Re and see where they state that the amount of damage from extreme weather events is increasing dramatically.

#5. There never was a hiatus. The average temperature was higher than most of the highs previous to 1998. And the last three years have all been records. 2014 established a new record. 2015 broke that record. And 2016 will break the record of 2015.

#6. Crap. Only an uneducated fool like you would refer to a university monoculture. Concentrate government? Whose government? For all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

#7. What the hell are you talking about? The evidence of a warming climate is coming from all in the scientific community. Geologists, biologists, chemists, and physicists.

Lordy, lordy, you willfully ignorant asses truly demonstrate daily just how stupid your are.

#1. What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up. Both GHG numbers and temperature. And there has been over a dozen independent studies since then, all confirming the Hockey Stick. One of those was conducted by the National Academy of Science.

 

[SSDD]

And we've given it to you, over and over.

Well, I admit that you have claimed that you have given it to me over and over...but when asked for it directly, you don't seem to be able to deliver...like right now....I am asking directly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...

Since you claim that you have given it over and over, you should have no problem providing it now...but I predict that no such piece of evidence will be forthcoming...you will make some half assed excuse...perhaps call some names, or provide us with yet one more logical fallacy....but actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...you won't be bringing any here because none exists.

But take your best shot hairball...lets see what passes for such evidence in your mind

You watching this EdwardBaiamonte?....a direct request from someone who "claims" to have seen observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis....now watch the response very closely...it will be some variation on the same response I have been getting to the same request for a couple of decades now...the bottom line is that no such evidence will be presented....stay tuned, and you will see evidence of my incredible predictive powers.

 

[Crick]

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

 

[Crick]

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.

That's enough for now. That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis". Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data. That should be good for a laugh.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

#1. What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up.

yep and temperatures are still way lower than over last 10,000 and there are no grave consequences like the ones they warned us about. If we had listened to the communist scientists way back then they would have taken over the world's economy and perhaps starved to death 1 billion people by now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You watching this EdwardBaiamonte?....a direct request from someone who "claims" to have seen observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis....now watch the response very closely...it will be some variation on the same response I have been getting to the same request for a couple of decades now...the bottom line is that no such evidence will be presented....stay tuned, and you will see evidence of my incredible predictive powers.

Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively. A lay person needs lay person arguments such as a 1980 quote from a scientist saying hurricanes will increase in numbers; then a recent scientist's quote saying, whoops it didn't happen and we don't understand weather.

Or a Hansen quote from 1980 saying West Side Hgy will be under water in 2020, and recent quote saying whoops our prediction was wrong we don't understand weather at all.

See what I mean? The public needs a logical way to participate .