The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[ding]

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.

Evaporative cooling occurs at the skin and is the dominant driver of the cooling at the surface of the ocean.

 

[SSDD]

Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting, and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.

Define "way up"....

The graph from the greenland ice cores I already provided for you a couple of times shows pretty clearly that the present temperature is lower than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. It is cooler now than it has been for the past 10,000 years...how do you square that with your claim that temperatures are going way up?

 

[ding]

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.

 

[SSDD]

Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.

You mean those 0.03 degrees are going to be the difference between business as usual and what exactly?.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.

You mean those 0.03 degrees are going to be the difference between business as usual and what exactly?.....

I think he was hoping that no one would notice we had an El Niño and the one year temp spike was caused by natural process and not MMGW..

In other news, the Great Pause resumed on Dec 19th... stay tuned!

 

[SSDD]

Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.

You mean those 0.03 degrees are going to be the difference between business as usual and what exactly?.....

I think he was hoping that no one would notice we had an El Niño and the one year temp spike was caused by natural process and not MMGW..

In other news, the Great Pause resumed on Dec 19th... stay tuned!

Rather than behave rationally in the face of the writing on the wall, they are ramping up their idiocy....as if they actually believe that the pseudoscience of AGW is going to survive over the next 8 years....as if it will come back after trump has moved on.

 

[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.

Plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...as if that were necessary since that isn't the topic of discussion and never has been...the question is whether man is to blame with his CO2 emissions...not the first shred there connecting one with the other.

Obviously, the graphics I've put up here would benefit from the 232 pages of accompanying text in Chapter 2. However, I think it obvious that SSDD's claim (and that of others) that AR5 contains no empirical data providing evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of our observed warming is simply flat out nonsense.

 

[Crick]

As many times as I and other have told the deniers here to read WG-I's "Physical Science Basis", that ANY of them here should indicate to us they have not seen this material before - which seems to be universal among them - is why the "debate" here is a complete farce.

If anyone here thinks whiz brains like SSDD, Billy Bob, Westwall and Ding have identified major flaws in the work of the thousands of PhDs doing this research, they've got a screw loose.

 

[mamooth]

The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.

So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.

View attachment 104375

 

[ding]

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.

Evaporative cooling occurs at the skin and is the dominant driver of the cooling at the surface of the ocean.

Polly want a cracker?

Repeating your logical failure yet another time won't make it any more sensible.

It's a winning argument. The temperature profile cools at the top of the ocean because of evaporative cooling. The effects of SR and IR are overcome by evaporative cooling. Absent this effect the temperature profile would be higher at the surface. If you start from this position your argument would make more sense.

 

[ding]

The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.

So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.

View attachment 104375

So in other words you have no answer.

 

[mamooth]

So in other words you have no answer.

Oh, I found your other thread, and reamed you out there for your incompetence and fraud. Go check it out. It will be amusing to watch you squeal and run yet another time, like you always do.

 

[mamooth]

It's a winning argument.

No, it's a totally wrong argument. Here, let me destroy it again, so you can run again.

The temperature profile cools at the top of the ocean because of evaporative cooling.

That's nice. And as I already pointed out, nobody is arguing that evaporative cooling doesn't happen, which means you're evading by attacking a strawman. "Evaporative cooling exists" does not mean "evaporative cooling instantly carries away 100% of the energy from the IR". That's entirely your bizarre theory, one with no evidence to support it.

The effects of SR and IR are overcome by evaporative cooling.

The sources I gave flatly contradict that. All the science says you're just plain wrong. Waving your hands around wildly and screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" one more time won't change that.

Absent this effect the temperature profile would be higher at the surface. If you start from this position your argument would make more sense.

If we start by banging our heads against a brick wall, your claims might look sensible.

If we start by agreeing your theory that the data contradicts is right ... it will still be wrong, because the data says it's wrong. That's science. Your wishes don't change reality.

 

[ding]

It's a winning argument.

No, it's a totally wrong argument. Here, let me destroy it again, so you can run again.

The temperature profile cools at the top of the ocean because of evaporative cooling.

That's nice. And as I already pointed out, nobody is arguing that evaporative cooling doesn't happen, which means you're evading by attacking a strawman. "Evaporative cooling exists" does not mean "evaporative cooling instantly carries away 100% of the energy from the IR". That's entirely your bizarre theory, one with no evidence to support it.

The effects of SR and IR are overcome by evaporative cooling.

The sources I gave flatly contradict that. All the science says you're just plain wrong. Waving your hands around wildly and screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" one more time won't change that.

Absent this effect the temperature profile would be higher at the surface. If you start from this position your argument would make more sense.

If we start by banging our heads against a brick wall, your claims might look sensible.

If we start by agreeing your theory that the data contradicts is right ... it will still be wrong, because the data says it's wrong. That's science. Your wishes don't change reality.

I didn't say it did, dumbass. I corrected your ignorant statement that IR warms the skin. Your explanation was idiotic. You could have said it differently and I would have agreed, dumbass.

 

[ding]

So in other words you have no answer.

Oh, I found your other thread, and reamed you out there for your incompetence and fraud. Go check it out. It will be amusing to watch you squeal and run yet another time, like you always do.

I know it is hard for you to face the reality that CO2 is not the end all of climate change. The truth usually hurts before it helps. What do you do for a living again, lol?

 

[SSDD]

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.

And even more graphs that you clearly don't understand...some of which directly oppose the AGW hypothesis....but that aside, which of those graphs do you believe eliminates natural variability as a cause for the changing climate and appears to be a smoking gun for AGW...in your own words please.

And why do you have to lie continually...do you really think you are fooling anyone?...I never said that AR5 contained no empirical data....the temperature in the room it was written in would be empirical data...I have said that it contains no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the AGW hypothesis...

So again...of all those graphs that you don't understand but have posted anyway, which one(s) do you think support the AGW hypothesis over natural variation...or show a human fingerprint as opposed to natural variation...or eliminate natural variation as the cause of climate change?

 

[SSDD]

As many times as I and other have told the deniers here to read WG-I's "Physical Science Basis", that ANY of them here should indicate to us they have not seen this material before - which seems to be universal among them - is why the "debate" here is a complete farce.

Again crick...which part of it do you think represents observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis...I have looked at all the pretty graphs you brought...which you clearly don't understand...some of which directly oppose the AGW hypothesis....there is none there that would support AGW over natural variation...there is nothing there that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability....nothing there actually supports the AGW hypothesis unless you first ASSUME that agw is true and real....all you have there is correlation and anyone with any education at all, knows that correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone here thinks whiz brains like SSDD, Billy Bob, Westwall and Ding have identified major flaws in the work of the thousands of PhDs doing this research, they've got a screw loose.

The major flaw is that none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability unless you first ASSUME that AGW is real and the actual cause of the small climate change we have seen over the past 150 years...not the first bit of it actually supports the hypothesis on its on unless you first make that assumption that AGW is real...it is all correlation...and not the first shred of evidence establishing causation.

 

[SSDD]

The weasel act gets old. We've seen it before. We rip apart a denier claim, they howl "but that's not my claim!". We ask what their claim is, they refuse to tell us. They're just certain their point is right, even though they can't write a sentence explaining what their point is.

So, gather your scattered thoughts together into some kind of coherent explanation. Including an image is fine, but there need to be words explaining exactly why the image is relevant, and exactly what your point is.

View attachment 104375

Projecting again hairball?....

Tell you what hairball...how about you point to one of cricks graphs and, in your own words, explain why you believe it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

So in other words you have no answer.

Oh, I found your other thread, and reamed you out there for your incompetence and fraud. Go check it out. It will be amusing to watch you squeal and run yet another time, like you always do.

How about you provide a link to this "reaming" you gave him...

 

[mamooth]

I didn't say it did, dumbass. I corrected your ignorant statement that IR warms the skin. Your explanation was idiotic.

My explanation is supported by the direct measurements. The data says I'm right, and you're wrong. That's not up for debate.

You could have said it differently and I would have agreed, dumbass.

Ding, you're just one babbling cult loser on the internet. Cranks like you are nothing special. Nobody cares about your kook 'tard science.

So, you and SSDD will just have to deal with being thought of as cult losers for the rest of your lives. I'd ask how you handle all the laughter directed at you, but the answer is clearly "not well", given your hysterical postings.