What the science says

[SSDD]

Like this:

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.

E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.

A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. ... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling).

And so forth

Material above from the References section of Wikipedia's article on "The Greenhouse Effect"

I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.

And it isn't really surprising to me that you believe that is the same as observed, measured, quantified data...a person would really have to have no idea what such data even looks like if they presented the IPCC description of the greenhouse effect as answer to a challenge to provide observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

And I can't really help but note that the way they claim it works doesn't really jibe with the way you claim it works...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

The ocean rise is bull shit... Temperature rise manufactured.. Their science is failed models they tout as fact... At least EXXON used real science and quantifiable, observed, evidence to support their positions.. everything you tout as fact has been manufactured and no empirical evidence exists... Fantasy vs facts..

Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.

Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that. The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

I begin to worry about your well being. How's life treating you Billy?

 

[SSDD]

Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.

Sorry guy...but that isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence of anything other than that exxon wants to get in on the AGW gravy train as well and scarf up some of that grant money.

Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that. The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to find the first bit of such empirical evidence...now you are claiming that the fact that exxon wants to scarf up some grant money is apparently such evidence...do you even know what the terms observed, measured, quantified and empirical mean?

 

[Crick]

I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.

No empirical data? That's what you notice?

And it isn't really surprising to me that you believe that is the same as observed, measured, quantified data...a person would really have to have no idea what such data even looks like if they presented the IPCC description of the greenhouse effect as answer to a challenge to provide observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

The rise in temperature supports AGW. The rise in CO2 supports AGW. The cooling of the lower stratosphere supports AGW. The increase in radiative imbalance at the ToA supports AGW.

And I can't really help but note that the way they claim it works doesn't really jibe with the way you claim it works...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere.

Are you really that desperate? Of course you are. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the overview description states "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space." Was that over your head? Of course it was.

And then there's your propensity to lie about the facts.

 

[xband]

Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.

Sorry guy...but that isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence of anything other than that exxon wants to get in on the AGW gravy train as well and scarf up some of that grant money.

Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that. The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to find the first bit of such empirical evidence...now you are claiming that the fact that exxon wants to scarf up some grant money is apparently such evidence...do you even know what the terms observed, measured, quantified and empirical mean?

The opposite of skeptical is gullible. Thanks for my first chuckle of the day because I never heard that before.

 

[SSDD]

I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.

No empirical data? That's what you notice?

You just have to be dishonest don't you crick...it is your only out.....I asked for observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...you could tell me your body temperature and be giving me empirical data...but it would not support the A in AGW....so yes, I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works.

The rise in temperature supports AGW. The rise in CO2 supports AGW. The cooling of the lower stratosphere supports AGW. The increase in radiative imbalance at the ToA supports AGW.

No...the rise in temperature supports the claim of a rise in temperature...and the rise in temperature is unclear at this point because of how heavily the actual record has been altered...the fact that temperatures rose without the benefit of more CO2 in the past calls into question the idea that the rise in temperature is due to CO2 this time...if temperatures had never risen without a rise in CO2...or if ice cores didn't show that a rise in CO2 usually follows a rise in temperature, then perhaps you would have an argument for correlation...but history paints a different picture. There isn't the fist bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.

Are you really that desperate? Of course you are. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the overview description states "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space." Was that over your head? Of course it was.

So now you are claiming that back radiation from so called greenhouse gasses actually warm the surface of the earth beyond the warmth provided by the sun? I am quite sure that I can go back and pull quotes from you claiming that CO2 slows the escape of IR from the atmosphere which is a different thing (although still not happening) from actually further warming the surface of the earth.

 

[SSDD]

Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.

Sorry guy...but that isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence of anything other than that exxon wants to get in on the AGW gravy train as well and scarf up some of that grant money.

Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that. The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to find the first bit of such empirical evidence...now you are claiming that the fact that exxon wants to scarf up some grant money is apparently such evidence...do you even know what the terms observed, measured, quantified and empirical mean?

The opposite of skeptical is gullible. Thanks for my first chuckle of the day because I never heard that before.

You are welcome...feel free to use it as much as you like.

 

[Dante]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science? Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Cafeteria style science on display

 

[SSDD]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science? Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Cafeteria style science on display

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...as there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence which supports the A in AGW.

 

[Dante]

SSDD

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

Are you trying to argue that climate science isn't highly politicized...and very often cited in political policy discussion? If there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the climate, upon what do you suppose the consensus, and people's choice of sides on the issue is decided?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

I disbelieve climate science because there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that man and his CO2 emissions are altering the global climate. I distrust politics because they are talking about regulation based on pseudoscientific claims that are backed up by exactly zero observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence.

Show me some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions and my position on the subject will change as the preponderance of the evidence grows to support the claim.

 

[Dante]

...

SSDD SAID:
Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

DANTE REPLIED:
Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

SSDD POSTS:
1) Are you trying to argue that climate science isn't highly politicized...

2) I disbelieve climate science because...

2) Show me some...

WHY did you SSDD answer the way you did? First (1), you ignore that Dante mentioned the politicization by the anti-regulation crowd, which came after the science. You ask a question that reveals you are unable to engage in serious discussion.

You then (2), Avoid the question of when you started to, in your words 'disbelieve' the science. Then you start to ask me something that totally takes the discussion off to a side issue -- a side issue put forth by those who attack the science because of fears of proposed regulations

 

[Dante]

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

SSDD

Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like this:

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.

E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.

A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. ... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling).

And so forth

Material above from the References section of Wikipedia's article on "The Greenhouse Effect"

I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.

And it isn't really surprising to me that you believe that is the same as observed, measured, quantified data...a person would really have to have no idea what such data even looks like if they presented the IPCC description of the greenhouse effect as answer to a challenge to provide observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

And I can't really help but note that the way they claim it works doesn't really jibe with the way you claim it works...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere.

...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...

Any surface that absorbs photons from any source is warmed.
Why would the Earth's surface and a photon from the atmosphere be any different?

...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere

Well, duh!

 

[SSDD]

WHY did you SSDD answer the way you did? First (1), you ignore that Dante mentioned the politicization by the anti-regulation crowd, which came after the science. You ask a question that reveals you are unable to engage in serious discussion.

I am not one of the anti regulation crowd and can't answer for them....I think regulation is necessary so long as it is rational and firmly evidence based...and has a demonstrable cost benefit ratio.

You then (2), Avoid the question of when you started to, in your words 'disbelieve' the science. Then you start to ask me something that totally takes the discussion off to a side issue -- a side issue put forth by those who attack the science because of fears of proposed regulations

Having been around for a good long time....I can honestly say that I stopped believing what CLIMATE SCIENCE had to say when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming...I became even more skeptical when warming didn't pan out and they started calling it climate change then climate disruption then whatever the name du jour is today....it didn't help their case when the phrase settled science came into vogue when the fact was, and is, that climate science is still in its infancy and we don't know far more than what we do know about the climate and what drives it...all along I have been looking for observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claims and none ever seems to be forthcoming.

And asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis goes straight to the heart of any discussion on climate science, climate change, and the politics surrounding the issue.

 

[Dante]

Having been around for a good long time....I can honestly say that I stopped believing what CLIMATE SCIENCE had to say when...

So you stopped believing in science after the ant-regulation people started attacking the science? Would that not make your belief in science dependent upon ideology and politics?

 

[Dante]

when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming

btw who 'switched' warnings and why?

 

[SSDD]

when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming

btw who 'switched' warnings and why?

Climate science of course...and the why is obvious....the projected cooling never happened which was the first indicator that they really had no idea what factors drove the climate on planet earth and to what degree, and how those factors effected each other and to what degree....basic knowledge required if one is to understand and predict what is going to happen within the climate....basic factors that climate science is still only scratching the surface of with regard to having anything like a real understanding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science? Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Cafeteria style science on display

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"

 

[Dante]

when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming

btw who 'switched' warnings and why?

Climate science of course...and the why is obvious....the projected cooling never happened which was the first indicator that they really had no idea what factors drove the climate on planet earth and to what degree, and how those factors effected each other and to what degree....basic knowledge required if one is to understand and predict what is going to happen within the climate....basic factors that climate science is still only scratching the surface of with regard to having anything like a real understanding.

Science changes with new information, unlike religion or faith or anti-regulation agendas.

You still have not answered "WHO" switched. Care to name the people you must have been following all of these years?

I believe you decided you didn't like the science after you became convinced it would bring on new regulations. That is an ideologically based view of science