Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 29,589
- 5,754
I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
nope.
Like that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
nope.
Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked? Nothing.
I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.
I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.
AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.
The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.
We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement
The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.
The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.
I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.
To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.
wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post. wow.I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.
AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.
The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.
We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement
The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.
The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.
I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.
To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.
wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post. wow.I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.
AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.
The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.
We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement
The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.
The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.
I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.
To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.
wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post. wow.I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.
AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.
The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.
We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement
The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.
The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.
I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.
To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.
Sounds remarkably like crick, rocks and mammoth doesn't he?
I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.
I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.
No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?
I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.
No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?
So tell me SSDD, do you believe in Newton's First Law? Because every observation ever made says it's wrong.
I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.
No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?
So tell me SSDD, do you believe in Newton's First Law? Because every observation ever made says it's wrong.
Diversion...that is useful in magic...but not science...are you pushing science or magic?
You really think that every observation made says that Newton's first law is wrong? Really?
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Describe how every observation ever made says that it is wrong. Show me a single observation which proves it wrong..much less every observation ever made.
[
No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof.
[
No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof.
So there are no observations that it is wrong....and the first one that is made will then, cause the law to be rewritten or scrapped.....there is, however, every observation ever made that shows that your notion of energy transfer is wrong.
So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.
You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.
So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.
You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.
So now you are reduced to equivocating? You get more like rocks, crick, and mammoth every day... There are plenty of observations that your ideas on back radiation are wrong as evidenced by the fact that it can't be measured at ambient temperature....it doesn't exist...
Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.
You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '. Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.
You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR. Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?
It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!
Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.
No..Ian...I never made such a claim...one more instance of you making up an argument to rail against...I said that back radiation has not (because it does not exist) been measured at ambient temperature.
You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '. Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.
Already have.
You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR. Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?
Don't need to...having proved that they are not measuring back radiation.
It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!
Unlike you ian, proof exists in support of my position...that is why I hold my position...unlike you who relies entirely on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models....you don't have the first bit of proof to support any of what you believe...while I tend to only believe what is supportable by observable, measurable, testable, empirical data.
Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.
In other words, PROVE IT.
Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.
In other words, PROVE IT.
Failure of a tropospheric hot spot to develop and then get warmer as atmospheric CO2 increases...
There, observable, measurable, empirical evidence in support of my statement...ie...proof.