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.
And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
Oh my, another dumb fuck lying through his teeth. Must demonstrate to all his abysmal willfull ignorance. Here is what the American Institute of Physics, the largerst scientific society in the world has to say about that;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
From Fourier to Tyndall, Arrhenius to Hansen, it has been all about science. It is you willfully ignorant fools that deny science in the name of politics.
And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
Where's the experiment that shows what the temperature is supposed to be with 280 PPM of CO2? You have that? Didn't think so........WinNingHow much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
Do you see it yet?
How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
The answer that is right in front of you face.
Keep looking. You might not recognize because you don't know what you are looking at.
And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
You should consider starting of slowly with some basic math and physics. Then you can work up to the big stuff.
It's alot like learning to read. First you start with See Spot Run and Go Dog Go. Then you work your way up to the grown up books.
You don't just jump into the deep end an expect to swim.
Oh, One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish is a good counting book for you.
How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
Do you see it yet?
And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
You should consider starting of slowly with some basic math and physics. Then you can work up to the big stuff.
It's alot like learning to read. First you start with See Spot Run and Go Dog Go. Then you work your way up to the grown up books.
You don't just jump into the deep end an expect to swim.
Oh, One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish is a good counting book for you.
So far no real science being posted by the AGW cult, just their religious dogma.
Where's the experiment that shows what the temperature is supposed to be with 280 PPM of CO2? You have that? Didn't think so........WinNingHow much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
Do you see it yet?
Where's the experiment that shows what the temperature is supposed to be with 280 PPM of CO2? You have that? Didn't think so........WinNingDo you see it yet?
Yes we do, you stupid ass. They are called interglacials, and there have been a number of them. Damn, you actually work at being stupid.
Where's the experiment that shows what the temperature is supposed to be with 280 PPM of CO2? You have that? Didn't think so........WinNingDo you see it yet?
Yes we do, you stupid ass. They are called interglacials, and there have been a number of them. Damn, you actually work at being stupid.
340 to 360, eh. Damn, Walleyes, maybe you had better give a source for that graph. Because here are some sources that say you have posted shit.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/vostok-ice-core.jpg
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf
Where's the experiment that shows what the temperature is supposed to be with 280 PPM of CO2? You have that? Didn't think so........WinNing
Yes we do, you stupid ass. They are called interglacials, and there have been a number of them. Damn, you actually work at being stupid.
hmmmm.. is that an experiment? Maybe I'm stupid, but not sure then what it makes you.
Why does temperature plummet after CO2 spikes.Yes we do, you stupid ass. They are called interglacials, and there have been a number of them. Damn, you actually work at being stupid.
hmmmm.. is that an experiment? Maybe I'm stupid, but not sure then what it makes you.
No doubt about it, your posts provide ample evidence.
Detection vs Attribution
Detection and attribution of climate signals, as well as its common-sense meaning, has a more precise definition within the climate change literature, as expressed by the IPCC.[17]
Detection of a signal requires demonstrating that an observed change is statistically significantly different from that which can be explained by natural internal variability.
Attribution requires demonstrating that a signal is:
unlikely to be due entirely to internal variability;
consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing
not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.
Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier to show than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Therefore, attribution, as described above, can only be done within some margin of error. For example, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report says "it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," where "extremely likely" indicates a probability greater than 95%.[1]
"Fingerprint" Studies
Finally, there is extensive statistical evidence from so-called "fingerprint" studies. Each factor that affects climate produces a unique pattern of climate response, much as each person has a unique fingerprint. Fingerprint studies exploit these unique signatures, and allow detailed comparisons of modelled and observed climate change patterns. Scientists rely on such studies to attribute observed changes in climate to a particular cause or set of causes. In the real world, the climate changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution are due to a complex mixture of human and natural causes. The importance of each individual influence in this mixture changes over time. Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints. Therefore, climate models are used to study how individual factors affect climate. For example, a single factor (like greenhouse gases) or a set of factors can be varied, and the response of the modelled climate system to these individual or combined changes can thus be studied.[9]
For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see graph, opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.[9]
Another fingerprint of human effects on climate has been identified by looking at a slice through the layers of the atmosphere, and studying the pattern of temperature changes from the surface up through the stratosphere (see the section on solar activity). The earliest fingerprint work focused on changes in surface and atmospheric temperature. Scientists then applied fingerprint methods to a whole range of climate variables, identifying human-caused climate signals in the heat content of the oceans, the height of the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, which has shifted upward by hundreds of feet in recent decades), the geographical patterns of precipitation, drought, surface pressure, and the runoff from major river basins.[9]
Studies published after the appearance of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 have also found human fingerprints in the increased levels of atmospheric moisture (both close to the surface and over the full extent of the atmosphere), in the decline of Arctic sea ice extent, and in the patterns of changes in Arctic and Antarctic surface temperatures.[9]
The message from this entire body of work is that the climate system is telling a consistent story of increasingly dominant human influence - the changes in temperature, ice extent, moisture, and circulation patterns fit together in a physically consistent way, like pieces in a complex puzzle.[9]
Increasingly, this type of fingerprint work is shifting its emphasis. As noted, clear and compelling scientific evidence supports the case for a pronounced human influence on global climate. Much of the recent attention is now on climate changes at continental and regional scales, and on variables that can have large impacts on societies. For example, scientists have established causal links between human activities and the changes in snowpack, maximum and minimum (diurnal) temperature, and the seasonal timing of runoff over mountainous regions of the western United States. Human activity is likely to have made a substantial contribution to ocean surface temperature changes in hurricane formation regions. Researchers are also looking beyond the physical climate system, and are beginning to tie changes in the distribution and seasonal behaviour of plant and animal species to human-caused changes in temperature and precipitation.[9]
For over a decade, one aspect of the climate change story seemed to show a significant difference between models and observations. In the tropics, all models predicted that with a rise in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would be expected to warm more rapidly than the surface. Observations from weather balloons, satellites, and surface thermometers seemed to show the opposite behaviour (more rapid warming of the surface than the troposphere). This issue was a stumbling block in understanding the causes of climate change. It [the tropospheric hotspot issue] is now largely resolved. Research showed that there were large uncertainties in the satellite and weather balloon data. When uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational data sets (with better treatment of known problems) are in agreement with climate model results.[9]
This does not mean, however, that all remaining differences between models and observations have been resolved. The observed changes in some climate variables, such as Arctic sea ice, some aspects of precipitation, and patterns of surface pressure, appear to be proceeding much more rapidly than models have projected. The reasons for these differences are not well understood. Nevertheless, the bottom-line conclusion from climate fingerprinting is that most of the observed changes studied to date are consistent with each other, and are also consistent with our scientific understanding of how the climate system would be expected to respond to the increase in heat-trapping gases resulting from human activities.[9]
"Fingerprint" Studies
Finally, there is extensive statistical evidence from so-called "fingerprint" studies. Each factor that affects climate produces a unique pattern of climate response, much as each person has a unique fingerprint. Fingerprint studies exploit these unique signatures, and allow detailed comparisons of modelled and observed climate change patterns. Scientists rely on such studies to attribute observed changes in climate to a particular cause or set of causes. In the real world, the climate changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution are due to a complex mixture of human and natural causes. The importance of each individual influence in this mixture changes over time. Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints. Therefore, climate models are used to study how individual factors affect climate. For example, a single factor (like greenhouse gases) or a set of factors can be varied, and the response of the modelled climate system to these individual or combined changes can thus be studied.[9]
For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see graph, opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.[9]
Another fingerprint of human effects on climate has been identified by looking at a slice through the layers of the atmosphere, and studying the pattern of temperature changes from the surface up through the stratosphere (see the section on solar activity). The earliest fingerprint work focused on changes in surface and atmospheric temperature. Scientists then applied fingerprint methods to a whole range of climate variables, identifying human-caused climate signals in the heat content of the oceans, the height of the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, which has shifted upward by hundreds of feet in recent decades), the geographical patterns of precipitation, drought, surface pressure, and the runoff from major river basins.[9]
Studies published after the appearance of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 have also found human fingerprints in the increased levels of atmospheric moisture (both close to the surface and over the full extent of the atmosphere), in the decline of Arctic sea ice extent, and in the patterns of changes in Arctic and Antarctic surface temperatures.[9]
The message from this entire body of work is that the climate system is telling a consistent story of increasingly dominant human influence - the changes in temperature, ice extent, moisture, and circulation patterns fit together in a physically consistent way, like pieces in a complex puzzle.[9]
Increasingly, this type of fingerprint work is shifting its emphasis. As noted, clear and compelling scientific evidence supports the case for a pronounced human influence on global climate. Much of the recent attention is now on climate changes at continental and regional scales, and on variables that can have large impacts on societies. For example, scientists have established causal links between human activities and the changes in snowpack, maximum and minimum (diurnal) temperature, and the seasonal timing of runoff over mountainous regions of the western United States. Human activity is likely to have made a substantial contribution to ocean surface temperature changes in hurricane formation regions. Researchers are also looking beyond the physical climate system, and are beginning to tie changes in the distribution and seasonal behaviour of plant and animal species to human-caused changes in temperature and precipitation.[9]
For over a decade, one aspect of the climate change story seemed to show a significant difference between models and observations. In the tropics, all models predicted that with a rise in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would be expected to warm more rapidly than the surface. Observations from weather balloons, satellites, and surface thermometers seemed to show the opposite behaviour (more rapid warming of the surface than the troposphere). This issue was a stumbling block in understanding the causes of climate change. It [the tropospheric hotspot issue] is now largely resolved. Research showed that there were large uncertainties in the satellite and weather balloon data. When uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational data sets (with better treatment of known problems) are in agreement with climate model results.[9]
This does not mean, however, that all remaining differences between models and observations have been resolved. The observed changes in some climate variables, such as Arctic sea ice, some aspects of precipitation, and patterns of surface pressure, appear to be proceeding much more rapidly than models have projected. The reasons for these differences are not well understood. Nevertheless, the bottom-line conclusion from climate fingerprinting is that most of the observed changes studied to date are consistent with each other, and are also consistent with our scientific understanding of how the climate system would be expected to respond to the increase in heat-trapping gases resulting from human activities.[9]
Some real science.
