Evidence supporting AGW

[Crick]

Yes, 75/77 is an impressive number.

It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.

Yes. Thousands to start, boiled down to 75/77.

 

[Crick]

There was so much AGW religious scripture that was not based in science I chose these:

The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but not sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of our increased CO2 levels.

More proof the AGW cult hates real science:

This will be entertaining

This information all comes from Global Warming Classroom, a website produced by

Dr. Michael S. Coffman (BS in Forestry, MS in Biology, Ph.D. in Forest Science) and

Kristie Pelletier (Associate of Science in Legal Technology) who, between the two of them, have created

Sovereignty International, Inc., which focuses on threats to national sovereignty in public policies, international treaties and agreements, and in educational and cultural trends.

Yeah... this is real science.

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

"Unbearably hot"? For christ's sake dude. You've got to be kidding. Do you ACTUALLY believe this constitutes "real science"?

Here is some fooking real science:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

What? What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect? It has NONE. Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence? I'm curious who told you this was relevant. Where'd you get this point?

Once again the AGW cult goes to show they do not understand actual science.

If the Earth had NO magnetic field there would be ZERO life on this planet. Just like if there was NO sun there would be ZERO life here.

The AGW religion has been proven to be false.

No life. Wow... what a fucking idiot.

Although here is something that will make the AGW cult go nuts:

Focus: Simulations Strengthen Earth’s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection
Physics - Simulations Strengthen Earth?s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection

The lead paragraph from your article.

Simulations support the idea that during past ice ages, a slightly faster rotation rate for the Earth could have increased its magnetic field.

Rock samples show that variations in Earth’s magnetic field over tens to hundreds of thousands of years are roughly synchronized with the ice ages. In Physical Review Letters, researchers present a simulation that strengthens the case that the field was influenced by climate changes. The simulation shows that the magnetic field is stronger when Earth rotates faster, which could have occurred when the polar ice caps expanded. The researchers’ model assumes an unrealistically large variation in Earth’s rotation rate in order to show the effect clearly, but the findings could still help geophysicists better understand the value of Earth’s magnetic field record as an indicator of climate history.

This has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. You just did a panicked search and thought this might do. Too bad. You still look like a fucking idiot.

Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.

So what 75 or so climatologists from the IPCC, that drive high end cars and live a luxurious homes and make their living off the preaching of the AWG religious scriptures? I am supposed to believe a unproven religious belief over actual science?

Sure you continue to believe that, but the real science proves your religion incorrect. Also your AGW cult link to one who posted the AGW cult mantra and not any real science.

The AGW cult will do all they can to suppress real science in order to promote their religion.

"75 climatologists from the IPCC drive high end cars"? You set new records in stupid. No, it's worse than that. You give stupid a bad name.

 

[mamooth]

I wonder if any of the deniers here are also Higgs Boson deniers. After all, nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, or even seen direct evidence of a Higgs Boson. The models predictedd what statistical data from particle accelerator experments would, after sifting vast quantities of that statistical data, indicate a high likelihood (not absolute proof) of the existence of the Higgs Boson, and such statistical data was found. Just like AGW science.

The point, obviously, is that deniers are wildly hypocritical on the issue of models, only handwaving away all models on the single issue of AGW science, and that wild double standard completely invalidates their position.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder if any of the deniers here are also Higgs Boson deniers. After all, nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, or even seen direct evidence of a Higgs Boson. The models predictedd what statistical data from particle accelerator experments would, after sifting vast quantities of that statistical data, indicate a high likelihood (not absolute proof) of the existence of the Higgs Boson, and such statistical data was found. Just like AGW science.

The point, obviously, is that deniers are wildly hypocritical on the issue of models, only handwaving away all models on the single issue of AGW science, and that wild double standard completely invalidates their position.

When a Higgs Boson model is used to push us to waste trillions on more expensive, less reliable energy or to otherwise cripple our economy, I'd be happy to criticize that model.

 

[Crick]

The LHC cost over $9 billion to build. Was that a waste? What personal benefit have you seen from it's operation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The LHC cost over $9 billion to build. Was that a waste? What personal benefit have you seen from it's operation?

No. Wasting trillions to slow down our economy.......would be a waste.

 

[Crick]

Even if that expenditure saves hundreds of trillions down the line.

 

[SSDD]

The ideal gas law?!?!? I wouldn't have thought someone could be this stupid if they tried. You still think that pressure generates energy forever. What the ever-living fuck is wrong with you?

Typical warmer idiot...consider venus and the greenhouse effect you believe it is exhibiting...permanent input of 132 watts per square meter...permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter. That isn't science...that is science fiction.

And we are still left with the undeniable fact that the ideal gas laws alone come damned close in their predictions of the temperatures of the various planets while the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't even come close....

Tell me about how the greenhouse effect works on planets with no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres?...how do they maintain warmth in their atmospheres if pressure doesn't generate energy forever?

You are ridiculous...you believe that a permanent solar input on venus of 132 watts per square meter and a greenhouse effect results in an permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter...you think that is science but the ideal gas laws are ridiculous...you are truly an idiot. If that sort of power generation were possible via a greenhouse effect, don't you think it would be in use commercially?

believe all the world's scientists have been perpetrating a hoax since the time of Boyle, Charles and Dalton. Yeah, that's a reasonable position.

You believe in two hoaxes...one that CO2 can warm the climate and two...that most of the worlds scientists are on board with you....neither are true...further you believe that a permanent input of 132 watts per square meter can result in a permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter...you believe in science fiction...and not even good science fiction.

an idiot and a whack job. You need to seek an education and professional help.

You believe that a permanent input of 132 watts per square meter can result in a permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter and that the ideal gas laws are nonsense...and you call me an idiot and a wack job......You are a laughing stock.

 

[SSDD]

And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?

Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...

You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.

Wow.
And I thought your only issue was your complete misunderstanding of the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.
You should just stop posting.

You also believe in a greenhouse effect on venus? You think a permanent input of 132 watts per square meter there can result in a permanent output of 16,720 watts per square meter?

 

[SSDD]

It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.

Sure thousands of scientists were involved...but only 77 cherries were picked.

 

[SSDD]

Even if that expenditure saves hundreds of trillions down the line.

It won't because it is money flushed down the toilet...money wasted on a hoax.

 

[Crick]

Is it a hoax or is it an error?

Or is all of that YOUR error?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder if any of the deniers here are also Higgs Boson deniers. After all, nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, or even seen direct evidence of a Higgs Boson. The models predictedd what statistical data from particle accelerator experments would, after sifting vast quantities of that statistical data, indicate a high likelihood (not absolute proof) of the existence of the Higgs Boson, and such statistical data was found. Just like AGW science.

The point, obviously, is that deniers are wildly hypocritical on the issue of models, only handwaving away all models on the single issue of AGW science, and that wild double standard completely invalidates their position.

Odd that we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the big bang in the lab but you guys can't control for a 120ppm change in CO2

^ Real science

^ Climate change "Science"

See the difference?

 

[mamooth]

Typical warmer idiot...consider venus and the greenhouse effect you believe it is exhibiting...permanent input of 132 watts per square meter...permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter. That isn't science...that is science fiction.

Actually, it's you babbling your cult's nonsense again. Where did you get such crazy numbers?

Being that I live to educate others, I"m going to help you out and show the energy budget for Venus. Yes, it's the same diagram as for Earth, but with the numbers for Venus substituted in. Perhaps you can point out for us the energy imbalance.

Tell me about how the greenhouse effect works on planets with no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres?...how do they maintain warmth in their atmospheres if pressure doesn't generate energy forever?

Wow. SSDD actually thinks pressure alone generates heat forever. Perpetual free energy, baby!

Pardon me while I take a break to laugh.

And excuse me now. I have a couple fire extinguishers with high pressure inside them. Under SSDD physics, they must be continuously heating up big time, so I had better get rid of them before they set the house on fire.

 

[mamooth]

Odd that we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the big bang in the lab but you guys can't control for a 120ppm change in CO2

You're evading the issue, most likely because your stinking hypocrisy was pointed out, and you have no response. Since you ran, it shows I hit the target, so I"ll keep hitting it.

Both particle physics and AGW rely somewhat on models, and on sifting through petabytes of data to validate models to certain degree of probability. Both involve some money and government grants, though a pretty insignificant amount in the big picture. Yet you only declare models invalid for one, and the the barking cult kooks only invent global conspiracy theories about one field.

Given such a brazen double standard on your part, why should the world not just point and laugh at you?

 

[SSDD]

Wow. SSDD actually thinks pressure alone generates heat forever. Perpetual free energy, baby!

Typical warmer idiot...can't see past your dogma...so stupid that you think research isn't necessary...or perhaps (probably) to stupid to research.

Here is a bit of research for you. Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses...so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect is not possible even if there were greenhouse gasses. Any idea what the temperature profile of jupiter is? Of course not or you wouldn't make stupid comments like the one above. Here have a bit of information for all the good it will do an idiot like you.'

The temperature of Jupiter varies. The temperature of the core is different than the upper atmosphere, and so on. Scientists do not have exact numbers for the various temperatures on the planet, but at the upper edge of the cloud cover, the temperature is thought to be -145 degrees C. On Jupiter the temperature increases because of atmospheric pressure, so as you descend temperature increases. Not far into the atmosphere the pressure is about ten times what it is here on Earth and the temperature is thought to be about 20 degrees C or average room temperature for Earth. Descend further and hydrogen becomes hot enough to turn into a liquid and the temperature is thought to be over 9,700 C. At the planet’s core scientists think that the temperatures could be as high as 35,500 C.

Real science knows about pressure and heat and the ideal gas laws even if climate pseudoscience doesn't....or doesn't care to inform idiots like you about it.

So tell me hairball...if constant pressure alone can't generate heat forever...how do you explain the temperature profile of jupiter...no greenhouse effect there...hydrogen/helium atmosphere...certainly not enough solar input for a greenhouse effect even if there were greenhouse gasses there... Nothing but pressure and strangely enough, and according the the ideal gas laws, it gets warmer as the pressure increases till the temperature finally reaches more than 6 times the temperature of the surface of the sun.....nothing but pressure.

So tell me admiral...if constant pressure can't cause the temperature to increase and remain so, how do you explain the temperature deep in the atmospheres of all of the gas planets? No greenhouse effect....just pressure and incredibly high temperatures.

You people are idiots...the frauds at skeptical science tell you that an incase of pressure is a short lived phenomenon and you morons simply buy it and repeat it like pavlov's dogs...you couldn't be bothered to see if perhaps there was a planet in your own neighborhood that put the lie to the claim but there are several of them....far from the sun...no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres...high pressure and very high temperatures due to nothing but constant pressure.

Still laughing admiral? Got an explanation? Science says that the temperature profile on jupiter and the other gas giants is due to pressure....still laughing?

 

[Crick]

Yes, I am still laughing.

You're a complete idiot.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I am still laughing.

You're a complete idiot.

Laughing like a monkey in a tree...nothing to say...don't know jack...but just laughing away. Have fun.

Maybe if you ever develop enough intelligence to do more than laugh and throw shit from a tree, you would like to explain why actual science says that permanent pressure results in permanent heat and the gas giants prove it....and you still believe that a fictitious greenhouse effect is actual science and the ideal gas laws are nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

Come on warmers....if the high atmospheric pressure can't be responsible fort the temperature on venus, what is responsible for the high temperatures deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants? If the heat due to pressure is temporary..how can the temperature possibly be so high deep in the atmospheres of those planets? If the ideal gas laws, which predict those temperatures are nonsense, how do you explain a greenhouse effect on planets with no greenhouse gasses?