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.
There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..
What I want to see is actual evidence that we are causing the change...or evidence that the present climate is outside the limits of natural variability...that sort of evidence has never been posted because that sort of evidence simply does not exist...
There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..
What I want to see is actual evidence that we are causing the change...or evidence that the present climate is outside the limits of natural variability...that sort of evidence has never been posted because that sort of evidence simply does not exist...
One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.
Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.
Also you stupid idiot, local effects like trees in the arctic - whatever sub or micro climate/region that might be, is NOT "Global" Warming. Doh!
Splash #8426
Your post barrage/burial/Bully attempt failed.
You have No brain, No Info, so tried brawn/your usual high frequency Idiocy.
`
I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.
What Is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.
Oh look!I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.
Abu, has no idea about the concept of the NULL hypothesis, (probably never heard of it) which has not been shown to be vitiated by the slow warming trend rate. from Investopedia
What Is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.
The difference between man and nature caused changes are currently insignificant, that is the reality warmists fails to understand. The AGW "hypothesis" fails to show that it is mankind who is driving climate change.
Now watch ABU flail all over the place........
Oh look!I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.
Abu, has no idea about the concept of the NULL hypothesis, (probably never heard of it) which has not been shown to be vitiated by the slow warming trend rate. from Investopedia
What Is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.
The difference between man and nature caused changes are currently insignificant, that is the reality warmists fails to understand. The AGW "hypothesis" fails to show that it is mankind who is driving climate change.
Now watch ABU flail all over the place........
The "inappropriate Fallacy" Fallacy by junior chart dumper INSTEAD of being able to to rebut a single premise I put forward in my last, OR the many cited by the OP links.
It's no wonder he has Ducked on this Killer thread (and refutal of his whole existence) until now! Happened about a year+ ago too. He ran away/ignored.
``
So to be clear, you have NO answer to anything in this thread....
It is coming, the NULL hypothesis post was the beginning expose on how ignorant and stupid YOU are, a person who AGAIN just made that clear when he ignores the NULL hypothesis situation in science research, that I pointed out.
You also have no idea what COHERENCE is either as your first post makes clear, which is a polyglot of claims that don't even match up with each other well. Some of the links don't even provide evidence to support their crap.
Oh its coming little boy......
There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.
One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.
Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.
Please produce the empirical study.. I cant seem to find anything but failed modeling...Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.
LOLNow it's back to the Mensa boards for me,
And you're Wrong on that tooWe know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...
How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet. Why stop 12 years ago? If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...And you're Wrong on that tooWe know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...
EPIC Hyper-posting piece of Crap.
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35
..
"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.".."
You're so mouthy, so high frequency, and so emptily Contrary/STUPID.
You're a Freak.
We have Google now.
It's so easy not to make an ass of Yourself.
Billy Bob is even STUPIDER.
Has No content, just juvenile hostility.
`
It didn't stop you contrary clown.How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet. Why stop 12 years ago? If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...
It didn't stop you contrary clown.How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet. Why stop 12 years ago? If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...
That's just when the study was done.
WTF!
Trapping at GHG Frequencies wouldn't "stop."
Unbelievable.
What vacuous contrariness.
`
Radiative blocking at specific GH Gas wave lengths wouldn't stop in any given year you IDIOT.And that is the most current study you can find??? Look at the latest sceince..the pause is coming up on 20 years old now..
Lets skewer the lying piece of Skeptical Shit Science.. ( a site that is known for fabrications, false information, and rewriting or deletion of science presented which refutes their absurd claims).And you're Wrong on that tooWe know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...
EPIC Hyper-posting piece of Crap.
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35
..
"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.".."
You're so mouthy, so high frequency, and so emptily Contrary/STUPID.
You're a Freak.
We have Google now.
It's so easy not to make an ass of Yourself.
Billy Bob is even STUPIDER.
Has No content, just juvenile hostility.
`
