How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[abu afak]

Lol.

So the ice cores are "deniers!"

Au Contrare.
I used/love Ice Cores, while Billy Bobb wanted to use the less reliable Stomata to pervert the CO2 record.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lol.

So the ice cores are "deniers!"

Au Contrare.
I used/love Ice Cores, while Billy Bobb wanted to use the less reliable Stomata to pervert the CO2 record.

`

Ice cores show CO2 LAGGING temperature on both increase and decrease. If your AGW "Theory" were correct, the increase in CO2 would show runaway temperature increases.

Hence, AGW Theory = fail!

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ce-NOAA-NCDC-Red-represents-CO_fig6_269429690

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lol.

So the ice cores are "deniers!"

Au Contrare.
I used/love Ice Cores, while Billy Bobb wanted to use the less reliable Stomata to pervert the CO2 record.

`

Stomata has been confirmed highly accurate by multiple sources and processes. It is far more accurate than ice core records... But you still want to use garbage when gold is available.... Bravo... Useful idiot...

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

.

SO explain why it does not...

View attachment 275961

Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..

 

[abu afak]

Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..

Nothing but the ole Burden Shift Stromata breath.
Any IDIOT can see the Empirical Evidence.
The only debate (for Fringers like you) is about whether that EVIDENCE is correlation or Causation.
LOL
`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..

Nothing but the ole Burden Shift Stromata breath.
Any IDIOT can see the Empirical Evidence.
The only debate (for Fringers like you) is about whether that EVIDENCE is correlation or Causation.
LOL
`

You cant even tell us what the BASIC AGW PREMISE IS and some how you think your an expert on it... now that is funny.. you cant even back up your claims with empirical evidence or science, yet again you claim expert status....

You are nothing but a useful idiot spouting crap.

 

[abu afak]

You cant even tell us what the BASIC AGW PREMISE IS and some how you think your an expert on it... now that is funny.. you cant even back up your claims with empirical evidence or science, yet again you claim expert status....

You are nothing but a useful idiot spouting crap.

NO answer to my point about evidence, so you try the above.
I have done so Scores of Times and beyond basically you Lying MORON.
So instead you just try insult.
You're an argumentative 10 year old with an 80 IQ.
`

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting for wuwei's explanation as to why empirical evidence does not support his conjecture..

Nothing but the ole Burden Shift Stromata breath.
Any IDIOT can see the Empirical Evidence.
The only debate (for Fringers like you) is about whether that EVIDENCE is correlation or Causation.
LOL
`

You cant even tell us what the BASIC AGW PREMISE IS and some how you think your an expert on it... now that is funny.. you cant even back up your claims with empirical evidence or science, yet again you claim expert status....

You are nothing but a useful idiot spouting crap.

Basic AGW Premise

Warming = Global Warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat

 

[Billy_Bob]

NO answer to my point about evidence,

What evidence? All you have posted are failed modeling papers and pure correlation conjecture. Funny that you refuse to look at any empirical evidence which utterly destroys your failed AGW premise, yet you hail pure fantasy as real..

 

[Confounding]

empirical evidence which utterly destroys your failed AGW premise

Some links please?

 

[Billy_Bob]

empirical evidence which utterly destroys your failed AGW premise

Some links please?

LOL...

There are many throught this thread... Be a good boy and go read them..

 

[SSDD]

Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.

We can discuss that right after you explain how you think a radiative greenhouse effect powered by CO2 multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of energy that reaches the surface of venus into 16,000 W/m^2.

 

[Wuwei]

Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.

We can discuss that right after you explain how you think a radiative greenhouse effect powered by CO2 multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of energy that reaches the surface of venus into 16,000 W/m^2.

That's another way for you to say that you don't know where the radiation goes. Your brand of self contradictory fake physics simply can't answer that question.

.

 

[SSDD]

Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.

We can discuss that right after you explain how you think a radiative greenhouse effect powered by CO2 multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of energy that reaches the surface of venus into 16,000 W/m^2.

That's another way for you to say that you don't know where the radiation goes. Your brand of self contradictory fake physics simply can't answer that question.

.

Talk about contradictory physics...you are claiming that CO2 multiplies abut 17 watts per square meter of energy reaching the surface of venus into over 16,000 watts per square meter.

Come on guy....you are so fixated on that 16,000 W/m^2....lets hear how the radiative greenhouse effect, powered by CO2 on Venus multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of solar energy that actually reaches the surface into 16,000 W/m^2.

Here on earth, climate science claims that for each doubling of CO2, the radiative greenhouse effect causes the temperature to rise 3.5 degrees...18 doublings would give us the same CO2 concentration as on venus and according to climate science, the temperature would rise by 63 degrees.

It sounds like an epic story...full of miracles...perhaps even bigger than the story of the loaves and fishes...I mean, in that story, they fed a few thousand with a basket full of bread and fish...in your story, a measly 17 watts per square meter of energy gets multiplied 950 times....by a gas that can only absorb and emit...tell us how it happens...and do provide a formula by which we can follow the magic.

 

[skookerasbil]

The scientific debate here doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the public thinks. People who vote are very aware of everything out there on the science...…..they just don't care. The reason they don't care is they don't see that there is anything we can do one way or another. How do we know that? Because Congress couldn't be any less interested in climate change action which means the constituents aren't caring. Its consistently been that way for 20 years now. Look at the public take on the Green New Deal. Have we ever seen such an immense collective yawn? I mean, c'mon now......people don't want to spend 40K for a crappy EV when they can get the same car for 15K less without the stress. Nobody wants to give up their cell phones or pay double for their electricity. Have the government in control of our thermostats. No more hamburgers. Doy…...only the zombies advocate for this.......those left behind in their formative years.......people who are lost and are desperate to be involved in some cause.

Again......progressives have been taking bows in front of these science banners and billboards for two decades. Whats the analogy? How about this.....attending a group navel contemplation session and spiking a football when you leave!

 

[Wuwei]

alk about contradictory physics...you are claiming that CO2 multiplies abut 17 watts per square meter of energy reaching the surface of venus into over 16,000 watts per square meter.

This isn't the first time you confused Energy and Watts. The units for Watts is energy/sec. Your statement should have been "...17 watts per square meter of energy per second reaching the surface of venus..."

Come on guy....you are so fixated on that 16,000 W/m^2....lets hear how the radiative greenhouse effect, powered by CO2 on Venus multiplies the ~17 W/m^2 of solar energy that actually reaches the surface into 16,000 W/m^2.

What happens to an object if there is a constant input of 17 Watts but no good way for that input energy to get out? It gains 17 more Joules as each second rolls by. If there is no outlet of energy it gets hotter and hotter. In the case of Venus it gets hotter until it's over 700 F and radiating 1600 Watts. All that energy gradually seeps through the CO2 up to the TOA and releases that 17 Watts. But the surface remains hot.

It sounds like an epic story...full of miracles...perhaps even bigger than the story of the loaves and fishes...I mean, in that story, they fed a few thousand with a basket full of bread and fish...in your story, a measly 17 watts per square meter of energy gets multiplied 950 times....by a gas that can only absorb and emit...tell us how it happens...and do provide a formula by which we can follow the magic.

In the past a phenomenon was judged a miracle if it was not understood at all. Today's physics has easy explanations. For those who don't believe today's physics, then yes it is a miracle for them.

.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting..........You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't...so keep trying..

You are laboring under the belief that the energy is additive...that is the failure of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

 

[Wuwei]

Still waiting..........You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't...so keep trying..

You are laboring under the belief that the energy is additive...that is the failure of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred per unit of time.

Suppose you set an object on an source that was powered by 17 Watts. If you sealed it in a container with a perfect vacuum around it, it would continue to absorb energy at the rate of 17 Joules per second and increase in temperature until radiation heated the container hot enough to the point that the outside of the container radiates 17 Watts externally.

Think of the filament in the vacuum of a 17 Watt light bulb. No matter the beginning temperature the filament will continually absorb energy and will turn red hot. At equilibrium 17 Watts will be radiated outside the bulb (container) to match the 17 Watts input.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting..........You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't...so keep trying..

You are laboring under the belief that the energy is additive...that is the failure of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

You seem to be under the impression that CO2 somehow holds energy...it doesn't...it can't

Exactly! That's why all the CO2 we see is dry ice...…...LOL!

 

[LaDairis]

All atoms and molecules "hold" energy when exposed to direct sunlight. Co2 isn't special in that regard, absorbing weak infrared but nothing else. That's why the satellites and balloons show no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2. Co2 is just another gas. The whole concept of a "Greenhouse Gas" is bullshit. All gasses absorb sunlight, and the differences are minor.