In Support of the A in AGW

[Billy_Bob]

what a waste of time you are.

1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
3) You go downhill from there.

Good for you..you found a misspelled word...got a special victory dance for that?

I don't see a correction? What word did you intend to be there? Ah... Column. Tough one.

However, as expected, you ignored the point that almost NONE of the atmosphere's thermal energy radiates to space from water vapor. It radiates from the extremely dry stratosphere. Remember? They told you that in Atmospheric Physics for Dummies 101R.

You really are a moron....
LWIR is released when the water molecules re-nucleate at which point the stratosphere fails to stop it from being released to space as the space between molecules can not inhibit it. But then again your projecting....

 

[SSDD]

Moreover, climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) which ranges from GHG emissions due to human activity, to increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, to complex interaction with the earth's energy budget and irradiation / albedo, to even more complex causes for changing weather patterns and ice melting etc. etc. etc.

And on and on and round and round it goes and still not the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...

Note, too, that causal chains cannot be directly observed, and neither can they be measured.

Of course they can...meteorologists observe, measure, and quantify numerous causal chains every day which they then run through models and are able to reasonably accurately predict what will happen as much as a couple of days out...and that is the extent of our ability to understand the climate.

All that can be done is take the most accurate measurements we can (GHGs, temperatures, cloud formation and duration, ice volume and extent, sea levels, etc. etc. etc.), and reconstruct past data as best we can, and bind these together into a theory that involves physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to try to explain what we are seeing.

And the models are failing miserably...which tells any thinking person that the hypothesis upon which the models are built is wrong.

Climate science is at a state where GW and its human causation is well-established science,

BULLSHIT....maybe you haven't noticed but the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW has yet to be posted in this thread.....I believe that you believe such evidence exists...but the fact that you can't produce it says otherwise.

But hey, pounding your chest and pontificating over things you haven't begun to understand certainly seems to be fun to you, so knock yourself out.

You seem to be the one doing the chest pounding....claiming settled science....well established causation...etc, etc, etc while not being able to produce any evidence at all in support of your claims.

 

[SSDD]

---
Apparently, you did not read the evidence indicated or you did not understand it.
Thousands of scientists throughout the WORLD concur with that evidence.
Obviously, you're not a scientist and are bitching out of your league.
Go get a lollipop and read first grade stories, like in the Bible; more your speed.
.

And still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world in support of the A in AGW regardless of your endless claims that it exists....if you can find it then bring it on...I suspect that the reason you aren't bringing anything forward is that you fear the embarrassment of presenting what passes for actual evidence in your mind...

 

[SSDD]

I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

Please feel free to post up the empirical, quantifiable, observed evidence, where and when it was obtained, and what it's error bounds are..

I think most of them are afraid to post what passes their muster as actual evidence in support of their claims...

 

[SSDD]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

---
See my response to your ignorant buddy BBob.
.

Saw it...sorry, it isn't there regardless of your claims...

---
Saw it?
You are a fucking liar.
.

So feel free to bring forward any actual observed, measured, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world in support of the A in AGW....I say that you are a liar claiming it to be there...prove me wrong....

PREDICTION....no real evidence will be forthcoming...

 

[SSDD]

You are a climate scientist?
Who cares what you think!
You are a nobody in science.
Why don't you cite a credible authority who disputes the evidence presented in that WG1 AR5 report ...
.

And still no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...how unsurprising is that?

 

[SSDD]

GW is a fact

GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.

I find it rather interesting how the alarmists claim that 'Global Warming' can only be man made and omit the A. Its part of the disinformation campaign to cloud and hide the need to link the anthroprogenic portion to the natural one.. Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

It has been their argument all along....simply assuming that GW = AGW.....with absolutely no evidence in support of the A.

 

[SSDD]

Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

---
Agenda? That's what you're doing; trying to confuse the gullible public to promote your greedy political agenda.

The scientists are doing scientific work, which you cannot dispute from a scientific view.
.

So bring some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW...or simply admit that what climate science is calling science really isn't.

 

[PK1]

Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

---
Agenda? That's what you're doing; trying to confuse the gullible public to promote your greedy political agenda.

The scientists are doing scientific work, which you cannot dispute from a scientific view.
.

So bring some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW...or simply admit that what climate science is calling science really isn't.

---
As i mentioned in the AGW Question thread ...
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

 

[jc456]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

LOL...

AR5 is a political pile of modeled crap..

Empirical real world evidence shows AGW a failed hypothesis. I dont suppose you would like to post up the relevant sections of AR5 which show the empirical evidence (model outputs are not empirical evidence of any kind) and are not fantasy modeling which has failed empirical review and have no predictive powers. Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

Billy, the only thing it did do is support our claim. it states: That is observed and it backs our story. I laugh when they try and use it.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

 

[jc456]

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...I have been asking for a very long time for those who believe it is to cut and paste anything from that steaming pile of pseudoscience to bring forward anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and still no one, including yourself can seem to find any...

For all your talk...the clear fact is that you can't find it either.....not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

SSDD, but there is observed data in there and it backs our story:

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

 

[PK1]

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...I have been asking for a very long time for those who believe it is to cut and paste anything from that steaming pile of pseudoscience to bring forward anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and still no one, including yourself can seem to find any...

For all your talk...the clear fact is that you can't find it either.....not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

SSDD, but there is observed data in there and it backs our story:

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

---
Since you're repeating your stupidity from the AGW Question thread, you require another slap toward reality:

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the rate of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was continued warming??

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...I have been asking for a very long time for those who believe it is to cut and paste anything from that steaming pile of pseudoscience to bring forward anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and still no one, including yourself can seem to find any...

For all your talk...the clear fact is that you can't find it either.....not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

SSDD, but there is observed data in there and it backs our story:

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

---
Since you're repeating your stupidity from the AGW Question thread, you require another slap toward reality:

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the rate of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was continued warming??

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
.

And yet no quantification of what is natural variation and what is man made. 0.84 divided by 16 = 0.0525 deg C per decade.. and then the level of CO2 kept rising for one and half decades where the rate of temperature rise decreased to 0.015 deg C... This proves that CO2 is not doing squat. If CO2 were acting like the hypothesis predicts we should have never dropped below 0.05 increase.

Basic math and reasoning should lay A in its grave..

 

[SSDD]

Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.

---
Agenda? That's what you're doing; trying to confuse the gullible public to promote your greedy political agenda.

The scientists are doing scientific work, which you cannot dispute from a scientific view.
.

So bring some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW...or simply admit that what climate science is calling science really isn't.

---
As i mentioned in the AGW Question thread ...
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of "actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to 9,000+ scientific publications would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.

Yeah..you mentioned it as have all your warmer wacko brothers and sisters since it was published...and yet, neither you nor any of your wacko cult seem to be able to bring even one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from all those 9,000+ papers that you claim support the A in AGW...the data does not exist and claiming that it exists in droves while not being able to produce the first bit doesn't lend you much credibility...

The guy claiming a thing exists while simultaneously not being able to produce it is the one who looks like a fool...

 

[SSDD]

So I guess that there will be no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data gathered from out here in the observable, measurable quantifiable, empirical world that support the A in AGW....

Looking back to the OP we have, as predicted had name calling, logical fallacy, and presentment of stuff that you believe to be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from out here in the real world but there was, in fact, be absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

Thanks for your participation and for bearing out my hypothesis...

 

[Crick]

There's tons. You've been shown it repeatedly. You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW. Everyone here knows that. There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more. The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

 

[Wuwei]

absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world

You are absolutely correct for people like you who don't believe in modern physics, and who block their ears, shut their eyes and shout la-la-la-la at that science countless times.

 

[SSDD]

There's tons. You've been shown it repeatedly. You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW. Everyone here knows that. There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more. The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

And yet, you can't produce any of it...thanks...

 

[SSDD]

absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world

You are absolutely correct for people like you who don't believe in modern physics, and who block their ears, shut their eyes and shout la-la-la-la at that science countless times.

Modern physics which means not observed, measured, or quantified......right... We are talking about the observable, measurable, quantifiable world...why do you suppose that there is no observed, measured, quantified data to support such an important hypothesis that demands so much money?

 

[Wuwei]

absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world

You are absolutely correct for people like you who don't believe in modern physics, and who block their ears, shut their eyes and shout la-la-la-la at that science countless times.

Modern physics which means not observed, measured, or quantified......right... We are talking about the observable, measurable, quantifiable world...why do you suppose that there is no observed, measured, quantified data to support such an important hypothesis that demands so much money?

So that's your argument. You don't believe in modern physics. Therefore you don't believe in any of it's ramifications. If you are that anti-science, you have made no point in your OP and you have made no argument one way or another.