In Support of the A in AGW

[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.

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

I can and have produced reams of it. You have seen it. You have read it. You lie about it. Your choice.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Modern Physics equates models as empirical evidence yet when they are tested they fail.. How can you place your trust in something that has shown no basis in reality and then force people to give up their freedoms due to your fantasy's?

What you describe bears no resemblance to science.. You can keep your modern (common core) physics becasue its a failure..

 

[Wuwei]

Modern Physics equates models as empirical evidence yet when they are tested they fail.. How can you place your trust in something that has shown no basis in reality and then force people to give up their freedoms due to your fantasy's?

What you describe bears no resemblance to science.. You can keep your modern (common core) physics becasue its a failure..

So you also don't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, quarks, leptons, equilibrium conditions of radiation ...?

You say, "when they are tested they fail." The fact is that relativistic quantum electrodynamics was tested and consistently agrees with theoretical models to one part per billion in accuracy. You sure are a disciple of SSDD.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I haven't made an argument on this thread...and I haven't asked for argument...I have stated that there is zero observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW....zero actual observed evidence from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding a hypothesis that deals entirely with the observable, measurable, quantifiable world.....and my statement has been proven true as evidenced by the lack of anything even remotely resembling observed, measured quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...

 

[Crick]

And the work of the IPCC's Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis"? Let's hear your excuse one more time.

 

[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...

I can and have produced reams of it. You have seen it. You have read it. You lie about it. Your choice.

Not the first bit crick...I suppose you might believe that you have, but then that's why you have been taken in by the scam....measurements of the emission of various gasses made with instruments cooled to temperatures far below that of the atmosphere are evidence of nothing other than that you can measure emitted radiation from a thing if you cool your receiving instrument to a temperature lower than that of the emitter....hardly evidence supporting the A in AGW...and rocks evidence that greenhouse gasses absorb was only half the evidence as he failed to mention that they also emit what they absorb and that does not even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...much less support the A in AGW...

As I said, my original premise is correct and you have never posted a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW...none of you have.

 

[SSDD]

Modern Physics equates models as empirical evidence yet when they are tested they fail.. How can you place your trust in something that has shown no basis in reality and then force people to give up their freedoms due to your fantasy's?

What you describe bears no resemblance to science.. You can keep your modern (common core) physics becasue its a failure..

So you also don't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, quarks, leptons, equilibrium conditions of radiation ...?

You say, "when they are tested they fail." The fact is that relativistic quantum electrodynamics was tested and consistently agrees with theoretical models to one part per billion in accuracy. You sure are a disciple of SSDD.

Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?

And none of that even begins to address my OP statement anyway...

 

[SSDD]

And the work of the IPCC's Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis"? Let's hear your excuse one more time.

No excuse....I simply made a statement...you are the one who is all excuses and lies all the time as evidenced by your inability to produce even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...the fact that the title is "the physical science basis" is laughable considering that you can't bring a single bit of actual physical evidence forward in support of that A.

I can't help but notice that once again, you make claims that you fail abjectly to back up...if the observed, measured, quantified evidence is there, then bring some of it here...what you have offered up so far is not evidence in support of the A in AGW...perhaps it is that you wouldn't know actual observed, measured, quantified evidence if it bit you in the ass....maybe you accept anything you are given as evidence so long as it meshes with your belief....you have certainly proven so far that you accept something as evidence in support of the A that isn't.

 

[Crick]

The WG I report is a little large to post here. How about a link? www.ipcc.ch

There, that should make you happy. Give us a smile Snookums.

 

[SSDD]

The WG I report is a little large to post here. How about a link? www.ipcc.ch

There, that should make you happy. Give us a smile Snookums.

And talk and talk and talk...and you still remain unable to provide the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW....like you said yourself....when people make claims about what is contained in a site and don't bring it forward, they are just talking out of their asses....by your own standards crick, you are talking out of your ass...and we both know that you can't bring any observed, measured, quantified evidence from that site that supports the A in AGW because no such evidence exists....if it did, you would be heaping it on this thread till there was little room for anything else....but you aren't, because there is nothing there...all there is is you talking.

 

[Olde Europe]

I haven't made an argument on this thread...and I haven't asked for argument...I have stated that there is zero observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW....zero actual observed evidence from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding a hypothesis that deals entirely with the observable, measurable, quantifiable world.....and my statement has been proven true as evidenced by the lack of anything even remotely resembling observed, measured quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...

Is this thing still on? You are really compounding your self-humiliation, SSDD, for as long as this thread lives. You ask for measured data for the A in AGW, which means you are asking for measurement of causation. Once again: Causation cannot be measured, just inferred. Those with more than rudimentary understanding of science know that, and it's known since Hume. To put it slightly differently, you are demanding to be served a scientific unicorn.

At the very least, you could read Chapter 8 of AR5 (WG1), which specifically discusses the various sizes and signs of anthropogenic and natural forcing. We both know you won't, since this thread isn't about AGW, or even the A in AGW. It's about SSDD's victory lap having "demonstrated" that no scientific unicorn with the required specifications exists. Well done.

 

[Wuwei]

I haven't made an argument on this thread.

Oh yes you have. You have argued against all the evidence that came out challenging your OP. And you continue to make arguments. Against science.

 

[Wuwei]

Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?

Quantum electrodynamics accuracy is far more than enough to explain back scatter and the green house effect. It will be valid and good enough in that realm forever.

And none of that even begins to address my OP statement anyway...

Yes it does, when you reject the science observations that addresses your OP.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?

Quantum electrodynamics accuracy is far more than enough to explain back scatter and the green house effect. It will be valid and good enough in that realm forever.

And none of that even begins to address my OP statement anyway...

Yes it does, when you reject the science observations that addresses your OP.

Models are NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... Knock off the common core - new physics crap... You guys keep posting up "the model shows" knowing that it is not empirical evidence and then treat it as such.. Even your proxies dont have the spatial and temporal resolution to prove or disprove anything at this point.

The data I posted in post 4 of this thread cleanly lays the IPCC claims waste... OBSERVED, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, I might add...

 

[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}"

---
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}
.

I cherry picked science? How the fk can you say that when I quoted you right out of the official warmer document AR5? how is it IIIIIIIIIIII cherry picked? You're just a soar loser. you got jobbed by the IPCC and now you can't figure out how to rip that paper bag over your head. AR5 disproves CO2 as a source of heat as stated in their own document.

"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]

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.

no, an inaccurate post, you have no observed data. None. Just cause the message board internet thingy allows you type those words is not proof of your claim. You continue to fail.

 

[jc456]

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.

and nothing can be presented by those who think they have the power to pull one over on someone, and continue to fail at that. So not only can't you provide any observable data, you can't even discuss it correctly.

 

[jc456]

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.

logical fallacy/.

 

[SSDD]

I haven't made an argument on this thread...and I haven't asked for argument...I have stated that there is zero observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW....zero actual observed evidence from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding a hypothesis that deals entirely with the observable, measurable, quantifiable world.....and my statement has been proven true as evidenced by the lack of anything even remotely resembling observed, measured quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...

Is this thing still on? You are really compounding your self-humiliation, SSDD, for as long as this thread lives. You ask for measured data for the A in AGW, which means you are asking for measurement of causation. Once again: Causation cannot be measured, just inferred. Those with more than rudimentary understanding of science know that, and it's known since Hume. To put it slightly differently, you are demanding to be served a scientific unicorn.

At the very least, you could read Chapter 8 of AR5 (WG1), which specifically discusses the various sizes and signs of anthropogenic and natural forcing. We both know you won't, since this thread isn't about AGW, or even the A in AGW. It's about SSDD's victory lap having "demonstrated" that no scientific unicorn with the required specifications exists. Well done.

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW from you or anyone else...lots of talk...no data....see a trend here?

And I am not asking for a measurement of causation...which, by the way, would be possible if we knew the cause...I am asking for observed, measured, quantified data that just supports the A in AGW....you guys don't even have that..

 

[SSDD]

I haven't made an argument on this thread.

Oh yes you have. You have argued against all the evidence that came out challenging your OP. And you continue to make arguments. Against science.

Which evidence that has been presented on this thread, or any other thread do you think actually supports the A in AGW...,crick posted some measurements of radiation emitting from atmospheric gasses recorded with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than -80F....that certainly doesn't provide any support for the A in AGW...rocks provided data showing that so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR....he failed to provide a graph showing that at least in the case of all except H2O they emit what they absorb....this doesn't prove in any way that absorption and emission = warming and certainly doesn't support the A in AGW....has their been any other actual data posted which is claimed to support the A in AGW?