Last Chance for Warmer to Explain AGW Theory

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you tell me what the hell this even means from the section you provided?:


"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
{2–14} "

What understanding of the climate? If they understood the climate, they wouldn't need more modeling. And what evidence, there is absolutely nothing in that statement that is proof of anything? That's how nuts these nutjobs are. And you want me to take this crap seriously?

No, provide me real evidence, observed evidence of what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. They don't know.

^ Click your heels together 3 times and say "I believe in Global Warming"

 

[Crick]

Can you tell me what the hell this even means from the section you provided?:

"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
{2–14} "

It means that it is obvious how human activities have affected the Earth's climate. The evidence for human influence includes increased levels of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere, positive radiative forcing [that would be the radiative imbalance I've repeatedly mentioned that all you deniers have ignored or misunderstood], the undeniable warming observed to have taken place over the last century and a half and the many things that climate scientists DO know about the working of the Earth's climate.

That's what it means.

What understanding of the climate? If they understood the climate, they wouldn't need more modeling. And what evidence, there is absolutely nothing in that statement that is proof of anything? That's how nuts these nutjobs are. And you want me to take this crap seriously?

They refer to the understanding of the climate that has been developed by over a century of research by people a lot smarter than you and I, who have done such research 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for their entire working lives. Do you believe that you have a superior understanding? That is what you appear to be saying and you know I would have to reject that notion.

What you read was an executive summary intended for politicians, leaders, rulers, people with less than a firm grasp on the technical details. I guarantee you that AR5 and its predecessors contains an enormous amount of evidence. But I can guarantee you that you won't find a bit of it if you don't look. If you'd like more technical information, try http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf. It's a bit large and will take a while to download. But when it does, have a look at Section 8.1.2, Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes beginning on page 668.

 

[Youch]

Okay....I can cite data and websites all day long. And I will, if needed. Battles of website citations rarely amounts to much. But this is backwards.

The widespread assumption is that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. The case for both of those things has not been made outside the federal grant establishment.

That is untrue. Cook et al's recent survey of the literature found thousands of studies which found or were based on the assumption of the validity of AGW. Those were not restricted to "the federal grant establishment". Besides which, you have no grounds to imply a projected bias of federal grants.

Of course literature is rife with "studies" that support AGW. And no, they are not restricted to the federal grant establishment. They are supported and believed by people who loathe their own species and blame them for, first it was man-made-global-warming, then just global warming, then climate change, now AGW and most recently "climate chaos" is the device to blame humans whether it is getting colder or hotter. But that was not the point I was making.

You speak of me not making a logical argument, yet you are doing it yourself. One such example is when you declare out of thin air that I "have no grounds to imply a projected bias of federal grants." That is a non sequitor (meaning, it does not follow (logic)) since you don't know my grounds, are unaware of my bias and ignore my ability to imply anything I want. So, before you continue asserting you know anything about me or my position, recall your desire for a logical debate.

It is a movement, a religion.....meaning, it is a belief system, an ideology. And similar to religion, it is a very hard thing to actually prove.

You began this piece seeming to present a reasonable position. I see that was a false impression. I also see that you are one of the disappointingly large number of people with the mistaken belief that the role of science is to prove facts.

I've not mentioned what my belief is in the role of science. Is your pattern of illogical debate going to continue?

My position remains the same. The words I used had meaning. Prove them wrong, if you can, rather than confuse the issue with conclusion pole vaulting, projection and assumption.

So in order for this argument to be put in the correct order, one must first prove the contention that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it.

Wrong. What is required is the exercise of rational judgement and political leadership to make decisions based on the best possible information. That information overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that human GHGs are the primary cause. Outside the denier demesne, that point is indisputable.

You say "the information" and then only quote the very same IPCC that was embarrassed by their use and support of the disproved data used to populate the debunked hockey stick. That is useful information for the "political leadership" that desires to "makes decisions," I agree. And that was more or less the point I was making.

Justify the billions being spent! Justify the insane growth and power of the EPA? Evidence must first be advanced before an argument can be made.

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5. Then come back and explain to us where you ever got the idea there was any shortfall of evidence.

I do not respect the IPCC. They have been proven fiddlers of data and motivated by money. Is the IPCC all you got?

Let me give you an example....government has expanded EXPONENTIALLY since it first used climate as a device to control and expand, yet not a single polar bear has even noticed warming, not a single human, for that matter.

Government has not expanded exponentially, period. And if you'd like to see some humans that have noticed the effects of global warming, talk to the residents of the Philippines and ask them of their experiences with Typhoon Haiyan. Wander the UN heartland and ask people what they've experienced during recent polar vortices? Ask people who've seen their crops and flocks affected by changes in natural seasonal timings. You claim you have no evidence but then seem to have no trouble coming to conclusions without any.

I thought you wanted to be logical. You BELIEVE in GW, because the IPCC tells you so, and BELIEVE political leadership is required to interfere, I mean "make decisions" about human activity, but don't believe, "period" that the growth of government has grown quickly and dangerously and disproportionally to the actual desires of the aggregate? (yes, get caught up on the term exponential, if you want to weasel out of the larger point being made).

Haiyan was a terrible typhoon. And your point is? By the way, I've been to the Philippines prior to and after said typhoon, and not a sole I encountered blamed man-made global warming. So, okay, I did what you asked. Fail.

Wander the UN heartland? A Freudian slip?

Yes, the recent polar vortices caused severe winter. Are you making my point or yours?

You say I "claim to have no evidence" when my contention is the opposite. Odd, that. Perhaps you read about my available evidence in the UN heartland?

The hockey stick was debunked.

This is the deepest of the denier self disinformation. The hockey stick curve has not been debunked. It is a reflection of what several environmental parameters have actually done and the literature is filled with a variety of hockey stick shaped data graphs. Even the original MBH paleotemperature chart has not be "debunked". Since its original publishing, it has been revised and improved, but it still shows a dramatic and - in the last several millenia at least - unprecedented rise in temperature and GHG levels during the last 150 years.

Perhaps widen your research net. Regurgitating IPCC data is now several years passé, and denying their admitted shortcomings in that regard is now public knowledge.

More on that below....

Rational people look to the sun.

Scientists have studied the sun in detail for a great long while. Those rational scientists have found that the changes in the sun's output have NOT been anywhere near sufficient to be the cause of the warming.

EXACTLY!!!!!!! Thank you for making my point. Solar activity has, however, been sufficient to cause...,,what? I'll let you guess...

Rational people see that spikes in CO2 were occurring long before the Industrial Revolution. You seem my point?

At no time prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution were increased CO2 levels caused by human activities. So, what is your point?

That is PRECISLEY MY POINT!! It is right there in black and white!! Think about it.

Apparently, despite you "long experience", you have failed to learn the logic of argument.

I think I have already blown that out of the water.

I do not think the believers will read the following links/data, as that would be akin to the mainstream media properly reporting the news in Ferguson. In other words, facts get in the way. You, and many a worthy debate partner in the past dismiss my position because it does not fit a narrative. I get that. Nevertheless, the following articles are pertinent to the discussion:

(the IPCC removes the hockey stick)

IPCC HOCKEY STICK CURVE DEBUNKED STILL FURTHER

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Al Gore, climate change, climategate, global warming, hockey stick



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2014/January/Cover-Up-Mounting-Evidence-Belies-Global-Warming/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20131219/OPINION/312190012/Susan-Stamper-Brown-Snow-Middle-East-shows-global-cooling-not-warming
http://carbon-sense.com/category/global-cooling/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57789?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=4986605bb0-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-4986605bb0-291127473
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1097877/global-warming-facts-losing-support-in-us-considered-a-fake-climate-change-hoax/
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/


Okay, I'm done..... Do with this what you want. To me it is a no-brainer!!

Tootles,
Y

(edited to apologize for typos....it is 0530 here and I've been up almost 24hrs.)

 

[Crick]

Interesting sources

 

[Youch]

Interesting sources

If by interesting, you mean diverse, apolitical and common, I will agree.

 

[Crick]

If by interesting, you mean diverse, apolitical and common, I will agree.

Diverse and apolitical?!?!? A bad joke.

 

[Crick]

I began to work on a reply to your long post, but your use of unsubstantiated assertions, irrelevant ad hominems and your unjustified rejection of mainstream science make it pointless. If you want to see evidence supporting the position I hold, read AR5. If you think you've got something better than AR5 (and articles from the Daily Caller, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Forbes, the Conservative News Service and half a dozen pro-oil blogs do not so qualify), I'd be very interested to see it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and we still haven't see the lab work that supports the insane "120PPM of CO2 drives climate on planet Earth" Theory

 

[jc456]

I began to work on a reply to your long post, but your use of unsubstantiated assertions, irrelevant ad hominems and your unjustified rejection of mainstream science make it pointless. If you want to see evidence supporting the position I hold, read AR5. If you think you've got something better than AR5 (and articles from the Daily Caller, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Forbes, the Conservative News Service and half a dozen pro-oil blogs do not so qualify), I'd be very interested to see it.

Sorry AR5 says what about 120 PPM of CO2? As I already told you, it isn't there. So you sir are wrong.....LoSiNg

 

[mamooth]

Of course literature is rife with "studies" that support AGW. And no, they are not restricted to the federal grant establishment. They are supported and believed by people who loathe their own species and blame them for, first it was man-made-global-warming, then just global warming, then climate change, now AGW and most recently "climate chaos" is the device to blame humans whether it is getting colder or hotter. But that was not the point I was making.

No need to make any further points. All you have is conspiracy theories and links to conspiracy theories. You've certainly made that point. Instead of relying the "avalanche o' crap" tactic and the "because I feel it's true" tactic favored by deniers everywhere, maybe you could act rationally. Instead of rambling, clearly state a single point and clearly back it up, with hard data instead of opinion pieces.

Recognize the weakness of your position. We don't need to convince you. The world has defined you and your cult as irrelevant, and the science has moved on without you. If you want to be relevant, something more than a voice on a message board, you'll need some hard data to back up your claims.

 

[Toronado3800]

The above is a chart posted by Old Rocks

The chart shows temperature collapsing immediately AFTER CO2 peaks.

What happened to CO2 being the Big Bully Climate Driver?

Without making us laugh and resorting to "er, well that's LOCAL temperature" can the AGWCult explain this?

Ey Frank. We still disagree after what, 5 years?

Hope you are doing well. My Mustang is actually running and kicking out quite the number of hydrocarbons compared to my other two cars lol.

Talk with ya later.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course literature is rife with "studies" that support AGW. And no, they are not restricted to the federal grant establishment. They are supported and believed by people who loathe their own species and blame them for, first it was man-made-global-warming, then just global warming, then climate change, now AGW and most recently "climate chaos" is the device to blame humans whether it is getting colder or hotter. But that was not the point I was making.

No need to make any further points. All you have is conspiracy theories and links to conspiracy theories. You've certainly made that point. Instead of relying the "avalanche o' crap" tactic and the "because I feel it's true" tactic favored by deniers everywhere, maybe you could act rationally. Instead of rambling, clearly state a single point and clearly back it up, with hard data instead of opinion pieces.

Recognize the weakness of your position. We don't need to convince you. The world has defined you and your cult as irrelevant, and the science has moved on without you. If you want to be relevant, something more than a voice on a message board, you'll need some hard data to back up your claims.

Q. How does an AGWCult member admit they will never produce any lab experiment?

A. DENIER!!!

 

[JoeNormal]

...and we still haven't see the lab work that supports the insane "120PPM of CO2 drives climate on planet Earth" Theory

I did my best to show you in simple enough terms that even you could understand, why that is impossible but you still didn't get it.

 

[jc456]

Of course literature is rife with "studies" that support AGW. And no, they are not restricted to the federal grant establishment. They are supported and believed by people who loathe their own species and blame them for, first it was man-made-global-warming, then just global warming, then climate change, now AGW and most recently "climate chaos" is the device to blame humans whether it is getting colder or hotter. But that was not the point I was making.

No need to make any further points. All you have is conspiracy theories and links to conspiracy theories. You've certainly made that point. Instead of relying the "avalanche o' crap" tactic and the "because I feel it's true" tactic favored by deniers everywhere, maybe you could act rationally. Instead of rambling, clearly state a single point and clearly back it up, with hard data instead of opinion pieces.

Recognize the weakness of your position. We don't need to convince you. The world has defined you and your cult as irrelevant, and the science has moved on without you. If you want to be relevant, something more than a voice on a message board, you'll need some hard data to back up your claims.

Maybe you could merely back up your position and we can all go home and enjoy ourselves. But, I doubt you can since the last six months of banter has produced zero from your side. I call it stale mail. or, regurgitated mumbojumbo. I will give you credit you really know how to write words that mean absolutely nothing. Just remember, your posts are just six words long.

 

[jc456]

...and we still haven't see the lab work that supports the insane "120PPM of CO2 drives climate on planet Earth" Theory

I did my best to show you in simple enough terms that even you could understand, why that is impossible but you still didn't get it.

oh wow, you have an experiment that shows what the temperature is of 120 PPM of CO2 and what it can radiate? Alright!!!!! Let's see it.

 

[JoeNormal]

...and we still haven't see the lab work that supports the insane "120PPM of CO2 drives climate on planet Earth" Theory

I did my best to show you in simple enough terms that even you could understand, why that is impossible but you still didn't get it.

oh wow, you have an experiment that shows what the temperature is of 120 PPM of CO2 and what it can radiate? Alright!!!!! Let's see it.

Ummm, maybe you should re-read my response.

 

[Crick]

Best of luck to you Joe.

 

[JoeNormal]

Best of luck to you Joe.

Thanks Crick. I don't think I'd have the time it would take to drill down into some of the minds on this board. ;-)

 

[jc456]

...and we still haven't see the lab work that supports the insane "120PPM of CO2 drives climate on planet Earth" Theory

I did my best to show you in simple enough terms that even you could understand, why that is impossible but you still didn't get it.

oh wow, you have an experiment that shows what the temperature is of 120 PPM of CO2 and what it can radiate? Alright!!!!! Let's see it.

Ummm, maybe you should re-read my response.

oh so you can't provide an experiment. I see you concede that there isn't one! Still thanks!

 

[jc456]

Best of luck to you Joe.

he's saying there isn't one. So just concede with him that there isn't an experiment that proves the hypothesis. Then we be all good dude.