Let's see the evidence

[Billy_Bob]

Come on Crick... Why dont you post up your evidence first. We've been waiting for a long time for you present just what it is that CO2 has done to our atmosphere and what can be attributed to human caused CO2.

Tell me Crick does CO2 absorb the photon and then re-emit it, as lab experiments show or does it warm the gas? Empirical evidence shows that CO2 molecules must collide with other CO2 molecules to gain and then throw off heat. Due to the sparse amount of CO2 heat rise is near zero at its current concentration in our atmosphere, that is why Mythbusters used an atmosphere at 7,000ppm (7% of atmosphere) in their experiments. Current atmospheric levels are not conducive to friction caused heat rise.

In your OP you ask the wrong question. It is not the fact that CO2 can absorb certain wave lengths, its the fact that the molecules, once excited, cannot act as you believe and that water vapor kills the process dead through molecular change and convection..

Why dont you pony up your data, methods, and math first... lead by example!

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

What a cop out... no facts, just POLITICAL AGENDA DRIVEN BS..

You can do better than this. Even the IPCC uses the term "Best Estimate" in AR5 indicating they are fucking clueless as to what the actual sensitivity is. Empirical evidence shows that even their 1.2 deg C per doubling is over 3 times to high and which now stands at less than 0.3 deg c over 100 years. which is well within the error bars and not statistically significant.

Pony up big boy... show us some real EMPIRICAL (not modeled crap) science for once..

 

[Crick]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

That's because, much like yourself, no one posting on this forum is any kind of scientist. Which means they don't even begin to know how to put the information into a context.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. In what way have I failed to put information into context in any manner that would be relevant? As a newcomer, you may be unaware that most of us have been here for several years arguing the same points. The context was established long ago.

Be that as it may, are you a scientist? If so, in what field?

 

[Crick]

Come on Crick... Why dont you post up your evidence first. We've been waiting for a long time for you present just what it is that CO2 has done to our atmosphere and what can be attributed to human caused CO2.

Tell me Crick does CO2 absorb the photon and then re-emit it, as lab experiments show or does it warm the gas? Empirical evidence shows that CO2 molecules must collide with other CO2 molecules to gain and then throw off heat. Due to the sparse amount of CO2 heat rise is near zero at its current concentration in our atmosphere, that is why Mythbusters used an atmosphere at 7,000ppm (7% of atmosphere) in their experiments. Current atmospheric levels are not conducive to friction caused heat rise.

In your OP you ask the wrong question. It is not the fact that CO2 can absorb certain wave lengths, its the fact that the molecules, once excited, cannot act as you believe and that water vapor kills the process dead through molecular change and convection..

Why dont you pony up your data, methods, and math first... lead by example!

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

What a cop out... no facts, just POLITICAL AGENDA DRIVEN BS..

You can do better than this. Even the IPCC uses the term "Best Estimate" in AR5 indicating they are fucking clueless as to what the actual sensitivity is. Empirical evidence shows that even their 1.2 deg C per doubling is over 3 times to high and which now stands at less than 0.3 deg c over 100 years. which is well within the error bars and not statistically significant.

Pony up big boy... show us some real EMPIRICAL (not modeled crap) science for once..

Show us some evidence of ANY sort Big Boy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you don't know what you yourself just asked for, I don't know if I can help you. If you'd like an explanation of the OP, I can provide it.

Circk your a moron and a liar.

Tell me how you determined what was thermalized and what was re-emitted. What the proportions are, where in the atmosphere it has occurred, and how you determined this.

Simply so we can find your "hot spot" and look for ourselves to see what is happening... Looking at the mid-tropospheric satellite measurements over the last 39 years there is no hot spot that I can find.

Link to you work or post it please..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

That's because, much like yourself, no one posting on this forum is any kind of scientist. Which means they don't even begin to know how to put the information into a context.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. In what way have I failed to put information into context in any manner that would be relevant? As a newcomer, you may be unaware that most of us have been here for several years arguing the same points. The context was established long ago.

Be that as it may, are you a scientist? If so, in what field?

YOU ARE A LAIR!

Many times you have indicated that you are an oceanographer and a scientist on a sea vessel. WOW... Old Crock even agreed that you were and you never corrected him. Your bull shit runs deep...

 

[Liminal]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

That's because, much like yourself, no one posting on this forum is any kind of scientist. Which means they don't even begin to know how to put the information into a context.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. In what way have I failed to put information into context in any manner that would be relevant? As a newcomer, you may be unaware that most of us have been here for several years arguing the same points. The context was established long ago.

Be that as it may, are you a scientist? If so, in what field?

So then you apparently believe that discussions on public forum constitute the context to understand climate science. Is that right?

 

[Crick]

Circk your a moron and a liar.
[/url]

I think you mean "you're"

Tell me how you determined what was thermalized and what was re-emitted. What the proportions are, where in the atmosphere it has occurred, and how you determined this.

I guess you didn't watch the conversation I had with Ian about your point. What point are you attempting to make?

Simply so we can find your "hot spot" and look for ourselves to see what is happening... Looking at the mid-tropospheric satellite measurements over the last 39 years there is no not spot that i can find.

Link to you work or post it please..

Where are your links and your work Billy Boy?

A tropospheric hotspot is not the fingerprint of CO2 warming. Upper stratospheric cooling is. And don't go off on a rant that we're changing our tune. No one on my side of this argument ever claimed the tropospheric hotspot was the be all and end all of greenhouse evidence. That was YOUR idea.

 

[Crick]

YOU ARE A LAIR!

Eh? A lair?

 

[Crick]

So then you apparently believe that discussions on public forum constitute the context to understand climate science. Is that right?

You come onto a message board and criticize the posters here for using a message board?

What restraints do you find in this venue to the communication of scientific information?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This whole thread is a projection of Crick. He has been asked for months to produce verifiable, empirical evidence of what 120 ppm of CO2 has done and in total desperation he now projects it back in an effort to not get caught in his lie.

COME ON CRICK MAN UP! Show us how your right using empirical evidence..

 

[Crick]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

 

[Billy_Bob]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

You keep posting carp and I will keep calling it crap.. Quit posting crap and show me the real science. I have read the IPCC document and its baseless sensitivity pontifications. The appeal to authority is a sure sign that you have no evidence. You should just admit that you have nothing.

In your estimation then, "best guess" is now scientific fact.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs have a better grasp on what is really occurring in our atmosphere. They even admit their own model may yet still be to high and it is a simplified one well below the IPCC crap. Current RSS observations show a ZERO forcing.

Only the adulterated records that have been molested show any resemblance to the IPCC claims.

Source

 

[Crick]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

You keep posting carp and I will keep calling it crap.. Quit posting crap and show me the real science. I have read the IPCC document and its baseless sensitivity pontifications. The appeal to authority is a sure sign that you have no evidence. You should just admit that you have nothing.

In your estimation then, "best guess" is now scientific fact.

Carp? You seem to suffer from dyslexia. Is that the case?

AR5 is based on scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. It is assembled by dozens of leading experts and reviewed by hundreds of other scientists. The number of comments taken into account before final publication numbers in the tens of thousands.

The climate sensitivity value, like all parameters, projections, conclusions and observations, originated with multiple, peer-reviewed studies by experts. It was most certainly not "baseless".

That you should apparently be unaware of these points tells me that either you have NOT read "the IPCC document" and are lying or that you read it but did not understand it.

 

[Crick]

Even Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs have a better grasp on what is really occurring in our atmosphere. They even admit their own model may yet still be to high and it is a simplified one well below the IPCC crap. Current RSS observations show a ZERO forcing.

Only the adulterated records that have been molested show any resemblance to the IPCC claims.

Source

WUWT cartoons? No thanks. Do you not know how to find peer reviewed studies?

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for Ian (or Billy Boy) to explain how this happens and what difference it makes. Billy Boy tried to bring up the tropospheric hotspot, but that didn't work. Ian? Billy? Anything?

And BB did have one good question. Do you think the absorbed IR is re-emitted or thermalized? If both, what are the proportions?

In neither case does the photon travel freely to space, does it.

And, tell us Ian, can a molecule absorb and emit the same photon at the same instant of time? If not, how does it avoid have it's energy level increased by the absorption?

 

[Billy_Bob]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

You keep posting carp and I will keep calling it crap.. Quit posting crap and show me the real science. I have read the IPCC document and its baseless sensitivity pontifications. The appeal to authority is a sure sign that you have no evidence. You should just admit that you have nothing.

In your estimation then, "best guess" is now scientific fact.

Carp? You seem to suffer from dyslexia. Is that the case?

AR5 is based on scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. It is assembled by dozens of leading experts and reviewed by hundreds of other scientists. The number of comments taken into account before final publication numbers in the tens of thousands.

The climate sensitivity value, like all parameters, projections, conclusions and observations, originated with multiple, peer-reviewed studies by experts. It was most certainly not "baseless".

That you should apparently be unaware of these points tells me that either you have NOT read "the IPCC document" and are lying or that you read it but did not understand it.

It is BASELESS because MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs have a better grasp on what is really occurring in our atmosphere. They even admit their own model may yet still be to high and it is a simplified one well below the IPCC crap. Current RSS observations show a ZERO forcing.

Only the adulterated records that have been molested show any resemblance to the IPCC claims.

Source

WUWT cartoons? No thanks. Do you not know how to find peer reviewed studies?

So now IPCC projections are cartoons... And peer reviewed science, which the above paper is, is now worthless too... Will you fools get your dam story straight! I though Peer reviewed was the standard you needed? Now i see that it must conform to the cult dogma to be accepted.

Got it..

 

[Roadrunner]

I want to see evidence proving how much cooler it will be in 2080, after we waste trillions on "green energy".

I want to see the evidence that there was more life, and greater diversity of life, during the Ice Ages versus a period such as the Carboniferous age.

 

[Crick]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

You keep posting carp and I will keep calling it crap.. Quit posting crap and show me the real science. I have read the IPCC document and its baseless sensitivity pontifications. The appeal to authority is a sure sign that you have no evidence. You should just admit that you have nothing.

In your estimation then, "best guess" is now scientific fact.

Carp? You seem to suffer from dyslexia. Is that the case?

AR5 is based on scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. It is assembled by dozens of leading experts and reviewed by hundreds of other scientists. The number of comments taken into account before final publication numbers in the tens of thousands.

The climate sensitivity value, like all parameters, projections, conclusions and observations, originated with multiple, peer-reviewed studies by experts. It was most certainly not "baseless".

That you should apparently be unaware of these points tells me that either you have NOT read "the IPCC document" and are lying or that you read it but did not understand it.

It is BASELESS because MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING..

If you think AR5 is based solely on models, then you have not read it.