Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW.. plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.
Ah, that was you, not SSDD. I clearly said:LOLFrom your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?
Normal is not 240ppm. There would be little or no plant life at that level. From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease. The paleo record show that our average CO2 on earth is well over 2,500ppm.
Continue jumping up and down all you want. When you're done being foolish.. read the damn chart. You'l find the average there to be "about 240 ppm." Yeah, no plant life likely, no kidding. Said that too.From simply glancing at this image:
Note that the Earth has normally been frozen, i.e.very unsupportive of life except for relatively short periods such as our current one.
No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.
..without soil, no significant terrestrial plant life,.. no trees, no significant fossil fuel deposits, plant or animal respiration, humans to worry about.. entirely different world and only increasingly so as one looks back in time. Pointless then going back there to find what most accurately affects us today. 400,000,000 years is more than enough. 200,000,000 better...
Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..
Why do you think we need arctic ice? You do know it once didn’t have ice right? You have a brain? You ever use it?Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidenceEvidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetGases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.
During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.
Earth's atmosphere traps some of the Sun's heat, preventing it from escaping back into space at night. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are changing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.
Warmers wrong again....No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.
Did you think the ice age was natural?
All areas of "crossover" are lagging the change.. Your delusional..No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.
Old Crock reincarnation....
How many times must you be told that a Model, which can not predict anything, IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING...By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW.. plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.
Somehow, I gather that's not you“I grew up Democratic. I’ve always voted Democratic. And I’m a liberal person. That’s just who I am naturally,” he said. “[As a parent] you wonder about your kid’s future and all that. But to tell you the truth, I don’t talk about politics publicly because I think, I’m in the entertainment business—who cares what I have to say? I think they only care in a curiosity sense. I think they want you to comment on politics, because then they can hand your ass to you.”
...
Instead of hating on the people trying to do good in the world, Thornton suggested, why don’t we celebrate? “I just think it’s ridiculous. If somebody’s going to try and do something with their lives, tip your hat to them.”
Wrong. There is a demonstrable interdependence.
Either is clearly likely to "cause" the other. Indeed, a positive feedback loop exists as well.
the addition of our AGW component leaves us now facing runaway warming unless we take drastic preventative measures.
Yeah, sure. Impose a system with no life upon one with abundant life in a situation pertaining to life. No you can't be the one in denial. NEVER!
And what chart was that? If you are talking about Billy’s chart, it most certainly doesn’t show 240 ppm being normal on earth...it shows normal in excess of 2000ppm.From your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?
I have asked before which part of that you think is observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...thus far, no answerThen clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidenceEvidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetGases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.
During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.
Earth's atmosphere traps some of the Sun's heat, preventing it from escaping back into space at night. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are changing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.
By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW.. plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.
Continue jumping up and down all you want. When you're done being foolish.. read the damn chart. You'l find the average there to be "about 240 ppm." Yeah, no plant life likely, no kidding. Said that too.
The scale of your graph is billions of years....clearly scale is difficult for you.Again,
..without soil, no significant terrestrial plant life,.. no trees, no significant fossil fuel deposits, plant or animal respiration, humans to worry about.. entirely different world and only increasingly so as one looks back in time. Pointless then going back there to find what most accurately affects us today. 400,000,000 years is more than enough. 200,000,000 better...
Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..
.The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[7] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by measuring radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[8] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.
Try not to spend all that Koch money in one place, son.
30 years and still in complete denial, eh? Reading really isn't that hard compared to all that gum flapping you do:
.The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[7] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by measuring radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[8] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.
-More-
