Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Marion Morrison]

OP is based on this: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience]

A little later on, there's this:


"Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings."

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch

 

[Flash]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

Because we found in these Climategate exposed emails that these "scientists" were manipulating data to get a desired result. Very dishonest and unscientific. Not only the principal scientists but also government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

Research funding drives results among scientists. When assholes like Environmental Wacko billionaire Tom Steyer are providing the research money or that asshole Obama provided government money or the UN they expect to get what they paid for.

There is no real science here. All we have is a filthy ass Ted Kaczynski type anti industry agenda among some very confused people. They are aided by the stupid socialists that want to use the scam to transfer money from the industrialized nations to the third world, which is exactly what that filthy ass Paris Climate Accord was all about.

Man made CO2 has a minimal effect on the climate. CO2 can be shown in a defective computer model to be a greenhouse gas but in the atmosphere it doesn't work that way. That is why none of the stupid Environmental Wacko predictions on climate destruction has ever come true.

There was a time when the CO2 was lower than it is now and the climate was warmer. There has been times when the CO2 was higher and the climate has been cooler.

However, don't take my word that this a scam. If you really think that man made CO2 is going to destroy this planet then put your money where your mouth is. Go unplug all your electrical devices and call up your electric company to disconnect your power. Stop driving a vehicle. Stop buying anything made with fossil fuels or petroleum power. Don't burn wood in a fireplace. Don't use gas or oil to heat your home. Use these Solyndra solar cells that the shithead Obama told you was going to be the future of power if only we gave the executives hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Man made CO2 has a minimal effect on the climate. CO2 can be shown in a defective computer model to be a greenhouse gas but in the atmosphere it doesn't work that way. That is why none of the stupid Environmental Wacko predictions on climate destruction has ever come true.

Model failure to predict anything and the lack of finding any tropospheric hot spot..

They are batting 1000 in failure...

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Flash]

Man made CO2 has a minimal effect on the climate. CO2 can be shown in a defective computer model to be a greenhouse gas but in the atmosphere it doesn't work that way. That is why none of the stupid Environmental Wacko predictions on climate destruction has ever come true.

Model failure to predict anything and the lack of finding any tropospheric hot spot..

They are batting 1000 in failure...

You know what they say about computer models; "shit in, shit out".

CO2 does not react the same way in the atmosphere as the laboratory models says it should because the scientists really don't understand the chemical reactions or buffering.

Historical data says that CO2 increases lags global temperature increases. Big red flag there that every one of the Environmental Wacko scientists completely ignore. It doesn't fit their agenda so they just forget about it in their models.

Of course we know from the Climategate exposed memos that the scientists never had the intentions of getting it right. When the data didn't fit they just changed the data. That is what they were getting paid to do.

 

[SSDD]

The vast majority of scientists on this planet believe what I believe (because they are my source). They do NOT believe what you believe and would laugh out loud at the rantings of SSDD.

Baaaaaahhhhhh.....say it with feeling skidmark....you are a sheep and unable to think for yourself...you are only comfortable as part of a herd...no matter how wrong the herd is...

Baaaaaahhhhhhhh...say it you bleating sheep...say it....baaaaahhhhhh.

 

[SSDD]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

Climate science has none of those....all they have is lies that they do. As evidenced by your complete inability to provide even one piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge me....the best you could do is prove how easily you are fooled.

Let's see your any statement from any authority that SB's inequality can only go one way. Let's see your evidence that matter is able to control its thermal radiation and control it according to where the photons would land, even if that is a moving target billions of light years distant. Let's see your evidence that the ocean obtains no energy from the greenhouse effect. That all energy absorbed at the surface is consumed by evaporation. That there is no significant mixing in the top few millimeters of the ocean's surface. Let's see your evidence for ANY of your fucked up claims asshole. You never present jack shit.

Sorry you can't read an equation...it's all there...what the equation said has been stated in plain english...if the physical law itself isn't enough for you then to bad...you are irredeemably stupid.

 

[justoffal]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paolo, Delhi, Mexico City

Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107661820
© Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2013

Printed in the United States of America

A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-1-107-05799-1 hardback ISBN 978-1-107-66182-0 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Please use the following reference to the whole report:
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

The title of the work at this link is "The Physical Science Basis". Chapters 2 and 3 (ppg 159 and 218) contain observations from the surface, the atmosphere and the ocean supporting the conclusions of the assessment report. These are assessment of hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies. If anyone here is tempted to take the opinion of the several deniers, who claim no evidence of AGW exist, please review these two chapters if nothing else.

Dude.... Co2 is a green house gas. I don't need an extensive study done by a dozen nerds to tell me that everytime you exhale you're adding to greenhouse gas.

What I do need however is proof that this would not be happening at all without man's contribution....so far it's just not there.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

Climate science has none of those....all they have is lies that they do. As evidenced by your complete inability to provide even one piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge me....the best you could do is prove how easily you are fooled.

Let's see your any statement from any authority that SB's inequality can only go one way. Let's see your evidence that matter is able to control its thermal radiation and control it according to where the photons would land, even if that is a moving target billions of light years distant. Let's see your evidence that the ocean obtains no energy from the greenhouse effect. That all energy absorbed at the surface is consumed by evaporation. That there is no significant mixing in the top few millimeters of the ocean's surface. Let's see your evidence for ANY of your fucked up claims asshole. You never present jack shit.

Sorry you can't read an equation...it's all there...what the equation said has been stated in plain english...if the physical law itself isn't enough for you then to bad...you are irredeemably stupid.

Yeah about that.... You know that 99% of the world's respected, peer reviewed and deeply revered physicists all disagreed with the young upstart Einstein.....based on volumes of math equations, blackboards full of proof and bushels of scoff-down disdain. But guess what?

Jo

 

[Crick]

When you say disagreed with Einstein, what do you mean? Special Relativity? General Relativity? His cosmic constant? His rejection of an infinite universe? As to 99% disagreement with anything he said, that is simply not true. Of course there were people that disagreed with his theories. There still are. So what? Do you think he was wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't help it if you are a dupe skidmark. This has all been explained to you before. Not going through it all again just so you can ignore it once more. Stay ignorant and stupid. It's what you deserve.

As we have seen from you on many, many occasions: when you are clearly and indisputably corrected, you make one of these weasel comments. The truth is, as it has always been, that you lose. You don't get to make up your own physics. When you try, you end up looking like the absolute fool that you are.

Sorry skid mark...all that has been indisputably shown is how easily you and yours are fooled...both by shoddy physics with no observed, measured evidence to support them, and by instruments of all sorts.

I don't make up my own physics...I accept the physical laws as they are written and the overwhelming body of observed, measured evidence which resulted in them becoming physical laws...it is you guys who subscribe to post modern science who are guilty of simply making it up....unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over reality...what a laugh..

I don't make up my own physics...

Liar.

 

[Flash]

[Q



I don't make up my own physics...

But we know that the principal climate scientists made up their own chemistry and climate science because we were able to tap into the emails and exposed them admitting it.

If the data didn't fit they just made up fudge factors to make it fit. One of the big shots said he felt justified in creating false science because he knew that was best for the world, or something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[Q



I don't make up my own physics...

But we know that the principal climate scientists made up their own chemistry and climate science because we were able to tap into the emails and exposed them admitting it.

If the data didn't fit they just made up fudge factors to make it fit. One of the big shots said he felt justified in creating false science because he knew that was best for the world, or something.

Faking data, "adjusting" historical temperatures, preventing opponents from publishing, Mike's nature trick, hiding the decline etc. Lying warmers suck.

Doesn't change the fact that SSDD is a moron.

 

[justoffal]

When you say disagreed with Einstein, what do you mean? Special Relativity? General Relativity? His cosmic constant? His rejection of an infinite universe? As to 99% disagreement with anything he said, that is simply not true. Of course there were people that disagreed with his theories. There still are. So what? Do you think he was wrong?

Just about all of them... He was virtually by himself with very few supporters. His ideas were contrary to the accepted, peer reviewed norm. So much for peer reviewed. It's not all that and a bag of chips.... Not infallible.

I'm not saying that it's not good practice
Just that its not always correct.

I find it astonishing that we are inferring that climate needs interference from man to change.

Jo

 

[Crick]

Have you a source for that opinion? A link?

Here's what I found. I would certainly not characterize it as 99% rejection and I don't believe you can either.


https://www.quora.com/What-were-peoples-first-reactions-to-Theory-of-Relativity


Gali Weinstein, Research Associate at University of Haifa (2017-present)
Answered Oct 3, 2018 · Author has 322 answers and 947.4k answer views



Special relativity:

Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper was published in September 1905.

The first scientist to mention Einstein's 1905 relativity paper was Walter Kaufmann; toward the end of November 1905, he mentioned Einstein’s paper in an account of his experiments with electron beams.

Einstein then received a letter from Prof. Max Planck in Berlin who asked him to explain some points in the relativity paper.

Planck sent his assistant Max von Laue to meet Einstein in Bern. Laue automatically assumed that Einstein was at Bern University but he very quickly understood that he had to go to the patent office in Bern.

Max Planck spread the news among German-speaking scientists because he considered relativity most important, and then relativity became their principal interest.

***********************************************************************************

The Reception of Special Relativity in Great Britain
One of the main purposes of any historical study dealing with the introduction of a new theory in a given scientific community is the identification of its principal characteristics; that is, of the common traits of such introduction. In the case of the introduction of special relativity in Great Britain, Stanley Goldberg1 carried out some studies assigning a prominent role to the ether concept. According to him there was widespread acceptance of the ether concept among British physicists during the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth. One of the consequences of that situation was that “the acceptance [of special relativity] hinged upon making it compatible with the concept of the ether. As paradoxical as that might be, there was almost unanimous agreement within the British physics community about such a prograrn”.2

************************************************************************************

The Relativity Revolution in Germany
In 1905, at around the time that the first of Albert Einstein’s publications of the year was to appear, the young theoretical physicist wrote to admonish a close friend of his for not having remained in touch. The friend, Conrad Habicht, was along with Einstein a member of a small study group, the Olympia Academy, which had been meeting in Berne for several years. The tone of the letter is light-hearted; its prose is littered with clumsy attempts at irony and self-mockery. Einstein asked to see Habicht’s doctoral dissertation, as he would be one of the few people around who could understand it; Einstein assessed Habicht a stiff increase in his study-group fees as a penalty for non-attendance. Then there is mention of Einstein’s own work. Among the four works of his that would be appearing in 1905, Einstein indicated that one - the paper on the light quantum - set forth “very revolutionary” consequences.1 He had the opportunity of identifying the theory of relativity as a revolutionary doctrine, and he declined to do so.

************************************************************************************

Einstein’s Reception in Paris in 1922
Ever since their formulation, Einstein's special and general theories of Relativity have given rise to passionate confrontations. France was no exception. The characteristics of the French reception of the theories of Relativity can be summarized as follows: They were received with a significant delayl (the controversy within the scientific community began in the early twenties); the physicists were not, among the sGientists, the most interested; mathematicians were more motivated to study and develop Einstein's theory (for the challenge of tensorial calculus in the general theory of relativity), as well as engineers (because they were conscious of the importance of Maxwell's equations). The delay in the physicists' reception can be explained by the fact that theoretical physics did not exist as a separate discipline. But there existed instead a discipline called "mathematical physics".2 Thus, the theory of relativity was considered, during a long period, on the border of physics. One has to wait until nuclear physics develops - i.e. in the late 30's but mostly after the Second World War - to see a change in that perspective. Elie Cartan, Emile Borel, Jacques Hadamard, Jean Becquerel were among the scientists who played a role in the reception and development of the theories of Relativity. One figure, however, is prominent, Paul Langevin, who popularized Einstein's theory of special relativity as early as 1906. His seminar was attended by only a handful of students, of very high quality: apart of the names quoted earlier, Louis de Broglie and Alfred Kastler, for example, had their first contact with Einstein's theories through Paul Langevin.

Lot's more at the first link

 

[SSDD]

You know you are off topic on your own thread? What a goob...

 

[polarbear]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

View attachment 229773

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

What kind of science is passing off trend ESTIMATES as a "physical Science basis" for empirical "evidence"?
What kind of a science is using the same trend estimates as the source to "calculate" the "Radiative efficiency" per ppb CO2. All they did is divide the trend estimate by the delta CO2 increase to get the 1.37*10^(-5) W/m^2 per ppb. Hahaha !!! As if there they had an instrument to measure that for a 1 part per BILLION increase when they can`t even measure it for 1000 times as much...a part per million.
Then they use this factor pretending its not simply based on the division of a crude estimate and "calculate" future projections that were obtained by factoring this estimate based "RE" by another 200 000 times....and have the gull to pass it off as precision science by hiding relevant information in the small print captions.
Either it`s totally disingenuous graphs that have the Y axis start at non-zero values so that a fraction of a degree can be totally blown out of proportion or it`s pseudo-math dividing an estimate by a large number to fake a high precision factor that you can later blow up several hundred thousand times to fake a precision in the final result several places behind the decimal point.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

View attachment 229773

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

What kind of science is passing off trend ESTIMATES as a "physical Science basis" for empirical "evidence"?
What kind of a science is using the same trend estimates as the source to "calculate" the "Radiative efficiency" per ppb CO2. All they did is divide the trend estimate by the delta CO2 increase to get the 1.37*10^(-5) W/m^2 per ppb. Hahaha !!! As if there they had an instrument to measure that for a 1 part per BILLION increase when they can`t even measure it for 1000 times as much...a part per million.
Then they use this factor pretending its not simply based on the division of a crude estimate and "calculate" future projections that were obtained by factoring this estimate based "RE" by another 200 000 times....and have the gull to pass it off as precision science by hiding relevant information in the small print captions.
Either it`s totally disingenuous graphs that have the Y axis start at non-zero values so that a fraction of a degree can be totally blown out of proportion or it`s pseudo-math dividing an estimate by a large number to fake a high precision factor that you can later blow up several hundred thousand times to fake a precision in the final result several places behind the decimal point.

By his own admission, it is the sort that is good enough to fool him.

 

[Crick]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

View attachment 229773

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

What kind of science is passing off trend ESTIMATES as a "physical Science basis" for empirical "evidence"?
What kind of a science is using the same trend estimates as the source to "calculate" the "Radiative efficiency" per ppb CO2. All they did is divide the trend estimate by the delta CO2 increase to get the 1.37*10^(-5) W/m^2 per ppb. Hahaha !!! As if there they had an instrument to measure that for a 1 part per BILLION increase when they can`t even measure it for 1000 times as much...a part per million.
Then they use this factor pretending its not simply based on the division of a crude estimate and "calculate" future projections that were obtained by factoring this estimate based "RE" by another 200 000 times....and have the gull to pass it off as precision science by hiding relevant information in the small print captions.
Either it`s totally disingenuous graphs that have the Y axis start at non-zero values so that a fraction of a degree can be totally blown out of proportion or it`s pseudo-math dividing an estimate by a large number to fake a high precision factor that you can later blow up several hundred thousand times to fake a precision in the final result several places behind the decimal point.

How about a page number Mr Bear?

 

[polarbear]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

View attachment 229773

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

What kind of science is passing off trend ESTIMATES as a "physical Science basis" for empirical "evidence"?
What kind of a science is using the same trend estimates as the source to "calculate" the "Radiative efficiency" per ppb CO2. All they did is divide the trend estimate by the delta CO2 increase to get the 1.37*10^(-5) W/m^2 per ppb. Hahaha !!! As if there they had an instrument to measure that for a 1 part per BILLION increase when they can`t even measure it for 1000 times as much...a part per million.
Then they use this factor pretending its not simply based on the division of a crude estimate and "calculate" future projections that were obtained by factoring this estimate based "RE" by another 200 000 times....and have the gull to pass it off as precision science by hiding relevant information in the small print captions.
Either it`s totally disingenuous graphs that have the Y axis start at non-zero values so that a fraction of a degree can be totally blown out of proportion or it`s pseudo-math dividing an estimate by a large number to fake a high precision factor that you can later blow up several hundred thousand times to fake a precision in the final result several places behind the decimal point.

How about a page number Mr Bear?

Hahaha YOU posted it and don`t even know where...That`s what happens if you cut and paste stuff without even knowing what the stuff you posted is all about...because you don`t read it past the title line.