Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Cosmos]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics. If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?

You said it didn't exist and wasn't possible. I take it you've changed your mind?

I said as described by climate science....do you agree that that statement describes how the greenhouse works according to climate science...Of course, I think it is bullshit, but unless we agree on what climate science claims, there is no point in moving further.

You seem to be stuck, so I guess there's no way to move on any further.

So I give you the mechanism that climate science says is responsible for the greenhouse effect and you can't even agree that is what it says? Sounds like a dodge...Sounds like you are afraid of what comes next so you either play stupid, or are so stupid that even when you are given the direct quote from the IPCC you can't agree that is what they say.

More likely, you are afraid of what comes next....which is the dismantling of the hypothesis according to the laws of physics. Live in your ignorance...spew your talking points, be a useful idiot...if you fear learning something that much, it is no less than what you deserve...

I'm sure whatever comes next from you is more of the same waffling and bloviating you've already been doing. I'm tired of you. You have nothing to add here.

 

[denmark]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from? The vatican? really? If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published... The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...

So, with your (or your political group’s) expertise on this subject, why don’t you further your denials with a rebuttal to the journal’s author mentioned here by Forkup who wrote
“I will document these compelling observa- tional evidence for the link between chemical pollution, increase in green- house gases and global surface warming.These empirical data lead us to conclude that the observed increase in the greenhouse gases is sufficient to ultimately warm the planet by more than 2°C during this century.”

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, but if you are, go ahead & prove it not only in this non-technical forum, but a real scientific one!
Let us know how you do ... LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

 

[Cosmos]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

 

[Cosmos]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from? The vatican? really? If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published... The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...

So, with your (or your political group’s) expertise on this subject, why don’t you further your denials with a rebuttal to the journal’s author mentioned here by Forkup who wrote
“I will document these compelling observa- tional evidence for the link between chemical pollution, increase in green- house gases and global surface warming.These empirical data lead us to conclude that the observed increase in the greenhouse gases is sufficient to ultimately warm the planet by more than 2°C during this century.”

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, but if you are, go ahead & prove it not only in this non-technical forum, but a real scientific one!
Let us know how you do ... LOL

Turned out that he had no evidence other than that he was easily fooled by instrumentation and perfectly willing to hang great big assumptions on observed data...there was nothing there...but like I said...is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of hand waving hysterics.

 

[SSDD]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

You haven't understood a single thing you have read...have you. I mean, to get that myself or billy have accepted that the radiative greenhouse effect is real from what we have said is to really not understand anything you read.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

And I have provided published science that says that our contribution is so vanishingly small that it is insignificant...I haven't seen anything from any of you guys demonstrating otherwise...of course, you won't because climate scientists know how small our contribution is to the total CO2...there is no alarm to be had in that sort of study so the leave it to activists, the media, and politicians to simply make up whatever supports the narrative to pass along to the useful idiots...

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Either you are borderline illiterate and really aren't able to read and understand words, or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board...

 

[denmark]

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from? The vatican? really? If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published... The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...

So, with your (or your political group’s) expertise on this subject, why don’t you further your denials with a rebuttal to the journal’s author mentioned here by Forkup who wrote
“I will document these compelling observa- tional evidence for the link between chemical pollution, increase in green- house gases and global surface warming.These empirical data lead us to conclude that the observed increase in the greenhouse gases is sufficient to ultimately warm the planet by more than 2°C during this century.”

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, but if you are, go ahead & prove it not only in this non-technical forum, but a real scientific one!
Let us know how you do ... LOL

Turned out that he had no evidence other than that he was easily fooled by instrumentation and perfectly willing to hang great big assumptions on observed data...there was nothing there...but like I said...is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of hand waving hysterics.

Was that your rebuttal to that journal?
No wonder you have nothing published in a scientific journal.

 

[SSDD]

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established.

Maybe you should do just a bit of reading about professor woods...he disproved the greenhouse effect shortly after it was suggested...another bit of history that whoever provides you with your opinion forgot to mention...

That's not up for debate.

Everything in science is up for debate....only pseudoscience suggests that it is settled.


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The second law of thermodynamics is the mother of all physical laws, and it is pretty self explanatory. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Do explain how you believe the cooler atmosphere is radiating heat down to the warmer surface of the planet and warming it. That is the fundamental claim of climate science and the radiative greenhouse effect...that the cooler atmosphere is warming the warmer surface of the earth. Explain it. You claim to have a grasp of the science ...explain that one.

 

[SSDD]

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from? The vatican? really? If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published... The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...

So, with your (or your political group’s) expertise on this subject, why don’t you further your denials with a rebuttal to the journal’s author mentioned here by Forkup who wrote
“I will document these compelling observa- tional evidence for the link between chemical pollution, increase in green- house gases and global surface warming.These empirical data lead us to conclude that the observed increase in the greenhouse gases is sufficient to ultimately warm the planet by more than 2°C during this century.”

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, but if you are, go ahead & prove it not only in this non-technical forum, but a real scientific one!
Let us know how you do ... LOL

Turned out that he had no evidence other than that he was easily fooled by instrumentation and perfectly willing to hang great big assumptions on observed data...there was nothing there...but like I said...is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of hand waving hysterics.

Was that your rebuttal to that journal?
No wonder you have nothing published in a scientific journal.

Logical fallacy all you have? I already responded to that "paper" published by the vatican...feel free to review my response....it is back there somewhere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

 

[SSDD]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

You are so far over his head that you may as well be speaking in ancient greek

 

[Cosmos]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

You are so far over his head that you may as well be speaking in ancient greek

You're both so full of shit your eyes are brown.

 

[Cosmos]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

Its a graphing of garbage....

 

[Cosmos]

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

Its a graphing of garbage....

That's actually the first true thing I've seen you say. It is exactly that. A measurement of how much combustion waste product has been spewed into the atmosphere over the last 60 years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

Its a graphing of garbage....

That's actually the first true thing I've seen you say. It is exactly that. A measurement of how much combustion waste product has been spewed into the atmosphere over the last 60 years.

The only one spewing garbage is you.. You have yet to produce any empirical evidence and process which validates anything you say....

 

[Cosmos]

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

Its a graphing of garbage....

That's actually the first true thing I've seen you say. It is exactly that. A measurement of how much combustion waste product has been spewed into the atmosphere over the last 60 years.

The only one spewing garbage is you.. You have yet to produce any empirical evidence and process which validates anything you say....

It's right in front of your nose, idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?