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

[SSDD]

And even in their narrow frequency bands and even in their trace gas amounts they are contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the atmosphere and the ocean.

What greenhouse effect? The one that "stores" energy somewhere while the amount of energy exiting the earth at the top of the atmosphere is increasing? Tell me how you think that works...which energy is being stored? And how is it being stored while the amount escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing?

 

[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.

Troll farm thread.

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

 

[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.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Already been through that steaming pile of propaganda.....feel free to point out anything there that you believe amounts to physical evidence that we are causing the climate to change...

My bet is that you won't be able to point to anything, but it is always interesting to see the excuses you guys give for not pointing out what you think the links you provide prove.

 

[Cosmos]

and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?

NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

 

[Billy_Bob]

and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?

NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

And they used Karl et al manipulations in their models....which fail empirical review... Sorry Charlie.. Your appeal to authority falls flat on its face..

Its hilarious that you all think model outputs are empirical evidence.. MODELS are NOT empirical evidence of any kind.

 

[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.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

How about you just pick one.

No problem... Lets take on the one about shrinking ice sheets.

The link says:

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.7

Does that in any way provide evidence that we are causing the reduction in ice, or even that the reduction in ice is unusual? After all, the earth is warming out of the little ice age and has been for about a century and a half now.

Lets take a look at what climate science calls the gold standard in temperature reconstructions. It is derived from the GISP2 ice cores taken from Greenland, above the Arctic Circle. As you can see, if you have any graph reading skills at all, it is cooler at present than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. You can also see temperature changes far greater than any we have seen and in shorter periods have been happening periodically throughout this interglacial period both to the warmer, and to the cooler.

So we can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,00 years with the except of the little ice age which the earth is still warming its way out of...as you can see, we haven' even reached the temperarue it was at the onset of the little ice age. Now I can look at that graph of temperatures over the past 10,000 years and be pretty sure that if I looked at a reconstruction of what the ice looked like in the arctic over that same time, I would see that with the exception of the little ice age, there is probably more ice in the arctic regions now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years... You being a denier though, I doubt that you would reach the same conclusion, so lets have a look at some published science regarding what the ice in the arctic has looked like over the same period.

This particular graph showing what the ice in the arctic has looked like over the past 10,000 years is from Stein, et. al. and was published in the Journal of Quartanary Science. As I predicted, it shows that the ice in the arctic region is greater now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. As you can see form this graph, there have been periods when all of the sea ice was probably absent..8000 years ago, and 9500 years ago respectively...and throughout the past 10,000 years, there was less ice than there is now except for the period of the little ice age...

But lets not stop with a single paper...here is another, also published in the Quaternary Science Review by Perner, et. al. in 2018...note that I am providing fairly recent papers as opposed to the crap you are providing which is nearly 20 years old. again, as you can see, with the exception of the little ice age, there is more ice in the arctic regions now than there has been for the past 10,000 years. I can provide more, but there is probably no amount of actual science that could convince you that you have been lied to. The bottom line is that while the ice is melting in the arctic, it is nothing unusual, or unexpected....and certainly not attributable to us...as you can see, the ice started shrinking at the end of the little ice age and continues to this day and since we aren't even as warm as it was at the onset of the little ice age, we should expect the ice to continue to melt...all by itself with or without human beings producing CO2...

 

[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.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

 

[otto105]

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.

Troll farm thread.

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

 

[otto105]

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

 

[SSDD]

and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?

NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

You keep showing evidence that the climate is changing...who is disputing that? What you aren't showing is evidence that we are the cause...you show evidence that the climate is changing with nothing but an assumption that we must be the cause....That isn't evidence of anything more than that you apparently don't know what evidence that we were causing the change looks like. Your NCEI graph is pretty and all, and they tell you that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature...and then they expect that you will be to ignorant to actually look at the graph and see that what it shows is that increased CO2 follows warming....every ice core ever done shows that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause... What is it like to be a useful idiot?

 

[SSDD]

and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?

NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

And they used Karl et al manipulations in their models....which fail empirical review... Sorry Charlie.. Your appeal to authority falls flat on its face..

Its hilarious that you all think model outputs are empirical evidence.. MODELS are NOT empirical evidence of any kind.

he didn't notice that his graph shows CO2 following temperature around....same as all ice cores...increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa

So you believe modeling that has NO PREDICTIVE abilities... Nice...

 

[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.

Troll farm thread.

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

 

[otto105]

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.

.
Troll farm thread.

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW.

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?

 

[otto105]

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa

So you believe modeling that has NO PREDICTIVE abilities... Nice...

View attachment 269503

Again what data has been falsified?

 

[SSDD]

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

.
Troll farm thread.

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW.

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?

I addressed your NASA link not long ago, you ignored it. You also ignored a QUESTION I asked you several times about something in that link, you ignored it.

You never did bother to discuss YOUR link at all, you ran away instead, to spread your ignorant spittle in other threads.

 

[otto105]

.
Troll farm thread.

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW.

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?

I addressed your NASA link not long ago, you ignored it. You also ignored a QUESTION I asked you several times about something in that link, you ignored it.

You never did bother to discuss YOUR link at all, you ran away instead, to spread your ignorant spittle in other threads.

You have not proved any argument which convinces anyone (outside the denial bubble) that NASA has it wrong.


Post away

 

[SSDD]

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW.

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?

I addressed your NASA link not long ago, you ignored it. You also ignored a QUESTION I asked you several times about something in that link, you ignored it.

You never did bother to discuss YOUR link at all, you ran away instead, to spread your ignorant spittle in other threads.

You have not proved any argument which convinces anyone (outside the denial bubble) that NASA has it wrong.


Post away

Just the fact that NASA is having to falsify data in order to support their narrative is evidence that they have it wrong....why else falsify data?

 

[otto105]

Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....

I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW.

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?

I addressed your NASA link not long ago, you ignored it. You also ignored a QUESTION I asked you several times about something in that link, you ignored it.

You never did bother to discuss YOUR link at all, you ran away instead, to spread your ignorant spittle in other threads.

You have not proved any argument which convinces anyone (outside the denial bubble) that NASA has it wrong.


Post away

What part of the following NASA statement is wrong in your opinion.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."