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

[Billy_Bob]

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.

SSDD has ripped your bull shit apart. Its funny how you project your own failure...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

And there won't be. AGW deniers like most conspiracy theorist rely on false clams, half truths, misinterpretation, and mistakes made by researchers years ago. Instead of doing real research climate change denier try to discredit those that do. Often their cut and paste in threads is research and articles done 10, 20 or even 30 years ago which has been superseded by other more accurate and generally better research. There are still many internet sites, publications, and authors that make good money producing anti-AGW material.

Like most conspiracy theorist, AGW deniers are not concerned that for their contentions to be correct would requires a great worldwide conspiracy of not just climate scientists but thousands of scientist in other fields such as, geology, paleontology, glaciology, marine biology, etc. And of course dozens of government research organizations such NASA, and NOAA all of which have to be a party of this great conspiracy. The conspiracy much include research funding groups such the National Academy of Science, Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nations, and dozens of other international agencies funding research.

Al Gore had one thing right about climate change, it is a very inconvenient Truth. Putting the planet on the right track to stop climate change requires huge expenditures and worldwide cooperation, something that has never occurred. IMHO, it's not going to happen. People will continue to have lingering doubts regardless of what scientist say. The world is not going make the sacrifices needed, until the truth is so obvious that it can no longer be ignored. Hopefully it will not be too late.

Keep flopping around like a dead fish there flopper... You have nothing but broken modeling to claim as proof and they have NO PREDICTIVE POWER... Keep whining there loser..

 

[SSDD]

Actually, I disproved it all...do I expect that you would be bright enough to recognize that fact? No...not a chance in hell. You keep reading your blogs and stay just as ignorant as you are...it is precisely what you deserve.

You have not disproved this peer reviewed paper from 2018.

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


You have NOT disproved anything from NASA.


You have offered bullshit and paraded around in a little skirt.

Of course I did...as I pointed out already:

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

You are so far out of your depth (and you reside in the very shallow end of the pool) that you don't even know when your questions have been answered...The acceleration happened when they applied a global isostatic adjustment. Isostatic adjustments are used to determine if the sea floor is sinking...it has nothing to do with sea level rise... And the graphs show the effect of the adjustment...there is no acceleration in sea level rise...there is only fraudulent adjustments...which tide gages....do not agree with...

The change in level between 1992 and 2016 appears to be about 80 mm or an avg of 5.7 mm / yr without any adjustment.

Based on the fake numbers....sure that's what it appears to be...the tide gages don't agree....but accurate measurement isn't what it is all about...it is about supporting an alarmist narrative...The graph indicating 5.7mm per year has had a global isostatic adjustment applied which is an invalid adjustment when looking at sea level...isostatic adjustments are applied when looking at the sea floor..and the rate at which it might or might not be sinking...the increase in the rate of sea level rise is due to a fraudulent adjustment that has nothing to do with measuring sea level..

Since we are discussing a global average chance in sea level over just a 14 year period, (1992 to 2016) I don't see how an glacial isostatistic adjustment would make that much different over that time period. Over a hundred years, yes but not 14 years.

I wouldn't expect you to...but the fact is that tidal gages across the globe don't agree with the adjustment. Tidal gages say that sea level continues to rise at about 3mm per year on average and is actually dropping in some locations. The adjustments are the product of models...and don't reflect reality.

 

[SSDD]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

 

[SSDD]

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.

SSDD has ripped your bull shit apart. Its funny how you project your own failure...

It never ceases to surprise me at what constitutes a win for them...he has had every one of his attempts at providing science to support his beliefs torn down, so he switches to politics and logical fallacy and finds what he perceives as scientific proof, and victory there...Climate science was absolutely correct when they termed people like that as useful idiots....people who would ignore the actual evidence or lack thereof and continue to argue and lie to any degree necessary. the party line based on nothing more than their political leanings.

 

[jc456]

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.

I don't have one; I've read and listened to arguments on both sides, and I side with the scientists. Climate Change is real, and mankind has had some influence - likely a great deal - on it.

Deniers of climate change have been influenced by the fossil fuel agency, which is conflicted, their interests are profit, not necessarily clean and environmentally safe operations.

wow!!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I don't have one; I've read and listened to arguments on both sides, and I side with the scientists. Climate Change is real, and mankind has had some influence - likely a great deal - on it.

Deniers of climate change have been influenced by the fossil fuel agency, which is conflicted, their interests are profit, not necessarily clean and environmentally safe operations.

wow!!!!

Define "wow!!!!".

 

[jc456]

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.

I don't have one; I've read and listened to arguments on both sides, and I side with the scientists. Climate Change is real, and mankind has had some influence - likely a great deal - on it.

Deniers of climate change have been influenced by the fossil fuel agency, which is conflicted, their interests are profit, not necessarily clean and environmentally safe operations.

wow!!!!

Define "wow!!!!".

1. expressing astonishment

 

[Flopper]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

 

[jc456]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

 

[Flash]

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.

Not only is there no proof that man made sources of CO2 has contributed to global climate change but there is no credible evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

In fact there has been times when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere was more than 10 times what it is now and the earth was much cooler. There have also been times when the earth was warmer and the CO2 levels lower. Even in recent times. There is substantial and credible evidence that CO2 emissions lags temperature increases.

There is a theory that it should be a greenhouse gas and a very weak correlation between the rise of CO2 emissions and possibly an increase in post glacial warming but that is bogus science. Theories have to be proven and correlations validated and that just hasn't happen with this scam. Not by a long shot.

If there was AGW then the principle scientists would not have to fabricate data like they have been caught doing many times. Also, there prediction would come true, which they never do.

 

[Flopper]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

[jc456]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Flopper silly words,

"If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence."

This a classic example of warmist hyperbole, one who tries hard to conjure up unlikely or impossible scenarios to promote a lie.

Arctic Ice is already in the water, negligible to zero sea level effect if it all melted.

People already live in areas of the Southwest, having no problem coping with 115 Degree highs every summer. Heck the average high in Phoenix AZ in July is 104 degrees F.

Sea levels rose around 400 feet higher in just a few thousand years, a heck of lot faster rate than now. Doggerland, where people used to live on gets covered so did the Bering's Straight and more.

Where I live it gets over 100 degrees F about 15 times summer, no big deal, while in France they die like flies...…., because they don't prepare for the occasional heat waves that comes along.

You need to stop making absurd hyperbole statements as they betray your science illiteracy very well.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Not only is there no proof that man made sources of CO2 has contributed to global climate change but there is no credible evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

In fact there has been times when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere was more than 10 times what it is now and the earth was much cooler. There have also been times when the earth was warmer and the CO2 levels lower. Even in recent times. There is substantial and credible evidence that CO2 emissions lags temperature increases.

There is a theory that it should be a greenhouse gas and a very weak correlation between the rise of CO2 emissions and possibly an increase in post glacial warming but that is bogus science. Theories have to be proven and correlations validated and that just hasn't happen with this scam. Not by a long shot.

If there was AGW then the principle scientists would not have to fabricate data like they have been caught doing many times. Also, there prediction would come true, which they never do.

The greenhouse effect was demonstrated more 150 years ago. In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation reflected back into atmosphere from the earth. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming. NASA and NOAA become involve in late 1980's and have producing tons of data confirming global temperature rises and sea level increases.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming

 

[Flopper]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

Please explain what the fuck a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.

 

[jc456]

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.

Not only is there no proof that man made sources of CO2 has contributed to global climate change but there is no credible evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

In fact there has been times when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere was more than 10 times what it is now and the earth was much cooler. There have also been times when the earth was warmer and the CO2 levels lower. Even in recent times. There is substantial and credible evidence that CO2 emissions lags temperature increases.

There is a theory that it should be a greenhouse gas and a very weak correlation between the rise of CO2 emissions and possibly an increase in post glacial warming but that is bogus science. Theories have to be proven and correlations validated and that just hasn't happen with this scam. Not by a long shot.

If there was AGW then the principle scientists would not have to fabricate data like they have been caught doing many times. Also, there prediction would come true, which they never do.

The greenhouse effect was demonstrated more 150 years ago. In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation reflected back into atmosphere from the earth. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming. NASA and NOAA become involve in late 1980's and have producing tons of data confirming global temperature rises and sea level increases.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming

I can't take you serious dude, you think if the arctic melted it would raise sea levels.

 

[jc456]

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

Please explain what the fuck a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.

you aren't the brightest bulb I see. you said floating melting ice. now does floating ice melting raise water levels. it was a test to see how stupid you really are.

 

[Flopper]

Flopper silly words,

"If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence."

This a classic example of warmist hyperbole, one who tries hard to conjure up unlikely or impossible scenarios to promote a lie.

Arctic Ice is already in the water, negligible to zero sea level effect if it all melted.

People already live in areas of the Southwest, having no problem coping with 115 Degree highs every summer. Heck the average high in Phoenix AZ in July is 104 degrees F.

Sea levels rose around 400 feet higher in just a few thousand years, a heck of lot faster rate than now. Doggerland, where people used to live on gets covered so did the Bering's Straight and more.

Where I live it gets over 100 degrees F about 15 times summer, no big deal, while in France they die like flies...…., because they don't prepare for the occasional heat waves that comes along.

You need to stop making absurd hyperbole statements as they betray your science illiteracy very well.

As I said, the two factors which cause the global rise in sea level are increasing temperature of the oceans and melting freshwater glaciers.

Melting sea ice is just an indication of the rising ocean temperatures. Icebergs and frozen seawater do not cause sea levels to rise. Hopefully you understand that or I'm wasting time in this discussions.

 

[Flopper]

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

Please explain what the fuck a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.

you aren't the brightest bulb I see. you said floating melting ice. now does floating ice melting raise water levels. it was a test to see how stupid you really are.

Then I guess it means nothing.