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

[Frannie]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

You're nuts. However I reserved in my comments that fools like you would post what you did.

Provide the evidence. As of today nothing approaching evidence exists, it is all modeling that has no predictive powers.

You're as stupid as Frannie, and neither one of you read my post, and if you did you didn't comprehend the message.

You like big red font because you believe that is gets you noticed by the 4 people here.

It's still snowing in colorado

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's & disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

 

[Frannie]

Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's & disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Yea floods droughts hurricanes and down syndrome would all stop if I believed you

Take your pills

 

[Wuwei]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Yeah, I'd also like the see the scientific organization that's published a paper proving how the greenhouse effect isn't even possible.

Scientific organizations tend not to publish scientific papers...papers are published by scientists who tend to belong to scientific organizations...and if you would like to see some papers on alternatives to the greenhouse hypothesis...papers which, by the way, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here, and only then if you apply an entirely ad hoc (made up) fudge factor, I will be glad to provide you with some. Although I am pretty sure that you won't bother to read them, and even if you did, you will reject the information they provide because of your political leanings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Clip: This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Clip: A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.


The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative

Clip: In view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophy- it appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novelmeasurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.

The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions formitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorptionof incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influencedby human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.

Holmes, 2017

Clip:
Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.

This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.

Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.

In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.


https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf

Clip:
In other words, our results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.

Those references are very unreliable. They are known for publishing fake science.

Your first reference is from Sage Publishing

As part of the submission process you will be asked to provide the names of 2 peers who could be called upon to review your manuscript.​

You get to choose the reviewers!! They should be anonymous. The corresponding author, Hans Schreuder is from Principia-Scientific International. That organization has published credence to clear conspiracy theories such as the Pentagon weaponizing Lyme Disease ticks, fake moon landing, anti-vaccination, etc.

Your second and third references are from OMICS International.
Wiki: It has come under attack by numerous academics and the United States government over the validity of the peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of its fees and marketing, and the apparent advertising of the names of scientists as journal editors or conference speakers without their knowledge or permission.

Your fourth references is from Science Publishing Group
Wiki: Two test articles that were purposefully nonsense were accepted for publication.

These references are clearly substandard to say the least.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.

She asked you a legitimate question. Is 60 Min CREDIBLE as a source? Are their sources Credible?


And by the way ... Didn't the dutch build windmills to pump out water in the 1700's? This problem has been ongoing even before evil oil...

BTW you didn't watch the segment, and thus you're ignorant on the issue. Then you damn the segment and 60 minutes because you are brainwashed that they and the entire MSM is fake. No wonder so many of your kind continue to post stupid comments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's & disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Yea floods droughts hurricanes and down syndrome would all stop if I believed you

Take your pills

NO! FLOODS, DROUGHTS AND OTHER NATURAL DISORDERS WILL BE WITH US FOREVER. SO ONCE AGAIN YOUR STRAW MAN FAILS

GO STALK SOMEONE ELSE.

 

[Frannie]

Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's & disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Yea floods droughts hurricanes and down syndrome would all stop if I believed you

Take your pills

NO! FLOODS, DROUGHTS AND OTHER NATURAL DISORDERS WILL BE WITH US FOREVER. SO ONCE AGAIN YOUR STRAW MAN FAILS

GO STALK SOMEONE ELSE.

Nope because aoc your hero says the earth blows up in 11 years....... no more floods then

 

[Wuwei]

Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.

You posted this point many times. Of course the greenhouse effect does not heat the earth. It's the sun that heats the earth. The greenhouse effect prevents the earth from loosing much of it's heat.

and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm

Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before.

.

 

[Frannie]

Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.

You posted this point many times. Of course the greenhouse effect does not heat the earth. It's the sun that heats the earth. The greenhouse effect prevents the earth from loosing much of it's heat.

and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm

Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before.

.

What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago

Yea we know great grandpa's Ford

 

[Frannie]

Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's & disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Yea floods droughts hurricanes and down syndrome would all stop if I believed you

Take your pills

NO! FLOODS, DROUGHTS AND OTHER NATURAL DISORDERS WILL BE WITH US FOREVER. SO ONCE AGAIN YOUR STRAW MAN FAILS

GO STALK SOMEONE ELSE.

You mean you want me to let you win

 

[otto105]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

There is no evidence of you either.

You can only believe what you touch or feel.... and that can also to be denied.

 

[Wuwei]

What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago

Yea we know great grandpa's Ford

The sun heats the earth.

.

 

[Frannie]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

There is no evidence of you either.

You can only believe what you touch or feel.... and that can also to be denied.

The evidence is that Glaciers covered America, then melted all without Exxons jets help.

Accept this or die being ignorant

 

[Frannie]

What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago

Yea we know great grandpa's Ford

The sun heats the earth.

.

The Sun was heating the Earth when the glaciers formed as well.

Simple mistake, made by simpletons

 

[otto105]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

There is no evidence of you either.

You can only believe what you touch or feel.... and that can also to be denied.

The evidence is that Glaciers covered America, then melted all without Exxons jets help.

Accept this or die being ignorant

Are you really trying to make the argument that because some ice melted 20,000 years ago that explains what is happening today?

BTW Exxon produces refined petroleum products not jets. Additionally, their own research on burning their products confirms AGW, not your ice cube theory.

 

[SSDD]

Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.

Lol u r funnypoo

Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.

PS the earth ends in 11 years anyway so why do you care

I know about the ice, stupid. Try not to wet your pants.

Angry that the worlds glaciers melted beginning 20000 years ago are we

I realize you're nothing but a sniveling little rat begging for attention here. You should understand from my graphs that is is entirely possible for shorter term climate trends to exist on top of the long term trend. Have we already reached the end of the inter-glacial period? Probably not. That does not preclude the existence of a comparatively short term and minor AGW trend that will probably all be over in the next 50 years anyway. And when it is over, the inter-glacial warming will continue.

Got any actual physical evidence to support the claim...or are you just saying that man made global warming is indistinguishable from natural global warming...

 

[Wuwei]

The Sun was heating the Earth when the glaciers formed as well.

You are implying that he earth should maintain the same temperature for millennia? Climate has complex forcings and has been changing for millennia.

.

 

[otto105]

Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.

PS the earth ends in 11 years anyway so why do you care

I know about the ice, stupid. Try not to wet your pants.

Angry that the worlds glaciers melted beginning 20000 years ago are we

I realize you're nothing but a sniveling little rat begging for attention here. You should understand from my graphs that is is entirely possible for shorter term climate trends to exist on top of the long term trend. Have we already reached the end of the inter-glacial period? Probably not. That does not preclude the existence of a comparatively short term and minor AGW trend that will probably all be over in the next 50 years anyway. And when it is over, the inter-glacial warming will continue.

Got any actual physical evidence to support the claim...or are you just saying that man made global warming is indistinguishable from natural global warming...

This should be fun, what is your "natural" catalyst?

Additionally, still looking for a scientific organization willing to sell their souls to the alter of denial.

 

[SSDD]

Such anger from the sucker

I have little patience with stupidity...had you read any of my posts, you would see that I am skeptical of the entire man made global warming scan...

Yo its snowing in the summer in Colorado

So what? You seem to think that a snowfall in colorado, at high elevations in the summer means something. What exactly do you think it means?

So much for al gore saying snow will be a rare event

Gore is, and always has been an idiot? What's your point?

He he he

Do you still have no idea that you are talking to one of the biggest skeptics on the board? Any idea at all?

 

[SSDD]

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

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation in no way infers causation....The past 2 decades have seen a grand increase in chinese prosperity, and atmospheric CO2...but the temperature has been on hold...there has been no warming for the past 2 decades beyond the tiny fractions of a degree that climate science has been able to torture the data into saying via massive homogenization, infilling, and plain old data tampering.