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

[otto105]

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.

You should probably get out of your 1998 denier bubble mindset.

 

[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 does NOT equal causation.

It might though.

Not a rational basis for asking for trillions of dollars...not nearly good enough...not even enough to ask for 50 dollars...

 

[SSDD]

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 does NOT equal causation.

It might though.

No It doesn't..

The last fifty years we have seen a input increase from the sun of 0.5w/m^2 globally.
The last fifty years clouds diminished by 0.6%. Allowing further energy to reach earths surface.

With just those two more likely scenarios your whole premise goes out the window. And now we see cloud cover increasing and solar output decreasing.. and the Cooling has already started..

Try that again without contradicting yourself in the same post.

No contradiction there...only reality not behaving as climate models predict...what contradiction do you think you see?

 

[SSDD]

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".

And yet, you guys don't seem to be able to provide any empirical evidence to support your claims...look back though the thread...all you have done is provide pretty convincing evidence that you have no idea of what empirical evidence might look like.

 

[SSDD]

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

Says the king of fake science...got any specific complaints about the work....or just a string of logical fallacies?

 

[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".

And yet, you guys don't seem to be able to provide any empirical evidence to support your claims...look back though the thread...all you have done is provide pretty convincing evidence that you have no idea of what empirical evidence might look like.

I have presented all the information and have the backing of every scientific organization to support AGW.

What do you have?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Perhaps in your made up version...climate science, however says that the atmosphere radiates energy down to the surface of the earth and warms it up resulting in the surface radiating more energy than it would from solar input alone...

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.[/quote]

That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..you have a made up version of the greenhouse effect to go with your made up interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics...which apparently allows energy and heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm...same old tedious bullshit...

 

[SSDD]

What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago

Yea we know great grandpa's Ford

The sun heats the earth.

.

And according to climate science, so does radiation from the atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

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

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

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

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

 

[otto105]

This is what ssdd has to support his denier belief on Global Climate Change...

































































































































Not much

 

[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.

You should probably get out of your 1998 denier bubble mindset.

Sorry guy...but the pause is real...every attempt from climate sceince to prove it isn't real has ended in disaster...

 

[otto105]

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

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

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

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

What pause are you referring too?

 

[SSDD]

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".

And yet, you guys don't seem to be able to provide any empirical evidence to support your claims...look back though the thread...all you have done is provide pretty convincing evidence that you have no idea of what empirical evidence might look like.

I have presented all the information and have the backing of every scientific organization to support AGW.

What do you have?

No you haven't... you provided some evidence that the climate is changing (no dispute there) and then a big assed assumption that man was the cause was tacked on to the evidence of change...that is not evidence of what caused the change...not even close...it is evidence that you wouldn't know what empirical evidence was if it bit you on the ass.

 

[SSDD]

This is what ssdd has to support his denier belief on Global Climate Change...


Not much

Just to point out what a liar you are...I will provide links to the posts where I have provided evidence to support my position in this thread....

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

See a trend developing here?

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

See the trend yet?

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

How about now?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22731109/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22747793/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22752767/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22752846/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22765414/


Now compare that to the amount of actual science which you posted...which is zero...The bulk of mine was peer reviewed...I don't think you even posted a single published paper... Maybe you meant to say that big blank space is the amount of science that I posted which you actually understood...

Why tell a big assed lie like that when it is so easy to prove that you lied?

 

[SSDD]

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

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

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

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

What pause are you referring too?

You really are out of it aren't you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Perhaps in your made up version...climate science, however says that the atmosphere radiates energy down to the surface of the earth and warms it up resulting in the surface radiating more energy than it would from solar input alone...

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.

That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..you have a made up version of the greenhouse effect to go with your made up interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics...which apparently allows energy and heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm...same old tedious bullshit...

That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation.

And you have no source, none at all, that agrees with your claim that photons cannot be emitted from a cool object toward a warmer object. Weird.

And no one agrees with your even more ridiculous claim that objects at equilibrium will cease all radiating.

Same old baloney. The only people who agree with your idiocy are your fans here who understand less of the science than you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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".

And yet, you guys don't seem to be able to provide any empirical evidence to support your claims...look back though the thread...all you have done is provide pretty convincing evidence that you have no idea of what empirical evidence might look like.

We have an apples and apes conflict.

Do you deny we will not suffer from super storms, floods and earthquakes in the future?

Did I state human behavior created these natural events?

Do you want me to name some empirical evidence? Katrina, Sandy (annual events in tornado alley; hurricanes on the south coast, earthquakes on the West Coast,and potential volcanic activity o the west coast and Hawaii, + a super volcano below Yellowstone).

 

[Billy_Bob]

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".

And yet, you guys don't seem to be able to provide any empirical evidence to support your claims...look back though the thread...all you have done is provide pretty convincing evidence that you have no idea of what empirical evidence might look like.

We have an apples and apes conflict.

Do you deny we will not suffer from super storms, floods and earthquakes in the future?

Did I state human behavior created these natural events?

Do you want me to name some empirical evidence? Katrina, Sandy (annual events in tornado alley; hurricanes on the south coast, earthquakes on the West Coast,and potential volcanic activity o the west coast and Hawaii, + a super volcano below Yellowstone).

ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) tells us that were in a lul and nowhere near a historic high..

Real-Time Global Tropical Cyclone Activity

 

[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.

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.

Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap

1. That CO2 would continue rise.
2. Ice loss from glaciers and poles.
3. World temperatures would continue to rise.
4. Weather events to come more impactful and costly.

So he largely has truth and inconvenience right.

 

[otto105]

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

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

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

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

What pause are you referring too?

You really are out of it aren't you?

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current