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

[sealybobo]

Don't waste your time. I read 4 words then stopped .

Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a dupe. We skeptics read everything you post because we don't want to do a half assed job of tearing it completely down with actual empirical science...you cultists on the other hand can't even bear to look at anything that disagrees with your beliefs....probably because you know that you aren't going to be able to provide any actual science to counter it...it must be frustrating to engage in a scientific discussion regarding an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere and the way energy moves through it and not be able to provide any empirical evidence at all to support your beliefs.

I read "Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a....then I stopped. Sad

 

[sealybobo]

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.

My fox new/rush limbaugh buddy at work told me the scientists wouldn't dare have a debate with the deniers because the deniers would wipe the floor with them.

He too doesn't realize that every argument he puts forward, the scientific community has already debunked those bad arguments. But what deniers do is move on to bad argument number 2, then 3, then 4 and eventually they circle back to bad argument one.

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

 

[SSDD]

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

That is all you are doing... You cant even tell me what the base line hypothesis is and how its supposed to be accomplished. Thus you dont have a fucking clue other than what your masters tell you to spout...

Yes, base line hypothesis This is the kind of shit a stupid Republican says that is typically an argument made in order to confuse and distract from all the real evidence.

base line hypothesis? What is your base line hypotheis based on empirical evidence?

And guess what? The scientists on this planet say you are wrong. Your reply back to that is that there is a vast scientific conspiracy among the scientific community. You're a fucking loon.

Are you serious? You think discussing the baseline hypothesis is political gobbledy goop? Are you really that ignorant of the topic? Admit it..you simply chose your position based on your political leanings and have no informed opinion of your own. You simply spew the opinion you were given by someone with a political agenda and when the discussion goes beyond the couple of talking points you have memorized, you can do little more than call names and make fallacious appeals to authority.

I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists. Piss off russia!

You really think base line hypothesis is fake news from russian lobbyists? You really are an ignorant wacko aren't you...

 

[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.

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.

So are you saying that science hasn't provided you with a single piece of physical evidence to support the claim that our CO2 is altering the global cliamte? So why would you side with them if they have not provided any such physical evidence regarding an entity as measurable and observable as the atmosphere and energy movment through 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.

I have been influenced by the failure of climate science to produce even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability after having spent nearly 4 decades and almost a trillion dollars on the issue...

 

[SSDD]

Don't waste your time. I read 4 words then stopped .

Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a dupe. We skeptics read everything you post because we don't want to do a half assed job of tearing it completely down with actual empirical science...you cultists on the other hand can't even bear to look at anything that disagrees with your beliefs....probably because you know that you aren't going to be able to provide any actual science to counter it...it must be frustrating to engage in a scientific discussion regarding an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere and the way energy moves through it and not be able to provide any empirical evidence at all to support your beliefs.

I read "Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a....then I stopped. Sad

Sad that you would want to remain a dupe? Yes..I agree that it is sad.

And I can't help but notice that you skipped over the gold standard temperature reconstruction...what's the matter...in denial?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

My fox new/rush limbaugh buddy at work told me the scientists wouldn't dare have a debate with the deniers because the deniers would wipe the floor with them.

He too doesn't realize that every argument he puts forward, the scientific community has already debunked those bad arguments. But what deniers do is move on to bad argument number 2, then 3, then 4 and eventually they circle back to bad argument one.

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

Awe.... Poor SEAPOOPOO... having a hard day are we... It must be tough living in fantasy land and having your fantasy destroyed...

 

[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.

My fox new/rush limbaugh buddy at work told me the scientists wouldn't dare have a debate with the deniers because the deniers would wipe the floor with them.

He too doesn't realize that every argument he puts forward, the scientific community has already debunked those bad arguments. But what deniers do is move on to bad argument number 2, then 3, then 4 and eventually they circle back to bad argument one.

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

Awe.... Poor SEAPOOPOO... having a hard day are we... It must be tough living in fantasy land and having your fantasy destroyed...

How far in denial must they be in order to maintain the illusion in their minds that they are making any sort of rational argument at all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

My fox new/rush limbaugh buddy at work told me the scientists wouldn't dare have a debate with the deniers because the deniers would wipe the floor with them.

He too doesn't realize that every argument he puts forward, the scientific community has already debunked those bad arguments. But what deniers do is move on to bad argument number 2, then 3, then 4 and eventually they circle back to bad argument one.

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

 

[forkup]

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.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
still more.

 

[Cosmos]

Simple empirical evidence for AGW:

1) Measured CO2 concentration.
2) Measured Atmospheric and Ocean Temperature Data
3) Glacial Melt
4) Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
5) Sea Level Rise.
6) Increased ocean acidity

The anthropogenic connection comes from the CO2.

 

[denmark]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
still more.

Not enough content

 

[SSDD]

Simple empirical evidence for AGW:

1) Measured CO2 concentration.
2) Measured Atmospheric and Ocean Temperature Data
3) Glacial Melt
4) Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
5) Sea Level Rise.
6) Increased ocean acidity

The anthropogenic connection comes from the CO2.

Got any physical evidence of that? No one argues that CO2 concentrations are rising....but every ice core study ever done shows that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperatures...not the cause.

The oceans are cooling in spite of rising CO2...and what physical evidence do you have that suggests that CO2 could cause the oceans to warm?

Glaciers have been melting for 14,000 years now...

There is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...how do you think that proves that we are the cause

Sea level has been rising at about the same rate for over 100 years....again, how is that evidence that we are causing climate change

Even climate science has dropped the ocean acidification meme...it simply hasn't worked out...the evidence is that we aren't causing it, never could...I will provide you with plenty of published papers on the topic if you like...

 

[Wyatt earp]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Satellites where around in 1890?

 

[SSDD]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Which evidence? That is the point of this thread... What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

Can you name any other field of science in which people offer up "consensus" as evidence that the main stream hypothesis is valid? I can't. You question the mainstream hypothesis of any other field of science and you get bombarded with evidence from all directions...you question the mainstream hypothesis in climate science and you get told about "consensus" as if that meant anything and then you get called some names...

If there is actual physical evidence to support the claim, lets see it.

 

[Cosmos]

Simple empirical evidence for AGW:

1) Measured CO2 concentration.
2) Measured Atmospheric and Ocean Temperature Data
3) Glacial Melt
4) Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
5) Sea Level Rise.
6) Increased ocean acidity

The anthropogenic connection comes from the CO2.

Got any physical evidence of that? No one argues that CO2 concentrations are rising....but every ice core study ever done shows that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperatures...not the cause.

The oceans are cooling in spite of rising CO2...and what physical evidence do you have that suggests that CO2 could cause the oceans to warm?

Glaciers have been melting for 14,000 years now...

There is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...how do you think that proves that we are the cause

Sea level has been rising at about the same rate for over 100 years....again, how is that evidence that we are causing climate change

Even climate science has dropped the ocean acidification meme...it simply hasn't worked out...the evidence is that we aren't causing it, never could...I will provide you with plenty of published papers on the topic if you like...

No shit? So when were the laws of chemistry changed? CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3-

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

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

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

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

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

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

Here you say this.

for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet

Then you say this.

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates

Either the sun heats Venus or it doesn't.
You also are widely of the mark by comparing Venus to Saturn or Jupiter.
Jupiters core is 650 million psi. And at its core they estimate 43000 degrees Fahrenheit. This means the pressure creates a build-up of 0.0066 percent.
Venus Surface pressure is 1348 psi. And it's temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. This is 64 percent.
So while pressure does explain Jupiter's temperature it does not explain that at Venus.
Furthermore, I want to ask you if you believe heat will not stay localized in a closed environment? If not, I wonder why you think I'dd have a problem explaining why Venus at night is just as warm as Venus by day? If you trap heat as the Greenhouse effect says. Heat will not escape. If heat does not escape it stands to reason that it will enfold the entire environment it is in.

Being a dupe is disagreeing with a theory to then appropriate the ideas while you deny it happens.