The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[Old Rocks]

In Oregon we have 6 known volcanic calderas, with two large ones. That is not counting Crater Lake.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL 43 known impacts with craters of over 20 km. Five with craters of over 100 km. Considering that 3/4 of the earth is covered with oceans, and that very little of the ocean crust is over 600 million years old, your statement of only one asteroid strike with evidence to support it is laughable. You need some classes in Geologic History.

And only one of those is tied to an extinction event. Truly olfraud, the depths of your ignorance is epic.

" They are ONE TIME EVENTS (in the entire 4.5 billion year history of the Earth we have evidence of maybe 17 giant calderic eruptions., and ONE asteroid strike that has good empirical evidence to support it."

That is what you said. "one asteroid strike that has good empirical evidence to support it." And why would it have to have a worldwide extinction event to be an important punctuation in the local, or even continental, geology. And there are undoubtedly many unrecognized volcanic calderas. The Crooked River Caldera was only recently recognized.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So do you believe that showing a greenhouse should be ventilated to keep the plants alive means that Earth's atmosphere is constantly coming and going? What do you mean by "This is rich"?

I think he means there is not one scientist on earth who agrees with him?

Does anyone have a good argument that a lay person can use against AGW??

 

[SSDD]

So do you believe that showing a greenhouse should be ventilated to keep the plants alive means that Earth's atmosphere is constantly coming and going? What do you mean by "This is rich"?

I think he means there is not one scientist on earth who agrees with him?

Does anyone have a good argument that a lay person can use against AGW??

The absolute best argument to use against the AGW argument is to simply ask warmers to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis...I have been asking for nearly 2 decades now and am still waiting for even one single shred of actual evidence supporting the hypothesis...

And it is damned entertaining to see what those goobers bring to the argument when they bring anything at all...it is amazing what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis in their minds...it becomes very clear why they were duped in the first place....

Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...some bring charts showing that greenhouse gasses absorb IR...but fail to bring the graph showing that they also emit the absorbed energy immediately....and the can't even begin to provide any sort of evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equal warming...the whole scam is based on little more than assumptions and unfortunately there are a large number of people who lack the thinking skills to wonder why there is no actual evidence in support of the hypothesis.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...

So you say there is evidence of climate change but not man made climate change?
The best evidence they bring is accumulating CO2 since man started buring oil.
How does a lay person confute that?

 

[SSDD]

Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...

So you say there is evidence of climate change but not man made climate change?
The best evidence they bring is accumulating CO2 since man started buring oil.
How does a lay person confute that?

Of course...the climate is always changing and will always be changing...

The best evidence they bring is accumulating CO2 since man started buring oil.
How does a lay person confute that?

How about the gold standard for temperature reconstruction....Ice cores...this one is from greenland...it covers the past 10,000 years...

If our emissions of CO2 are the reason the earth is warming now....why are we, in fact, cooler than most of the past 10,000 years?

Now warmers will try and say that the warming was local to that area, but when one looks at ice cores from Antarctica, one sees temperature spikes there that roughly correspond to the greenland ice core record....at the south pole...that is clear evidence that the warming indicated in the greenland ice cores was both warmer than the present, and was global...and those ice cores seem to indicate that at times in the past 10,000 years, temperatures rose more rapidly than anything we have seen.

 

[SSDD]

Most of them simply bring some evidence of climate change and simply assume that it must be due to man...

So you say there is evidence of climate change but not man made climate change?
The best evidence they bring is accumulating CO2 since man started buring oil.
How does a lay person confute that?

By the way...higher CO2 along with increasing temperatures is known as a correlation...not a cause...assuming that correlation equals cause is simply not science...which brings us right back to there not being a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.

 

[Crick]

Show us a cause and its effect that has no correlation fool.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Show us a cause and its effect that has no correlation fool.

Well fool, how about you tell me why the earth glaciated with CO2 levels of 7,000ppm? If CO2 were truly a driver why did it allow us to enter glacial cycles?

 

[Crick]

You don't even understand the request. Show us a cause and its effect that have no correlation.

 

[Crick]

Mr Balamonte,

If you are asking help to make a case against AGW, it indicates you feel you do not have enough information to make a convincing case that AGW is invalid. Rather than making the assumption that it is without sufficient evidence, why don't you simply follow where the evidence leads. If you are objective and stay away from prejudices and unsupported assertions, I'm quite confident you will find that the overwhelming majority of evidence support the validity of AGW.

 

[ding]

You don't even understand the request. Show us a cause and its effect that have no correlation.

Do you men like it taking 12 million years for the temperature to fall by 7C when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

 

[Crick]

Are you suggesting that no other factors affected that rate? Are you suggesting that a cause and effect can have no correlation?

Just a BTW, if you want to convince folks here that you know what you're talking about in general science, lining yourself up with SSDD may not be the best strategy.

PS: "Do you men..." ? ? ?

 

[ding]

Are you suggesting that no other factors affected that rate? Are you suggesting that a cause and effect can have no correlation?

Just a BTW, if you want to convince folks here that you know what you're talking about in general science, lining yourself up with SSDD may not be the best strategy.

PS: "Do you men..." ? ? ?

Are you suggesting that no other factors are at play today? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Crick]

I have never denied it.

 

[mamooth]

The skin does not drive evaporative cooling. The skin IS and artifact of evaporative cooling.

And your evidence for this is where?

In post #256, I showed you many science articles that state the opposite of what you claim.

And as always happens with deniers, that data was ignored. That's why you're called deniers, because you simply deny the existence of all data that contradicts your cult beliefs.

When you get a minute, do what I did, and post some actual science backing up your claim. Repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" endlessly is not going to win a Nobel Prize for you or for any of the deniers who specialize in that tactic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Mr Balamonte,

If you are asking help to make a case against AGW, it indicates you feel you do not have enough information to make a convincing case that AGW is invalid. Rather than making the assumption that it is without sufficient evidence, why don't you simply follow where the evidence leads. If you are objective and stay away from prejudices and unsupported assertions, I'm quite confident you will find that the overwhelming majority of evidence support the validity of AGW.

so what is best evidence?
Co2 has doubled in last 125 years and temperature is still lower than last 10,000 years?
and through most of history temp went up before Co2??
and recent temp rise since end of llittle ice age is tiny compared to previous temp changes

 

[ding]

I have never denied it.

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm? Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

 

[mamooth]

I see. So which one of those factors do you believe is capable of damping the radiative forcing of CO2 such that it would take 12 million years for temperature to fall the 7C predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 equation when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm

Just what are you babbling about?

Because as near as I can tell according to your table CO2 dominates the equation as you have the rest basically cancelling each other out.

Don't ask us to explain your science.

 

[ding]

The skin does not drive evaporative cooling. The skin IS and artifact of evaporative cooling.

And your evidence for this is where?

In post #256, I showed you many science articles that state the opposite of what you claim.

And as always happens with deniers, that data was ignored. That's why you're called deniers, because you simply deny the existence of all data that contradicts your cult beliefs.

When you get a minute, do what I did, and post some actual science backing up your claim. Repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" endlessly is not going to win a Nobel Prize for you or for any of the deniers who specialize in that tactic.

The temperature profile, Einstein. Evaporation only occurs at the skin, and we know that evaporation is the major component of heat loss by water bodies. You do realize the skin is cooling down, right? Not heating up. If it is not evaporative COOLING that is responsible for the skin COOLING down, prey tell, what is? Your argument that IR is heating up the skin is ridiculous.