The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[SSDD]

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

And I have asked you repeatedly to provide something from that steaming pile that you believe is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...so far, none has been forthcoming.

 

[SSDD]

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.

That's enough for now. That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis". Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data. That should be good for a laugh.

Plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...as if that were necessary since that isn't the topic of discussion and never has been...the question is whether man is to blame with his CO2 emissions...not the first shred there connecting one with the other.

 

[SSDD]

Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively.

All I can say is that if you really feel that way, then the educational system has failed you miserably. Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..

See what I mean? The public needs a logical way to participate .

Unfortunately I see exactly what you mean...and what the public needs is to raise holy hell over the abject failure of the educational system if they can't look at this and see that there is nothing there connecting our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate.

 

[SSDD]

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.

Wowee. You outdid Ding.

Except he proved nothing...and didn't even come close to delivering what was requested...H posted a bunch of graphs and all of us know full well that crick can't make heads nor tails of graphs....what he posted means nothing to him....do you see anything there that actually connects our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate...and most importantly, do you see anything there that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability?

If the climate is behaving as it has in the past, then how exactly do you believe that it is possible to detect a human fingerprint...and if you do, and the human fingerprint looks just like natural variability....what is it exactly that has you worried?

 

[Wuwei]

Except he proved nothing

Ding proved nothing.

....what is it exactly that has you worried?

What? Me worry?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..


.

I"m 100% positive that 99.99% of those with only a HS diploma would look at all that and fail to render a conclusion about AGW. But, if you showed them the Hansen quote they would be able to understand its implications. Do you understand now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.

That's enough for now. That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis". Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data. That should be good for a laugh.

SO weather and climate changes... so what? Now show us the linking factors and the math proving it. Lots of pretty model outputs and not one linking factor...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively.

All I can say is that if you really feel that way, then the educational system has failed you miserably. Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..

See what I mean? The public needs a logical way to participate .

Unfortunately I see exactly what you mean...and what the public needs is to raise holy hell over the abject failure of the educational system if they can't look at this and see that there is nothing there connecting our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate.

Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting, and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.

Wowee. You outdid Ding.

No... Ding understands what he is posting and can articulate what his graphs show. Crick doesn't have a clue.

 

[westwall]

We'll try a little of the Ding Method.

That's enough for now. That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis". Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data. That should be good for a laugh.

Do you not realize that every single bit of that is derived from computer models? Are you truly that ignorant?

 

[westwall]

Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively.

All I can say is that if you really feel that way, then the educational system has failed you miserably. Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..

See what I mean? The public needs a logical way to participate .

Unfortunately I see exactly what you mean...and what the public needs is to raise holy hell over the abject failure of the educational system if they can't look at this and see that there is nothing there connecting our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate.

Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up and they might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. You need to learn that simple mantra. It will save you a lot of agony. The AGW supporters were very happy through the 1980's and 90's as global temp correlated really nicely with the corresponding increase in CO2. Then, when that ceased after 1998, they suffered a mental breakdown, and instead of modifying their theory to conform to actual fact, they decided to falsify the data to conform to their worthless computer models.

And that is why they are propagandizing people so hard now. They have a window of perhaps five years before it becomes painfully obvious to even the most faithful of ignorant non scientific civilians. Then no matter how much they lie no one will believe them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..


.

I"m 100% positive that 99.99% of those with only a HS diploma would look at all that and fail to render a conclusion about AGW. But, if you showed them the Hansen quote they would be able to understand its implications. Do you understand now?

Let me help you..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

IF you place the question in appropriate terms for your audience they can grasp what it is your teaching. IN the lower graph, CO2 is shown to have very little correlation to temperature.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes watching but he made my point which is that only a scientist can really attempt to judge all the scientific evidence like the stuff he just presented and even then not conclusively.

All I can say is that if you really feel that way, then the educational system has failed you miserably. Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..

See what I mean? The public needs a logical way to participate .

Unfortunately I see exactly what you mean...and what the public needs is to raise holy hell over the abject failure of the educational system if they can't look at this and see that there is nothing there connecting our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate.

Well, we know temperature and C02 are going way up, ice is melting, and it might very well be related to greenhouse effect. If true we need to find out and then decide what to do.

Temp is NOT going up and CO2 is not well correlated to what little rise we have had. All of the fancy alarmist graphs have scaling problems. Anyone can change the scales to make it appear to be correlated.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Silly Billy, still posting that graph, and failing to realize that if you put 2014, 2015, and 2016 on the graph, the temperature has about caught up with the CO2. Not only that, but this winter has seen the sea ice at 5 standard deviations below normal.

You don't have a clue.. LONG TERM TRENDS are the issue and by long term I mean 500+ years.. Your three measly years are weather and not climate change.. I used the IPCC's own determinations against them to show just how ludicrous their position was.

Funny how you attacked me and not the verifiable facts I posted.

 

[Old Rocks]

A real scientist addresses the issue.

 

[ding]

That's enough for now. That was 21 of 40 data graphs in Chapter 2 of the 14 chapters and 6 annexes of WG-I's "Physical Science Basis". Why don't you try to repeat your claim that AR5 contains no empirical data. That should be good for a laugh.

Yep, we're in an interglacial cycle.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A real scientist addresses the issue.

This guy is a kook and he does not reveal his magical numbers either... Funny how you keep posting that crap as proof but there is nothing there..

 

[ding]

Red herring, based on a colossal logic failure.

The issue isn't that evaporation occurs. It does.

The issue is that you're making the hilariously stupid and completely unsupported claim that the IR instantly vaporizes the skin layer, and thus adds no heat to the ocean. You've shown nothing to support such a crazy claim, and I've shown you the papers that directly refute it.

Hence, you're still just waving your hands around and yelling "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

No. You are the one who claims that IR is heating the skin instead of evaporative cooling is cooling the skin. That makes zero sense.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone with a high school education and any amount of critical thinking skills show be able to look at that and see that there is not the first thing there that connects our CO2 emissions with rising temperatures..


.

I"m 100% positive that 99.99% of those with only a HS diploma would look at all that and fail to render a conclusion about AGW. But, if you showed them the Hansen quote they would be able to understand its implications. Do you understand now?

I am sure that 99.9% of people from my generation who graduated from high school could in fact look at those graphs and see that there is nothing there that connects our CO2 emissions to the changing global climate...if 99.9% of your generation can't...then again, I suggest that at the public raise hell over the failure of the educational system.