The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[mamooth]

Where is the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis?.

Well-documented. It's an example of yet another successful prediction. You just lie about it, in the same way you lie about everything.

Climate science has gotten everything right for over 30 years running now. That's why climate science has such credibility around the world.

In contrast, the denier religion has done a constant face plant into a cow patty for those 30 years. That's why the world correctly defines denialism as cult pseudoscience.

If you want the same credibility as climate science, you need to stop failing so hard, and develop the same record of success. Just whining about how everyone is laughing at you will not convince the world to assign you credibility just out of pity.

 

[mamooth]

You are literally giving credit to AGW averting another ice age, lol.

You're failing hard at basic logic again.

The next ice age would have been in 20,000 - 50,000 years. That means it's really damn stupid to roast the planet now to avert it. You're like a fool saying he has to run his furnace full blast in July because winter will eventually be coming.

 

[ding]

You are literally giving credit to AGW averting another ice age, lol.

You're failing hard at basic logic again.

The next ice age would have been in 20,000 - 50,000 years. That means it's really damn stupid to roast the planet now to avert it. You're like a fool saying he has to run his furnace full blast in July because winter will eventually be coming.

Then you should not be expecting our temperature to gently fall. The only fool here is you. You cannot have a rational discussion on this subject.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

 

[ding]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working.

Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.

Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.

If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Your synthetic temperature curve is bullshit. Just look at all of the oscillations. Natural variation is the norm.

 

[Crick]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The people in your survey work for the oil industry.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The people in your survey work for the oil industry.

And the people in the pro AGW camp get paid for producing papers that say fossil fuels are bad, so who you gonna believe?

 

[mamooth]

And the people in the pro AGW camp get paid for producing papers that say fossil fuels are bad, so who you gonna believe?

No, they don't. Why did you think you could pass off such a stupid lie?

Oh, that's right. You'd lie for money yourself, so you assume everyone acts that way. The concept that people can be honest simply never occured to you, being it's so utterly foreign to your way of life.

Try to understand that not everyone is as corrupt as you and your heroes, eh? On both a moral and intellectual level, you're not worthy to sniff the jocks of the people you slur.

 

[mamooth]

isn't that why they switched from AGW to Climate Change

The Bush admin did that. Are you claiming they're in on it?

only to then discover that ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy) was going down not up?

And ... more denier bunk science. It never ends.

 

[mamooth]

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Ah, that survey of Alberta tar sands petroleum engineers. No bias there.

Why are you pretending those people are "scientists"? They all know jack about climate. I am much, much better informed than they are. The fact that your side resorts to such dishonest propaganda should be a warning sign.

 

[ding]

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Ah, that survey of Alberta tar sands petroleum engineers. No bias there.

Why are you pretending those people are "scientists"? They all know jack about climate. I am much, much better informed than they are. The fact that your side resorts to such dishonest propaganda should be a warning sign.

Speaking of dishonest propaganda and bias.... Your biased climate scientists model's are flat out wrong.

Near-term global surface temperature projections in IPCC AR5 | Climate Lab Book

Methane mendacity – and madness

Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) « Roy Spencer, PhD

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared)feedback parameters computed from all possible 5 year periods in transient forcing experiments in 18 climate models tracked by the IPCC, versus the same calculation from Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

Why the IPCC climate model is wrong

Why the IPCC climate model is wrong
This important lecture is by Roy Spencer who is part of the team that manages the various NASA satellites that monitor the earths climate, clouds, precipitation and other related atmospheric conditions. These satellites have only been monitoring temperature since 1979 and as Roy Spencer explains recently launched new satellites are beginning to provide significantly more data than previously. This means that for the first time there is actual data about many aspects of the earths atmosphere and weather which previously had only been estimated.

The reason this all matters is because the global warming scare is based on what various computer models of the earths climate say will happen if CO2 adds some extra heating to the climate system. Everyone accepts that on its own the CO2 will only add a small amount of heating over the next century even if there are no controls or reductions in emissions. The computer models say that this little bit of heating will trigger various other mechanisms that will push temperatures much higher. They say that there is some sort of dangerous tipping point which we are fast approaching.

This lecture shows that the latest data has shown these models to be wrong. As Roy Spencer explains even the modellers accept the new data and accept that the previous models are wrong. The new data seems to indicate that the feedback mechanism in the climate system actual act to reduce the warming effect of the CO2.

One final point. This lecture shows just how important the cloud-precipitation system is in controlling the earths weather and climate systems. This directly relates to the recent work of Professor Svensmark on a possible climate driver based on the cosmic ray effects on cloud formation. This theory is explained and explored here “A new solar theory of climate “, here ” Cosmic Rays and Climate” and here “Svensmark’s new solar theory of climate change ”

The chart below compares the model predicted change of outgoing radiation to the actual satellite measured change of outgoing radiation, both in response to changing sea surface temperatures.

Satellite Observed vs Predicted Outgoing Radiation

The red lines show the eleven climate models prediction of decreasing outgoing radiation as temperatures rise.

The green line in the middle of the chart shows the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE) observed response. It shows that more outgoing radiation escapes to space as temperatures rise, rather than being trapped as the UN computer modellers believe. CO2 emissions do not trap much heat and do not cause significant global warming

Friends of Science |

The models predict a distinctive pattern of warming - a hot spot of enhanced warming in the upper troposphere over the tropics, shown as the large red spot in the diagram below. Radiosonde data from weather balloons show no such "hot spot" pattern. If it was there we would have easily detected it.

Model Predicted Warming

Actual Radiosonde Measured Warming

The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.

The models fail because they assume both water vapour and clouds strongly increase the CO2 induced temperature changes, whereas recent research shows both water vapour and clouds greatly reduce the temperature changes.

Friends of Science |

 

[SSDD]

Well-documented. It's an example of yet another successful prediction. You just lie about it, in the same way you lie about everything.

While I suspect you are deliberately lying...it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you would actually believe that the non existent tropospheric hot spot is well documented...

 

[Crick]

Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected

And, for the hundredth time, a tropospheric hot spot is produced by ANY form of warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working.

Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.

Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.

If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

You like to play with scales, don't you. You need a better perspective. Of course, if we assume that you are right - that temperatures were going to fall - then we must also assume that we would have descended into another ice age, lol.

As stated before, every time I see you use this graph in order to lie, I will post the original article. Where NASA scientists come to a far different conclusion than you do.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Note that I also post a link so anyone can verifiy that is a credible site. You do not because you know that if you do they will realize that you are pushing bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.”

Being that he's laughably wrong, who cares? Your appeal to authority fails because your authority is contradicted by the data. Spencer uses his own botched UAH temperature model, which is a wild outlier on the cold side. The surface data disagrees with it, the weather balloon data disagrees with it, and the RSS satellite model disagrees with it. Nobody except desperate deniers use the bad UAH model.

Again, here's how the actual models vs. reality stacks up, without the denier fraud and fudging. Current measured temperatures are a bit _warmer_ than what the models predicted. And all the scientists know that, along with all the informed people, which means they'll laugh at denier fables.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

Let me also mention my amusement about deniers raving about models, and then relying solely on UAH ... which is a model. In contrast, the surface data and balloon measurements are not models. Deniers are denying the direct data, and accepting only a flawed model.

And, bad as it is, it still shows a strong warmng. That is why I post it. Dr. Spencer pushes the limit on avoiding acknowledging the warming, but he won't go over the limit. You see, he lost all kinds of credibility when he was berating the other scientists when their graphs disagreed with his. Then they found that he had reversed a plus sign, and that when that was corrected, his graphs were pretty much in line with the rest. Kind of an amatureish 'mistake' for a Phd scientist.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is now common knowledge that the climate models are consistently wrong.......it is a change in the dynamic from 10 years ago when the public didn't know that global warming projections were NOT based upon the data ( and back then, people didn't know how much the #'s were being rigged by NASA and the IPCC ). The public also have concluded that all of these scary red graphs/maps are displaying .5 degree's.........

It all adds up to nobody caring about the science in 2016.

 

[ding]

Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected

And, for the hundredth time, a tropospheric hot spot is produced by ANY form of warming.

Compare the axis scales.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And the people in the pro AGW camp get paid for producing papers that say fossil fuels are bad, so who you gonna believe?

No, they don't. Why did you think you could pass off such a stupid lie?

Oh, that's right. You'd lie for money yourself, so you assume everyone acts that way. The concept that people can be honest simply never occured to you, being it's so utterly foreign to your way of life.

Try to understand that not everyone is as corrupt as you and your heroes, eh? On both a moral and intellectual level, you're not worthy to sniff the jocks of the people you slur.

When my grand kids ask me "grandpa, did you believe that New York City was going to be underwater, did you know anyone who did, were you scared?" I can be honest and say of course not, but I did know a lot of people who believed it, and I just laughed at them. Are you going to lie when you get asked that question, or are you going to chuckle and admit you were duped like a stupid micro-brained sissy bitch? I'm guessing you'll lie, because I sense you have very little character.

 

[Crick]

A tropospheric hot spot is produced by any form or warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

A tropospheric hot spot is produced by any form or warming.

Oh Gawd........."tropospheric hot spot"

s0n.......that argument is over 15 years old. Nobody gives it any credence anymore except the hard core OCD's.

C'mon.........its 2016!

Seriously dude........you and your pals are stuck in the past......need to hit the rest button, don't you think? When you do the same thing over and over and over and over and the landscape stays static, Id say its time to come up with a Plan B...........don't you think?

IDK....unless you can show us where you guys are winning? Its ALL about who's winning, not the science.

Links please................