What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[IsaacNewton]

The isotope of carbon in CO2 from burned fossil fuels is different from the isotope of naturally occurring CO2.

There is no debate, Global Warming is real, accelerating and is manmade.

 

[IanC]

and the deep underground military bases/bunkers do not have electrical grids.....they use Tesla technology because he came up with the idea of harnessing the energy that surrounds us.

What is Tesla technology? What would that energy be?

Hahahaha. I pulled off a sweater once and tossed it on a shelf where a fluorescent tube was stored. It lit up and glowed for quite a while. Maybe that's what he means. Hahahaha.

 

[Dale Smith]

and the deep underground military bases/bunkers do not have electrical grids.....they use Tesla technology because he came up with the idea of harnessing the energy that surrounds us.

What is Tesla technology? What would that energy be?

Nikola Tesla was the greatest inventor of the 20th century that learned how to harness the energy around us into a self perpetuating renewable energy source with no electrical grid required. I will post more about this later by my lady love and her son are ready to grab some vittles. )

 

[jc456]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Paraphrased from Skeptical Science

The presence or absence of a tropospheric hotspot has no bearing as to what we attribute forcing. If the sun's output were to increase, we would expect both the surface and the entire atmosphere to increase in temperature. If CO2 levels were to increase, we would see warming of the surface and the lower atmosphere and significant cooling of the lower stratosphere. The tropospheric hotspot would be created in either scenario and, in fact, would be the result of any increase in forcing, natural or otherwise. It is NOT the tropospheric hotspot that is the critical indicator of greenhouse warming, it is the cooling of the lower stratosphere. All atmospheric observations show such cooling.

However, as I just said, warming of any sort should produce a hotspot and many measures have not seen it. However, several recent studies have found the hotspot and examinations of older records have revealed it there as well.

Climate meme debunked as the 'tropospheric hot spot' is found

"The “hiatus” has been addressed by a veritable avalanche of recent studies, as reported in articles on The Conversation (such as here and here). These studies collectively show that the warming slowdown has been the temporary result of a regularly recurring change in ocean circulation – essentially, a bump in the road towards a warmer planet. The phenomenon has no evident link to global warming or the physical principles that connect it to greenhouse gases."

The site you linked to is a Cult site

 

[westwall]

Wow. Look at that the faithers are being crushed. I wonder how long it will be until they register a bunch of socks to try and change the vote totals....

 

[jc456]

Wow. Look at that the faithers are being crushed. I wonder how long it will be until they register a bunch of socks to try and change the vote totals....

Or they can just go make accurate corrections/ adjustments to the table.

 

[Wuwei]

Nikola Tesla was the greatest inventor of the 20th century that learned how to harness the energy around us into a self perpetuating renewable energy source with no electrical grid required.

Oh wow. That sounds as good as perpetual motion. Is that the way the Tesla automobile get's it's power?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it would not.

Of course it would...the tropospheric hot spot is the most fundamental prediction made by climate models...now that it is beyond evident that no such hot spot is going to be forthcoming...you yahoos are spinning your brains trying to get away from that deal breaker that falsified the AGW hypothesis right out of the gate.

An idiot like you is going to dictate what the predictions of the scientists are?

 

[SSDD]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

And on and on and on and the unescapable fact remains that if the system were working as you claim, a tropospheric hot spot would be the inevitable result...it isn't there Ian so you and everyone who believes as you are wrong...if you were right, the hot spot would be there...it isn't...ergo.......

 

[SSDD]

And yet, no tropospheric hot spot has materialized which is the most fundamental prediction of the AGW hypothesis....how many fundamental predictive failures must a hypothesis suffer, in your mind, before it is scrapped?

Show us an IPCC statement that a tropospheric hotspot is a critical indicator of greenhouse warming?

Here, from AR4

And here, also from AR4 Section 9.7 Combining evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century) - Global - Likely There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming, which does not depend on including stratospheric cooling in the fingerprint pattern of response. There are observational uncertainties in radiosonde and satellite records. Models generally predict a relative warming of the free troposphere compared to the surface in the tropics since 1979, which is not seen in the radiosonde record (possibly due to uncertainties in the radiosonde record) but is seen in one version of the satellite record, although not others (Section 9.4.4).

This sort of thing is why climate science has identified itself as nothing more than a potentially valuable science which has decended into pseudoscience.....It is normal in science...hell, it's even probable in science for scientists to have a hypothesis, and make predictions based on that hypothesis....and then go back and tweak the hypothesis when the predictions don't work out...and even scrap the hypothesis when fundamental predictions fail and go back to the drawing board to try to come up with a working hypothesis that explains the topic they are working on. The entire history of science is absolutely full of science lurching and lumbering from one failed hypothesis to the next in the hopes of improving their understanding with each attempt.

Climate science doesn't work that way though...when the hypothesis fails, they attempt to rewrite history and this is a fine example...they tamper with the temperature data base and even convince idiot children like you that they can adjust temperatures from a hundred years ago and make them more accurate....what person in their right mind would even secretly believe such a thing..much less state it out loud in public....other than you that is...Climate science is behaving like the old soviet union...when things don't work out as predicted....go back and erase history to preserve the narrative.

The fact is that the IPCC said that the hot spot would be a unique fingerprint of human induced global warming....and now you and others are trying to rewrite history claiming that it was never predicted....You are proving beyond doubt that climate science isn't about science but political ideology....this is all a means to an end and has nothing to do with science.

 

[SSDD]

The isotope of carbon in CO2 from burned fossil fuels is different from the isotope of naturally occurring CO2.

And you believe that is proof of what besides that mankind generates CO2?

There is no debate, Global Warming is real, accelerating and is manmade.

There has been no warming for over 2 decades...that should prompt a debate among thinking people who are actually interested in science...I suppose among cultists, and dogmatists....and people with a political motive, it would be reason to claim that the debate is over. Nice of you to identify which group you fall into.

 

[SSDD]

No, it would not.

Of course it would...the tropospheric hot spot is the most fundamental prediction made by climate models...now that it is beyond evident that no such hot spot is going to be forthcoming...you yahoos are spinning your brains trying to get away from that deal breaker that falsified the AGW hypothesis right out of the gate.

An idiot like you is going to dictate what the predictions of the scientists are?

No...they did that themselves....idgits like you, however, are trying to rewrite history so that their predictions never happened...problem is that they actually published those predictions and it isn't so hard to go back and get them.

 

[Crick]

No...they did that themselves....idgits like you, however, are trying to rewrite history so that their predictions never happened...problem is that they actually published those predictions and it isn't so hard to go back and get them.

Show us where climate experts - not people referring to denier blogs - state that the tropospheric hotspot is a critical indicator of greenhouse warming.

I asked for this yesterday and got nothing. Why don't you make it right and find that quote for us.

 

[SSDD]

No...they did that themselves....idgits like you, however, are trying to rewrite history so that their predictions never happened...problem is that they actually published those predictions and it isn't so hard to go back and get them.

Show us where climate experts - not people referring to denier blogs - state that the tropospheric hotspot is a critical indicator of greenhouse warming.

I asked for this yesterday and got nothing. Why don't you make it right and find that quote for us.

I just posted it straight from IR4...what else do you want....when it became clear that there was going to be no hotspot, rather than admit the failure and start working on the hypothesis..in typical fashion, they started rewriting history to make the prediction disappear. What I posted was copied straight from IR4...I gave you chapter and section...it was not from any blog which is typically where you get your info.

You keep claiming to have read these papers and yet, you constantly remain completely unaware of what is in them.

 

[Crick]

I think you mean AR4

Your extract

Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century) - Global - Likely There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming, which does not depend on including stratospheric cooling in the fingerprint pattern of response. There are observational uncertainties in radiosonde and satellite records. Models generally predict a relative warming of the free troposphere compared to the surface in the tropics since 1979, which is not seen in the radiosonde record (possibly due to uncertainties in the radiosonde record) but is seen in one version of the satellite record, although not others (Section 9.4.4).

Why don't you point exactly where, in this text, it states that a tropospheric hotspot is a mandatory indication of greenhouse warming - that its absence indicates greenhouse warming is not taking place - because I can't seem to find it.

 

[SSDD]

I think you mean AR4

Your extract

Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century) - Global - Likely There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming, which does not depend on including stratospheric cooling in the fingerprint pattern of response. There are observational uncertainties in radiosonde and satellite records. Models generally predict a relative warming of the free troposphere compared to the surface in the tropics since 1979, which is not seen in the radiosonde record (possibly due to uncertainties in the radiosonde record) but is seen in one version of the satellite record, although not others (Section 9.4.4).

Why don't you point exactly where, in this text, it states that a tropospheric hotspot is a mandatory indication of greenhouse warming - that its absence indicates greenhouse warming is not taking place - because I can't seem to find it.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave...duck and cover....that's become about all you are good at crick....you claim that they didn't predict a hot spot, then when you see that they did, you demand that when they made their prediction that if it didn't come to pass, that the hypothesis was a failure.....news flash crick...no one does that but in actual science when a hypothesis predicts a thing and it doesn't happen, actual scientists admit that they were wrong and start looking for problems in the hypothesis....whereas politicians start trying to rewrite history

 

[Crick]

Below is every occurrence of "TROPO" in AR4, Chapter 9, Section 7: Combining Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change

The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6). EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF AGW
...
...
...
Thus, the evidence appears to be inconsistent with the ocean or land being the source of the warming at the surface. In addition, simulations forced with observed SST changes cannot fully explain the warming in the troposphere without increases in greenhouse gases (e.g., Sexton et al., 2001), further strengthening the evidence that the warming does not originate from the ocean. Further evidence for forced changes arises from widespread melting of the cryosphere (Section 9.5.5), increases in water vapour in the atmosphere (Section 9.5.4.1) and changes in top-of-the atmosphere radiation that are consistent with changes in forcing. MODELS INITIALIZED WITH EMPIRICAL DATA ("observed SST changes")
...
...
...
There has been robust detection of anthropogenic influence on increasing tropopause height.EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF AGW
...
...
...
There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming, which does not depend on including stratospheric cooling in the fingerprint pattern of response. [duplicate of your quote] EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF AGW
...
...
...
Simultaneous warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere due to natural factors is less likely than warming of the troposphere or cooling of the stratosphere alone. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF AGW

 

[Crick]

I think you mean AR4

Your extract

Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century) - Global - Likely There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming, which does not depend on including stratospheric cooling in the fingerprint pattern of response. There are observational uncertainties in radiosonde and satellite records. Models generally predict a relative warming of the free troposphere compared to the surface in the tropics since 1979, which is not seen in the radiosonde record (possibly due to uncertainties in the radiosonde record) but is seen in one version of the satellite record, although not others (Section 9.4.4).

Why don't you point exactly where, in this text, it states that a tropospheric hotspot is a mandatory indication of greenhouse warming - that its absence indicates greenhouse warming is not taking place - because I can't seem to find it.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave...duck and cover....that's become about all you are good at crick....you claim that they didn't predict a hot spot, then when you see that they did, you demand that when they made their prediction that if it didn't come to pass, that the hypothesis was a failure.....news flash crick...no one does that but in actual science when a hypothesis predicts a thing and it doesn't happen, actual scientists admit that they were wrong and start looking for problems in the hypothesis....whereas politicians start trying to rewrite history

YOU are the one doing the bobbing and weaving. WHERE IN THAT TEXT DOES IT SAY A TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT IS A NECESSARY INDICATOR??? I'll help you out. IT DOESN'T YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

 

[SSDD]

YOU are the one doing the bobbing and weaving. WHERE IN THAT TEXT DOES IT SAY A TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT IS A NECESSARY INDICATOR??? I'll help you out. IT DOESN'T YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

Of course it did crick...I gave you the actual chapter and section and you still couldn't find it...even when you went looking for it....the fact that you, of all people, would call anyone else stupid is absolutely hilarious....Here, crick, is a link to the page....

9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

go down to the colored section...look down to the 10th prediction...it is all about tropospheric warming...ie the hot spot.....what sort of bullshit dodge are you going to come up with now you idiot? Then there is the pretty color picture I posted of the hot spot predicted by every GCM...pulled from the AR4 as well...

And you are the lying piece of shit crick..and you have proved it over and over....isn't it interesting that for all your talk, you can't produce any actual evidence to support any of it and whenever you ask, I manage to provide actual evidence to support my claims...that would be because I am not a lying sack crick....you can't produce because you are a lying sack.