What has caused our global warming?

[jc456]

That's what you've got? Do the colors and the faux flames add anything? Falsifiability?

Dude there you are. So where are the posts with the names of the 97%'rs? BTW, are you aware that one of your 97%'rs agrees that 98% of the models are wrong? Do you know this? Go research a scientist named Storch, Han Von Storch. Respected 97%'r. Claims what he claims,

Oh wait, you can't do that, you don't know how to use the internet. LOL, How's that plant in California output going?

 

[jc456]

And, if you think that I have failed to cover all the basic points that lead one, inexorably, to accept AGW as valid, let us know what other predictions you think are REQUIRED in order to accept AGW but are not falsifiable.

Or you could man up and address the points already made.

The problem is that there is no proof. NONE. To say you have any would be to say the solar plant is fully operational. Hahahahaaha. Sorry I digressed, Did you go read Han Von Storch yet?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow. Who exactly is denying the Earth is warming or the GreenHouse effect?? NONE OF THAT is the ocean boiling, penguin roasting, baby drowning Global Warming that we are laughing at.....

except for your Number4 which is already false of course.... All you have is a coincidence between CO2 and a MILD increase in temp...

Tell us again what the temp anomaly will be 2047?????? THATS the falsifiable we are looking for here.

Sorry dude, but you're not ALLOWED to make up what you claim AGW predicts. That would be a red herring or a straw dog or some other bit of FALSEHOOD.

You have almost ALL now claimed that AGW makes nothing but unfalsifiable predictions. Those four items are basic, fundamental predictions of AGW. Show us why they are unfalsifiable or admit that they are not.

You served up this plate. It's time to eat.

No way Bullwinkle. You served up some basics of Atmos Physics INSTEAD of the hysteria and predictions of doom INHERENT in the AGW fairy tale.. It's the PREDICTIONS and TERROR of AGW that are mockable and unfalsifiable.. It's the Hurricane forming, seas rising, polar bear drowning, drought producing, snow eating, ocean boiling, oyster dying, bug multiplying Global Warming thermometer BUSTING HYPE and FEAR --- that is EXACTLY what is being rejected.

A 1.2degC increase in temperature due to a DOUBLING of CO2 wouldn't even make the evening news...

Denier............

 

[Abraham3]

So, you got nothing... including the balls to admit you were wrong.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So, you got nothing... including the balls to admit you were wrong.

Here we go again!

 

[flacaltenn]

Helena:

Getting to the point where even Monty Python would have a hard time finding the pieces left from this guy... Clean-up on Aisle 12 !!!!!!!!!

 

[Abraham3]

Would you care to explain why you believe any of the four AGW predictions I noted are not falsifiable? Or would you like to take the position that for the theory of AGW to be valid, every brainless observation that every unqualified numbskull on the planet has ever said about it has to be provable? If that's the case, of course, we can just throw out ALL of science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Would you care to explain why you believe any of the four AGW predictions I noted are not falsifiable? Or would you like to take the position that for the theory of AGW to be valid, every brainless observation that every unqualified numbskull on the planet has ever said about it has to be provable? If that's the case, of course, we can just throw out ALL of science.

For the record -- and you may quote me on this --- I would take the position that you don't COMPREHEND what the predictions and assertions of your Church actually are.. And that you are totally incapable of understanding the discussion of Global Warming and it's impact on public policy..

And that I further testify that calling all of your heroes and sainted clergy "unqualified numbskulls" is a good first step to your rehabilitation...

 

[Abraham3]

Helena:

Getting to the point where even Monty Python would have a hard time finding the pieces left from this guy... Clean-up on Aisle 12 !!!!!!!!!

You haven't so much as stuck your toe in the water. You claimed that AGW was not falsifiable. I gave you the primary and necessary predictions of AGW and asked you to explain why they were not falsifiable. I've heard nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of a pertinent response from ANY of you. Point me in the right direction if I've missed something, but so far no one has given ONE SINGLE REASON THOSE PREDICTIONS ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE.

You know what I say is true. You know your answer was bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Helena:

Getting to the point where even Monty Python would have a hard time finding the pieces left from this guy... Clean-up on Aisle 12 !!!!!!!!!

You haven't so much as stuck your toe in the water. You claimed that AGW was not falsifiable. I gave you the primary and necessary predictions of AGW and asked you to explain why they were not falsifiable. I've heard nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of a pertinent response from ANY of you. Point me in the right direction if I've missed something, but so far no one has given ONE SINGLE REASON THOSE PREDICTIONS ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE.

You know what I say is true. You know your answer was bullshit.

Did you miss something?? Well YEEAH you did.. The checkpoints you gave are not the tenets of Global Warming predictions and theory that have been widely promulgated.

And the fact that you don't UNDERSTAND that important point tells me you haven't been listening A TWIT as to what any "denier" has been telling you... Tells me -- conversing with you is a waste of time because

A) You are more ignorant of the topic than I assumed..... . OR

B) You are being dishonest about not knowing the depth and breadth of AGW pronouncements and conclusions.. OR (my favorite choice)

C) You fail at the process of science by not DEFINING what it is you THINK you are proving to us. And lack the logic to identify your error.

 

[westwall]

I will take your little comments in order....



1) Direct measurements of the radiative imbalances at the ToA will show that the Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating away (establishes radiative warming)


To date this has not happened. Further, humans lack the ability to accurately measure it to the accuracy that is needed in the first place.



2) CO2, methane, ozone or other anthropogenic gases will be found to preferentially absorb IR radiation (establishes the Greenhouse Effect)



That the Greenhouse Effect exists is not in doubt. It's impact on climate...is.



3) Humans will be found to be responsible for the vast majority (let's say 95%) of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 (establishes that human activity bears primary responsibility for the CO2-based Greenhouse warming since 1750)



Human contribution to the global CO2 budget is 5%.


4) By direct calculation, warming from anthropogenic GHGs will be found responsible for the majority (>50%) of the radiative forcing warming the planet (establishes predominance of Greenhouse warming over other effects)


To date this has not even come close to being determined., In fact the opposite has been shown to be true.

 

[Abraham3]

Helena:

Getting to the point where even Monty Python would have a hard time finding the pieces left from this guy... Clean-up on Aisle 12 !!!!!!!!!

You haven't so much as stuck your toe in the water. You claimed that AGW was not falsifiable. I gave you the primary and necessary predictions of AGW and asked you to explain why they were not falsifiable. I've heard nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of a pertinent response from ANY of you. Point me in the right direction if I've missed something, but so far no one has given ONE SINGLE REASON THOSE PREDICTIONS ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE.

You know what I say is true. You know your answer was bullshit.

Did you miss something?? Well YEEAH you did.. The checkpoints you gave are not the tenets of Global Warming predictions and theory that have been widely promulgated.

And the fact that you don't UNDERSTAND that important point tells me you haven't been listening A TWIT as to what any "denier" has been telling you... Tells me -- conversing with you is a waste of time because

A) You are more ignorant of the topic than I assumed..... . OR

B) You are being dishonest about not knowing the depth and breadth of AGW pronouncements and conclusions.. OR (my favorite choice)

C) You fail at the process of science by not DEFINING what it is you THINK you are proving to us. And lack the logic to identify your error.

Still nothing... including the testicular fortitude to be honest.

 

[flacaltenn]

You haven't so much as stuck your toe in the water. You claimed that AGW was not falsifiable. I gave you the primary and necessary predictions of AGW and asked you to explain why they were not falsifiable. I've heard nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of a pertinent response from ANY of you. Point me in the right direction if I've missed something, but so far no one has given ONE SINGLE REASON THOSE PREDICTIONS ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE.

You know what I say is true. You know your answer was bullshit.

Did you miss something?? Well YEEAH you did.. The checkpoints you gave are not the tenets of Global Warming predictions and theory that have been widely promulgated.

And the fact that you don't UNDERSTAND that important point tells me you haven't been listening A TWIT as to what any "denier" has been telling you... Tells me -- conversing with you is a waste of time because

A) You are more ignorant of the topic than I assumed..... . OR

B) You are being dishonest about not knowing the depth and breadth of AGW pronouncements and conclusions.. OR (my favorite choice)

C) You fail at the process of science by not DEFINING what it is you THINK you are proving to us. And lack the logic to identify your error.

Still nothing... including the testicular fortitude to be honest.

One more chance Black Knight ----- Write me a short summary of the IMPACTS of Global Warming designed for policy makers..

Let's define what you were ATTEMPTING to prove...

 

[mamooth]

To date this has not happened. Further, humans lack the ability to accurately measure it to the accuracy that is needed in the first place.

The science says both of your claims are wrong. Two separate sensors on the Aqua satellite, AIRS and CERES, do measure it, and they both show OLR decreasing between 2002 to 2011.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822.pdf

 

[westwall]

To date this has not happened. Further, humans lack the ability to accurately measure it to the accuracy that is needed in the first place.

The science says both of your claims are wrong. Two separate sensors on the Aqua satellite, AIRS and CERES, do measure it, and they both show OLR decreasing between 2002 to 2011.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822.pdf

If that were true then the globe would be warming instead of cooling. All legitimate data sets show cooling in every region of the US and in most of Europe., South America, Australia, and Africa.

Further, if the CERES data were accurate and there was indeed an imbalance of ~ 5 W/m2, this planet would have fried, long, long ago. That means the CERES data is faulty.

 

[Abraham3]

I will take your little comments in order....

And I will take your little repartee in the same manner.

1) Direct measurements of the radiative imbalances at the ToA will show that the Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating away (establishes radiative warming)

To date this has not happened. Further, humans lack the ability to accurately measure it to the accuracy that is needed in the first place.

Wrong. Try An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

2) CO2, methane, ozone or other anthropogenic gases will be found to preferentially absorb IR radiation (establishes the Greenhouse Effect)

That the Greenhouse Effect exists is not in doubt. It's impact on climate...is.

The amount of radiation being absorbed is calculable from first principles. The radiative imbalance caused by Greenhouse warming is directly measurable (see point #1). The rough magnitude of the effect is entirely determinant.

3) Humans will be found to be responsible for the vast majority (let's say 95%) of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 (establishes that human activity bears primary responsibility for the CO2-based Greenhouse warming since 1750)

Human contribution to the global CO2 budget is 5%.

I have no idea what you mean by "CO2 budget" and you need to tell us whether you're 5% is of mass, weight, volume or molar volume. And, what makes you think a 5% annual increase is insignificant? We're talking about the atmosphere of our fooking PLANET. Do you realize how big that is?

4) By direct calculation, warming from anthropogenic GHGs will be found responsible for the majority (>50%) of the radiative forcing warming the planet (establishes predominance of Greenhouse warming over other effects)

To date this has not even come close to being determined., In fact the opposite has been shown to be true.

Do you have some evidence for that statement? Cause I've got some evidence for mine. It looks like this:

This was nice. I don't know if it occurred to you anywhere along the way, but the task here was to show that these points were not falsifiable. You, in fact, did your best to demonstrate precisely the opposite. Thanks.

 

[Abraham3]

Did you miss something?? Well YEEAH you did.. The checkpoints you gave are not the tenets of Global Warming predictions and theory that have been widely promulgated.

And the fact that you don't UNDERSTAND that important point tells me you haven't been listening A TWIT as to what any "denier" has been telling you... Tells me -- conversing with you is a waste of time because

A) You are more ignorant of the topic than I assumed..... . OR

B) You are being dishonest about not knowing the depth and breadth of AGW pronouncements and conclusions.. OR (my favorite choice)

C) You fail at the process of science by not DEFINING what it is you THINK you are proving to us. And lack the logic to identify your error.

Still nothing... including the testicular fortitude to be honest.

One more chance Black Knight ----- Write me a short summary of the IMPACTS of Global Warming designed for policy makers..

Let's define what you were ATTEMPTING to prove...

Go stick it up the old wazoo. You all screamed for days that AGW was not falsifiable. Well, guess what? YOU WERE WRONG.

 

[flacaltenn]

Still nothing... including the testicular fortitude to be honest.

One more chance Black Knight ----- Write me a short summary of the IMPACTS of Global Warming designed for policy makers..

Let's define what you were ATTEMPTING to prove...

Go stick it up the old wazoo. You all screamed for days that AGW was not falsifiable. Well, guess what? YOU WERE WRONG.

The herrings that you laid out are not SUFFICIENT to describe AGW tenets and projected effects. It's a waste of everyone's time for you to childishly claim that is all you need to make AGW falsifiable.. Fact that you won't give me a description of what AGW PROJECTS TO HAPPEN --- tells me and everyone else --- you're just dishonest...

I see you drug out tthat IPCC BLATANT LIE about forcings again.. I guess you have no conscience or science..

 

[alan1]

What has caused our global warming?

I've heard that the human body generates enough heat to boil a half gallon of water in 30 minutes.
There are more people on the earth today than ever before.
Maybe it's all the hot people.
Or the sun.
Pick one.

 

[Abraham3]

Liar (FCT).

AGW states that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. The four points I noted show that warming is taking place, that it is being caused by GHGs and that humans are the source of those GHGs. I didn't miss shit. Every point is falsifiable. They just don't happen to be false. You've got diddly squat on all counts. That's what happens when you take up the wrong side of an argument.