Skeptics are not 'deniers' your lexicon itself tells me you are anything but objective. Beyond that, telling me that it's a 'schtick' to demand scientific proof (other than 'because I say so') for AGW, shows some kind of cult-like belief if you ask me.
This post actually does not address what was quoted. It is merely a counter claim. And yes there is evidence and every time you bring up the so called lack of evidence I will ask you to explain the changing IR signature of the planet
Would you explain why you keep referencing an outdated preliminary study to support your IR claim. Oh that is right your favorite would be nazi cherrypicked.
No, I am asking for a replicable experiment that's all. So far I can find nothing. I am not dismissing it out of hand as you seem to want to believe. There is nothing wrong with studying the climate just as there is nothing wrong with studying astrophysics (for instance) or theoretical physics.....But we don't demand 'credits' from human beings for affecting the heavens.
Errrrr - NO sorry old chap but that is like blaming the condom for the STD http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009471_2012009766.pdf Here is a more simplified explanation http://stephenwhitt.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/teaching-about-climate-change/
Its very easy to prove. You reference an SS article from 2009. http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm The article relies heavily on the IR data from Harries et. al. 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html What we need to remember is that Harries et. al. 2001 is a preliminary study comparing only 2 years. The final complete study was released in 2007 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4204.1 While much of the bands were similar there was a stark difference in the critical CO2 band. A comparison between harries 2001 and 2007 As we can see the critical CO2 band(700-750) in the 2007 study doesn't show the dimming present in the 2001 study. (Heading off your almost Pavlovian response the above graph is a combination I put together drawn from figures in Harries 2001 and Lu 2010). Now lets go back to the question of cherry picking its easy to prove with dates. The article was put on SS in 2009. It relies heavily, almost exclusively, on the preliminary 2001 Harries study. However in 2009 the complete Harries 2007 study had been published 2 years prior and there was no reason to use the 2001 data other than the 2001 data painted a better picture than the 2007 data. This is absolute definitive proof of cherry picking. Consider yourself checkmated my little bridy.
From your quote: "The Sun heats the Earth with a mixture of visible and invisible radiation." It's the Sun old gal.
The part in bold is from somewhere in your own mind. If you are under the impression that people have never affected the climate in local areas you are in a poor position to call others Ignorant. Affecting something and controlling it are not the same thing, you know. Toss a match in a dry forest and see if they are the same. Your request for "proof" means you know nothing of science, and your request for a "replicable experiment' does the same. Yet you know more than the scientists around the world who put their lives into such studies. How do you manage self deception on this level?
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" AR 4 2007 "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." AR5 2013" When you confidence goes up after your models fail. You are not engaging in science. That is easy James Hansen. That you would question that scientists like Hansen haven't called it a fact is just trolling at this point. No I cannot because there are only laws. To call a hypothesis that failed verification a fact much less a theory or a law isn't science. Its propaganda. At this stage CAGW is simply a hypothesis. One that needs to be reexamined because it failed verification. This doens't mean it has no validity at all. I would put the forcing of CO2 at 0.1 - 0.2C per doubling as it is pretty much saturated. But that is a far cry from the CAGW hypothesis. I'll agree that you are trolling but as an agnostic(see my posts on religion) Ill bite. Days is a bad translation. A more accurate translation should be indeterminate periods of time. Since you claim to be a person of science why would you insist on using an inaccurate translation? Simple answer you are trolling. As for the flood you need to research the black sea deluge. When this is brought up to militant atheists they go fricking apoplectic because they get great comfort in ridiculing the flood of Noah. They get seriously pissed off to find that there is a great deal of geological and archeological evidence backing up an actual although exaggerated event. Some Christians might be misguided but most atheists are absolute dicks!
I believe the subject is GLOBAL warming, climate change, etc not LOCAL effects. Of course humans can cause LOCAL changes, most big cities (where the majority of Liberals live) can have polluted water and air as these enviro-zealots poop in their own backyards and blame everyone else. To somehow extrapolate that into some global catastrophe is pretty ignorant. I asked for any proof human beings can control climate, you are moving the goal posts so, apparently you admit that human beings CANNOT control the climate. Since the forest fire did not exist BEFORE the human tossed the match, there is no valid comparison to AGW, GW or climate change. I see you just couldn't resist in insulting me which further negates your argument.
Yet they also pass of these local effects as global climate change. Such as east coast cities building into their natural tidal wetlands destroying the natural hurricane buffer. Warmmongers scream global warming when Sandy hit the but main culprit was poor land management.
Not that it makes sense to say "there are only laws But why did you speak of facts if you know that 'scientific fact' doesnt really mean anything. No scientist would do that. simple insult, you mean. "Six day poof' is just shorthand. Ask a "Christian" it it is supposed to be six days. How droll! My minor is in geology. The black sea and mediterranean have long been well known to have dried and reflooded more than once Some latter day publicity seeker connected it to the "flood". The refilling of a lake is a mighty far cry from a world wide flood that covered the highest hills / mountains and called for an "ark". its good dead pan humour to see a creationist bring up the black sea thing as support for the bible account. Talk about fluffing up a story! . No reason anyone would be, it does far more to discredit the wildly exaggerated and ridiculous bible story from a supposedly infallible book. Name calling is so intellectual.
This is perhaps the most ignorant post made recently. That's like saying that new reporters will lose their jobs if Phil Robertson stops making stupid bigoted statements. AGW is only a very small part of climatology studies but it happens to be one part that all of the climatologists agree on.
Correlation is too easily passed off as causation on the ignorant masses, especially in the pseudo-sciences.
Thinking that a known effect cannot be scaled up has something to do with scales... over eyes. It has been demonstrated that humans affect climate over much larger areas than cities. I never suggested that people can "control" the climate. That is why i gave the match in a forest example. its not under control. I wasnt making a comparison. Its is simple an example of something you can affect but not control. I could as well have suggested a 3 yr old grabbing the wheel of an airplane of fiddling with reactor controls. You do get the idea of affecting something not being the same as controlling it? Humans can and do affect the climate. Do you have some line you can draw on how big an area? Like creos think there is a line that genetic change can go so far but not past the line of making for a new species? I said this...Yet you know more than the scientists around the world who put their lives into such studies. How do you manage self deception on this level? i believe it is a very accurate description of your belief in your greater understanding than that of the scientists. if its an insult, its you insulting yourself with nonsense. AND btw, after all your name calling getting all sensitive about a dwedful insult is, you know, hypocritical?
What does Phil Robertson have to do with AGW? He is not on any kind of grant to study anything. Talk about 'ignorant.' What self-respecting, government/private grant/endowment funded climatologist is willing to kill the 'Golden Goose?' "Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd." http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/ Then there is the suppression of skeptics. "New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals." "A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277
What's ironic is, IF the AGW people turn out to be exactly correct, and the globe does warm up about 2 degrees over the next 100 years, there will STILL be cold places, and cold spells, and snowfalls, and denialists pointing to every one and saying "see, I told you so." And not all the facts in the world could change their mind then, anymore than now. "There is no limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence."
Dont know if you are trolling or your poor English makes it impossible for you to comprehend the argument. James Hansen isn't a scientist?
Im jusr going to say simply that what you just said is a fricking outright lie!!! When Ryan and Pitman first published their findings it was a major discovery. You are outright lying! Although a child such as yourself might regard 1996 as long long ago.
