Sea ice has no effect on sea elevation, melting land ice does

All that, and you still can't point us to a specific study that actually validates all the math of the other studies.

I think it's laughable that you don't understand what we are asking for.

We are aware of the numerous studies that measure the spectra, but where is the proof that CO2 responds in the atmosphere like claimed.

There are none. Too many variables that cannot be accounted for.

Modeling doesn't count. Please get that through your brain.

 

I think it's laughable that you imagine you're making sense when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you ask for 'proof' of the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is just more evidence that you know nothing about science. There are no 'proofs' in science. The fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that captures and retains inside the atmosphere some of the longwave infrared radiation that the Earth is trying to radiate away into space, is long established science. The fact that you want to deny that scientific fact just demonstrates that you know nothing about science and are arguing for ideological/political reasons, not actual scientific objections.

 

Wow...

That's in your imagination.

I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

My claim is it isn't nearly as strong as you alarmists say it is.

Please make an intelligent argument instead of arguing against your own biased assumptions of others.

 

No, there are no 'proofs' in science. The fact that you talk about proof is a good indication that you know very little about science.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Psychology Today
by Satoshi Kanazawa
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

How ridiculously disingenuous to claim you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas while denying that it behaves like a greenhouse gas. Your claims about this are just unsubstantiated hot air with no connection to reality or the scientific knowledge that has been gained through study, paleoclimate analysis and experimentation about the effects and strength of increases in CO2 levels on the Earth's temperatures.

I make intelligent arguments backed with solid scientific evidence. You make nonsensical arguments backed by nothing but your own hot air and BS.

 

I don't mean a "scientific proof." I mean, prove to us that there is a paper that quantified CO2 forcing and sensitivity in a mixed atmosphere, without modeling correlation to causation.

Can you not follow any reasoning on intent that a person says? Must you skew the meaning of others as to something you can argue against? Are your arguments that weak? A) YES!

How many times must I try to explain this? Yes, CO2 acts like a greenhouse gas. It is a greenhouse gas!

It just does not cause as much temperature increase as claimed.

Yes, it increases temperature. Yes, it behaves like a greenhouse gas.

My God...

No, you are just too blinded by your faith to understand what anyone else is trying to say.

No you don't.

You copy and paste.

Hey...

Please speak to us.

Stop talking into that mirror.

 

The mere fact that you believe there cannot be proof in science is a sad sad thing. There are always proofs. You merely choose to ignore them. I don't and I won't stand for some mumbo jumbo dialog to control money, my money without it. So s0n, go out and find the proof, otherwise the dialog with you is now over. Your inconsistent dialog merely points to a lack of understanding humans. good luck with your inconsistent message board rant. You are LoSiNg and have LoSt

 

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

The world community of scientists says that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that changes in CO2 levels have a very strong effect on the Earth's temperatures and climate patterns. They have enormous amounts of data based on many decades of intensive research to back up their conclusions on this matter.

You, on the other hand, claim that CO2 does not have much of an effect and won't appreciably raise temperatures. Unfortunately, you're just blowing smoke out your butthole without the least bit of actual supporting evidence to back up your anti-science denier cult delusions.

 

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere
water vapour is 0-4% of atmosphere...

water vapour accounts for 50% of GHG effect...

poor sickly/weak/puny CO2 and it's measly oh so tiny .04% is responsible for....20% of the GHG effect !!!....

 

The mere fact that you believe there are proofs in science is a hilarious confirmation that you are a complete ignoramus about science.

There are NEVER any 'proofs' in science; only in math and formal logic. Insisting that there are 'proofs' in science just shows everyone how clueless and stupid you are and how little you know about science.

You merely choose to fantasize about things you can't comprehend. You are lost in the ozone, gibbering nonsense like a maniac.

And there it is! This isn't about any spurious objections to the science supporting AGW; this is all about your own (idiotically misunderstood) economic self interest. You poor deluded dupe.

 

debating science with someone who isn't even on the ground floor of the topic is rather futile...entertaining perhaps but futile...

 

Agreed...you can't debate science with these delusional reality deniers...but you can debunk the demented drivel and misinformation they post with the actual scientific facts, for the benefit of those others reading this forum whose minds are still open to accepting reality.

 

It's more like 70%, maybe more.

The greenhouse effect is said to be in excess of 320 W/m^2. Alarmists studies that quantify CO2 has it's warming at about 30 W/m^2. That's less than 10% of the greenhouse effect. Special cases in very dry regions has CO2 as much as 26% of a smaller greenhouse effect, but even the science provided by the alarmists puts CO2 warming at about 9%. I contend it is even less than this.

What ever percentage you want to place on it, the 30 W/m^2 is very small for the total forcing of 390 W/m^2 it takes at e=1 to have our earths average temperture. If the 390 W/m^2 gives us the 33 degree greenhouse effect, then that indicates it takes approximately 11.8 W/m^2/degree. The stated 1.66 W/m^2 in the AR4 of CO2 forcing increase could only warm the earth by about 0.14 degrees.

 

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere
water vapour is 0-4% of atmosphere...

water vapour accounts for 50% of GHG effect...
It's more like 70%, maybe more.

real answer is



How Much Water Vapor Is in the Earth's Atmosphere?

Have you ever wondered how much water vapor is in the Earth's atmosphere or what the maximum amount is that air can hold? Here's the answer to the question.

Answer: Water vapor exists as an invisible gas in air. The amount of water vapor in air varies according to the temperature and density of air. The amount of water vapor ranges from a trace amount up to 4% of the mass of air. Hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air, so the amount of water vapor is highest in hot, tropical areas and lowest in cold, polar regions.

 

More unsubstantiated hot air. Do you really imagine that your unsupported-by-any-evidence statements have any significance or impress anyone? LOL.

"About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC."

Global warming - What role does water vapor really play?
Scientists say man-made CO2 causes global warming; climate skeptics insist that water vapor is responsible. Here's why both assumptions are true.
OpenKnowledge
September 06, 2010
(excerpts)
Here are the perfect ingredients for a conspiracy theory: water vapor is the most important factor influencing the greenhouse effect but doesn’t feature on the UN’s list of greenhouse gases responsible for anthropogenic global warming. Critics of the idea of man-made global warming love this simple fact and have turned it into one of their most potent arguments to sabotage decisive climate action. So why doesn’t the UN’s climate body the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) list water vapor as a greenhouse gas? It’s because water vapor does not by itself increase temperatures. It amplifies already occurring warming. Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water. The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes regionally. While there is virtually no water vapor above deserts or the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the air above the equator can consist of up to four percent water vapor. In humid equatorial regions, where there is already a strong natural greenhouse effect, additional CO2 and water vapor have little impact on local climate. The opposite is true in cold, dry places, which is one reason why warming is much more pronounced in Polar regions. Regional differences aside, the atmosphere contains on average only 0.4 percent of water vapor and ten times less CO2. This relatively small concentration is another argument often cited to refute the idea of man-made global warming. How can CO2 cause rising temperatures, skeptics demand, if it only accounts for 0.04 percent of the atmosphere? Oxygen and nitrogen are the most abundant elements in the Earth’s atmosphere and make up 99 percent of it. But neither of the two gases traps or emits heat. This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect. If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far. About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

 

For the AGW challenged, here is a cute little video.

http://350.org/a-guy-walks-into-a-bar-and-challenges-a-climate-scientist-on-sea-level-rise/

 

BTW, that's where you're wrong. We are debating more than science and if you don't understand that then you are truly blinded by the religion. so if you wish to debate, come off your horse and prove your side. it's simple.

- - - Updated - - -

No evidence, no proof of concept. LoSiNg

 

No, the sane and rational people are trying to debate the scientific basis for AGW, which you are in clueless, ignorant denial about, while you are obsessed with the un-scientific ideological/economic/political imperatives of the rightwing corporate stooges, that have nothing to do with the scientifically affirmed reality of human caused global warming.

That sums up your position perfectly.

 

You having no evidece is a complete truth. You are embarrassed because you have no way to justify your position. You believe in the religion and lost site of the bigger picture. Which is the science provided is wrong. Again, you need to demonstrate, which you won't, but 120 PPM causes temperature increases. Nor what that temperature would be if it did.

 

And where exactly is this bigger picture that you hold so dear?

 

To show the data. The Raw Data. Your side is afraid to present the real raw data. Instead, the data is manipulated. And there is no explanation on why.

Let the public see the Michael Mann data and let's hear what he did. You and yours are trying to convince people catastrophic conditions exist, yet you have no way of showing us that. Isn't that your big picture? That all humans should be limited in what they do to control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because it is critical to our survival. Isn't that your big picture? yet you show nothing that supports any of those ideas or claims. All I'm asking is you do that or the science do that. They haven't and specific scientist seem to be silent and acting like Gawds, and this behavior has brought the current debate to where it is, and that being the skeptics are now winning popular opinion and it is more and more threatening to the montra which now beecomes fear mongering. Your scientist wish to work in a vacuum and unaccountable to the public. WRONG. See the skeptics are working hard to eliminate that position.

 

Does it bother you how nobody outside of your cult falls for such a crazy cult myth? No need to answer, as clearly it does.

But keep trying. Maybe if you repeat it enough times at higher volume, you'll even start to believe it yourself. After all, we can all see how your devotion is wavering. Reality keeps invading the People's Republic of Denierstan. Provided you have enough faith, you can push it back out.

 

Dude, how many sides are there? There is your side and my side. So I would graciously admit your side most likely doesn't agree, so who else would be in another group? Holy C.

BTW, we know the data is manipulated because they admit it! So agreement is actually there from your side.

Oh, one last point, I don't message board yell unlike your side. I don't have to raise the intensity of my points because they are accurate and fact. Oh darn, prove my devotion is wavering. I stand firmly planted looking at you and all of your peers and tell you you lie and continue to lie and prove it everyday. So the only ones wavering is you and yours, with posts like this. desparate, make more things up and turn around and walk away.

 

Our side agrees the raw data is corrected. After all, if it's not corrected, that would be presenting a false result, and would be a form a lying. Since we don't lie, we are ethically and scientifically bound to apply the corrections.

Your side, however, demands the uncorrected data be presented as the final truth. Scientifically, that would be a total failure. As are your claims that the raw data and algorithms aren't public. You are quite free to take the raw data yourself and work with it. There are in indviduals who do just that. However, you will need to justify your methods. For example, if you leave out the TOBS correction, people are going to ask you why you left out such a necessary correction, and why you think such garbage output matters.

 

No, not as the final truth, but so other experts can examine the algorithm used to correlate raw data to usable data.

 

oh wow, just wow, explain to me why the raw data needs correcting?

And right the false result is against the models, which we've been pointing out. LOL!!!! Unreal.