<yawn> And what's your excuse? You have provided no evidence for such a claim, nor will you ever be doing so. I have no idea what you incorrectly imagine such a test could consist of.
I dont have to fashion any excuses or put on any bad acting. I defer to the science. I dont put myself in the position of being too embarrassed to enter a university campus. I would get an A in their class. You would get an F.
More accurately, you have no excuses, and your bad acting is not a put-on. As long as it agrees with hysterical anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering. BWAHAHHHAAAAA!! Ahem. Unlike you, I have actually studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university. You would definitely have got an F. I got a B (I didn't have as extensive a math background as the geophysics majors).
All the science points in the same direction. You are going in the opposite direction. Until and if you publish work that undermines the mountains of science, your claims and your attempts to characterize strangers on the internet should be laughed out of the room, just as much as any flat earther's claims, or an astrologer's, or a faith healer's. Yes, your claims currently reside on the same shelf as theirs.
You need to cite a respected source for any claim concerning science. What am I supposed to think when you pit your claims of taking a class against the essentially unanimous agreement of those across all nations who have respected credentials in the many fields related to climate?
No I don't. Such claims are absurd, anti-scientific nonsense with no basis in fact, scientific method, or epistemology. I don't need a source for facts that are common knowledge and not controversial, nor do I need a source for the logical implications thereof when I explain them. What you need to do is either show those facts are incorrect, or that there is a flaw in my logic. And you can't. That's why you resort to red herrings and strawman fallacies, and try to change the subject from the science to the sources. AFAIK I don't have any substantive disagreement with the actual scientific consensus that consists of known and uncontroversial empirical facts. As I have asked you numerous times, and you have always declined to say, what exactly do you claim that consensus consists of, and on what basis do you claim its essential unanimity?
Now you appeal to "common knowledge"?? That's just absurd. And, let's remember that in science a fact is a documented observation that includes information such as time, method and place, but NO logic of any kind. There are numerous cites that describe the breadth an depth of agreement on climate change among experts in the many related fields. The IPCC is a good place for you to start if you want to know what has achieved consensus.
The most laughable point so far is that the IPCC cannot be trusted, because some scientists wanted not to participate. So his argument that the authority of the overwhelming majority of scientists across every field of science is not to be trusted is based on holding up the authority of the tiny percentage of scientists who opted out (but who don't actually disagree with the IPCC findings). It's so obviously absurd that it embarrasses itself. And he has no clue he is even doing this, because he is engaged in a backward think. Trying to make him understand this is a waste of time.
First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations February 25, 2015 https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/ Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature. The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2. The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world. The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2. Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2. “We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area,” says Feldman. The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air. The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis. Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 This article discusses a method of estimating the downward flux over land surface. The longwave surface flux was found to increase an average 2.2 of 2.2 watts/meter per decade from 1973 to 2008 due to increases in air temperature and greenhouse gases. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD011800 Part of Abstract: In this article, we first evaluate two widely accepted methods to estimate global atmospheric downward longwave radiation (Ld) under both clear and cloudy conditions, using meteorological observations from 1996 to 2007 at 36 globally distributed sites, operated by the Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD), AmeriFlux, and AsiaFlux Projects. The breakdown of locations is North America (20 sites), Asia (12 sites), Australia (2 sites), Africa (1 site), and Europe (1 site). Part of Conclusion and discussion: 32] We then applied these methods to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in Ld. Long‐term variation in global Ld under all‐sky conditions are reported in this study at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008. We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The increase in Ld is mainly due to the increase in air temperature, water vapor and CO2 concentration. [33] In this study, Ld is calculated from meteorological observations. This article gives a first estimate of long‐term variation in Ld from 1973 to 2008 under all‐sky conditions. The major uncertainty may be caused by the change in cloud characteristics, such as cloud type, base height and temperature. Because the contribution of variation in clouds to long‐term variation in Ld is very small, we believe the trend reported in this study is reliable. Linear trend of daily Ld over 3200 global stations where data are available for at least 300 months (25 years) during the period 1973–2008. One point in the figure represents one station, and the color of the points shows the values of trend in Ld at the stations. The linear trend is calculated from the Mann‐Kendall trend test method. Only the stations that passed the 95% confidence test are shown.
Where is the Outrage Over Climate and Energy Policy? The headlines tell the story, and it’s not a pretty one. Climate realists, like me, are losing the climate change debate. Not because we are wrong. Factually, we win every time! But, we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions.
More Progressive Refusal To Deal With Reality: Climate Change December 12, 2020/ Francis Menton I’m going to start an ongoing series of posts on the subject of the refusal of progressives to deal with the world as it actually exists. The post a couple of days ago covered the futility of attempting to meet racial goals in hiring for top jobs in professions like lawyers, doctors, corporate executives and computer engineers. Today, let’s consider something just as futile: trying to affect world temperature by having one or more developed countries — even a country as large as the United States — reduce “carbon emissions” through expansion of “renewable energy.” You will immediately recognize that this goal — emissions reduction by the U.S. sufficient to affect world temperature — is a principal promise of the incoming Biden administration. READ MORE
You post science, they post opinion pieces by unqualified people. Because that's where the two sides stand. One side has all the science and the global scientific community, and the other has unqualified bloggers and nonscientist footsoldiers.
IOW, after the 1940-1970 cyclical cooling period, the air got warmer, and that made the ground warmer. The "logic" here is typical of the nonscience peddled by hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate campaigners. You could just as "validly" say that this fall's increase in COVID-19 cases is due to declining outside air temperature and people not wearing masks at Trump rallies. In both cases, the latter, though true, is insignificant compared to the former -- but gets a lot more media attention.
But as is almost always the case with anti-fossil-fuel nonscience, that science does not in fact mean what it is claimed to mean. That is false and absurd. There are far more unqualified bloggers and nonscientist footsoldiers on the hysterical anti-fossil-fuel side.
No it's not. It's how we test science. You again prove you know no science. Empirical science always proceeds in three steps: 1. observation or description, which is what you are referring to; 2. explanation, which definitely includes logic; and 3. prediction, which is a logical implication of the explanation. You may notice that the first step does not include logic, while the second and third do. You have repeatedly claimed the authority of a scientific consensus. I agree that there is a scientific consensus, and that its conclusions are very likely correct. We just disagree about what those conclusions are, what the consensus says. So I want you to specify exactly what you claim the consensus is. No it isn't. It's a political organization constituted for political reasons and answerable to political authority, not facts or logic. You claim a scientific consensus.
Lets check the scoreboard: 30 years of an industry created to lie to americans about climate science have passed. Despite the uniquely American phenomenon of climate science denial (that's where the lying industry's efforts were focused, so this only makes sense), the scientific consensus has only gotten stronger, as the mountains of science produced by the most studied scientific topic in history all come in pointing in the same direction. After 30 years of this nonsense, we can look at the scoreboard and see that their intransigence is only matched by their impotence and incompetence. Thank goodness.
Such claims are false and absurd, and reveal a total lack of comprehension of the scientific method. From hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda. Right. Until and if you publish work that undermines the mountains of science, your claims and your attempts to characterize strangers on the internet should be laughed out of the room. The self-evident falsity of such claims is refutation enough.
The only lie is the claim of an anti-science conspiracy. And the leading scientific challengers to AGW orthodoxy are not Americans. They are Henrik Svensmark (Denmark) and Nir Shaviv (Israel), and their work deeply undermines the claimed orthodox AGW consensus.
Paris Climate Accord Climate change: Have countries kept their promises? When you are sea-sick, always remember to go to the leeward (downwind) side of the boat, so that you don’t get your own back. The UK and EU have made themselves rather ill with their “climate” efforts, but when they look at China’s numbers, they must feel like they went to the windward side. Only it wasn’t their own that they got back.
Expert On Germany’s Green Energy Policy: “We Are Threatened With A Dramatic Loss Of Prosperity” By P Gosselin on 13. December 2020 Share this... Die kalte Sonne Image: GWPF Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was interviewed by the Hamburger Abendblatt on a new book he co-authored: “Unerwünschte Wahrheiten: Was Sie über den Klimawandel wissen sollten“ (Unwanted Truths: What You Have To Know About Climate Change). He warns that Germany’s energy policy of transitioning to renewable energies could lead to a “dramatic loss of prosperity”. The interview appeared on December 11, 2020: What follows are some excerpts: . . .
Yes, the leading challengers are americans. American nonscientist goobers who know less than nothing about any of this. No, the paid liars who are paid to lie to them arent mounting any actual challenges. They arent publishing any research or gaining any credibility. They are funding their retirements off the clicks of gullible american dipshits. These dipshits are the only ones having any effect, and that effect is to hamstring the strongest country on earth in its efforts to.combat the global problem. Other civilized countries scratch their heads and roll their eyes at this anti-intellectual tumor.festering in america.
I once again direct you to the scoreboard. See that tiny little round number? That's your team's score.
