Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

Right, so you have 3 things, models, increase in temperature and increase in CO2.

Most climatologists agree the models are wrong, they have that much fudge in them to try and make them mimic actuality, they could open a sweet shop.

Secondly, we know temperature is going up and we know CO2 is going up. Where is your science to show the relationship? For the last 600 million years Temperature has driven CO2, and the atmospheric warming is also in the wrong place.

The 3 things are

CO2 increasing - I think we both agree this is a real measurement.

Temperature increasing - again I think we both agree this is a real measurement 

Finally, and crucially, we have direct measurements the energy leaving the earth is falling and it is falling in the bands we would expect for co2 and other gasses.

These are all measurements - no climate models were involved.

Separately we have estimates of energy imbalance from ocean temperature measurements which tally with the measurements from space 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled/

Again, this has nothing to do with climate models.

So we have 4 bits of direct, contemporary evidence pointing towards CO2etc reducing outgoings radiation and this heating the planet.

We have experimental and theoretical evidence as to why CO2 can trap heat in the atmosphere and cause global warming.

All you have an assertion that CO2 cannot drive temperature.  You don't have any explanation as to why that might be the case beyond "nature wouldn't allow that". 

I will now touch in your citation and why it speaks volumes about your approach 

[Nick]

No.

Models are used to understand (and predict) what is happening. The source for all of them are observations and measurements.

First we have the observation that the earth is warming from direct temperature measurements around the globe.  We also have inferred measurements of past temperatures

Then we have the observation that the concentration of certain gasses (co2 etc) in the atmosphere is increasing. Again we have direct measurements of recent changes and inferred measurements of past concentrations

Finally, we have the observation that the earth's radiance is falling in certain wavelengths associated with the same gasses that are rising in concentration. (That is to say the earth is radiating less energy into space)

From Harries 2001

The change in measured radiance of the earth between 1970 and 1997.

From Teixeira, Wilson, Trastarson 2023

Annual mean radiance differences from the AIRS observations (blue line) and from theory (red line for the mean and red shading for the standard deviation), ...and illustrating the direct impact of CO2 increase on the spectral radiances during the 2003-2012 period

So we have an increase in certain gasses and a decrease in outgoing radiation is the bands we would expect to decrease given the spectral fingerprints or those gasses.  We then have an increase in temperature in line with what we would expect given the fall in radiance.

Right, so you have 3 things, models, increase in temperature and increase in CO2. 

Most climatologists agree the models are wrong, they have that much fudge in them to try and make them mimic actuality, they could open a sweet shop. 

Secondly, we know temperature is going up and we know CO2 is going up. Where is your science to show the relationship? For the last 600 million years Temperature has driven CO2, and the atmospheric warming is also in the wrong place. 

[BeElBeeBub]

You rely on data from models, where's the science?
This will be my only response until you post some.

No.

Models are used to understand (and predict) what is happening. The source for all of them are observations and measurements.

First we have the observation that the earth is warming from direct temperature measurements around the globe.  We also have inferred measurements of past temperatures

Then we have the observation that the concentration of certain gasses (co2 etc) in the atmosphere is increasing. Again we have direct measurements of recent changes and inferred measurements of past concentrations

Finally, we have the observation that the earth's radiance is falling in certain wavelengths associated with the same gasses that are rising in concentration. (That is to say the earth is radiating less energy into space)

From Harries 2001

The change in measured radiance of the earth between 1970 and 1997.

From Teixeira, Wilson, Trastarson 2023

Annual mean radiance differences from the AIRS observations (blue line) and from theory (red line for the mean and red shading for the standard deviation), ...and illustrating the direct impact of CO2 increase on the spectral radiances during the 2003-2012 period

So we have an increase in certain gasses and a decrease in outgoing radiation is the bands we would expect to decrease given the spectral fingerprints or those gasses.  We then have an increase in temperature in line with what we would expect given the fall in radiance.

[Nick]

The case for AGW is the mass of data and models collected by tens of thousands of scientists around the world over decades.

I'll try and list your objections (I may miss some)

November 2023 was cold - It was 0.1C colder than average but the winter as whole was significantly warmer than average

The heat capacity of CO2 is too small - the heat capacity of CO2 is not what causes global warming, it's the absorption profile in the long IR spectrum.

It would take 15,000 years for human emissions to raise the co2 levels by what has been observed.- nope, your calculation was catastrophically wrong.

CO2 has never caused warming, here's a graph showing it lagging warming into he past - and here's a graph showing co2 proceeding warming (plus one of the studies cited explicitly endorses AGW)  you reply "that doesn't prove co2 cause warming" - fair enough, correlation does not mean causation. But we do have mountain of evidence, both theoretical, experimental and directly measured that shows increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere reduce the amount of energy the earth can radiate away.

We have evidence warming releases more CO2 and nature would never design a situation where there could be a positive feedback - nature doesn't "design" anything, that's not a thing and there are hundreds of examples of positive feedback in nature which is why scientists are worried we might accidentally trigger one

It's no problem, the easy has been hotter and had more co2 in the past - yes but never in human existence.

Ice ages were crucial to mankind's evolution - very possibly but they also reduced the human population to near extinction levels

I'm sure i've.missed some.

You rely on data from models, where's the science?
This will be my only response until you post some. 

[BeElBeeBub]

How many do you want?

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/

A nice infographic but I would question it's validity.
First, let's discount people form the 12th century saying the earth orbits the sun.  They weren't being scorned by scientists, they were being scorned by non-scientists.

I would question some of the timescales.
For example they have the Wright Brothers in pariah status for 45 years after their historic 1st flight in 1903.... So the theory that human flight was possible was dismissed as a crank theory until after WW2?
Goddard's theories on liquid rocket propulsion were crank theories right thought the 1920's, when German rocket scientists became interested, ww2 when the Germans were firijg V2 rockets at London and the entire space race until the Apollo program?

Tesla was never dismissed as a crank. His induction motor was and is the backbone of the industrial electromotive world and AC electrical distribution was adopted world wide.

The majority of the modern people mentioned in that document saw their theories adopted by the mainstream far quicker than the graphic suggests.


It is true most scientific theories start out at the fringe. That's the point.  They are subjected to scrutiny, testing, experiment etc. If they stand up they are swiftly adopted.  That's the point of science.  

Many of the theories the deniers advocate are not new, they have been seen before and subjected to scrutiny before being rejected because they failed the teats.  Sunspots, orbital variations, solar cycles etc have all been suggested multiple times and debunked multiple times.

I guarantee, if some scientists came up with proof counter to the current theories, itnwoiid be adopted swiftly.

My god can you imagine if we didn't have to cut carbon at all?  It would make life so much simpler and cheaper (at least until OPEC or Russia decide to screw us again) 

[cromwell]

Can you name some?

One that comes to mind is the pair who discovered Helicobacter pylori caused ulcers and revolutionised ulcer treatment.  It's notable in that case that it wasn't really a case of scientists suppressing the discovery, just it hadn't been discovered. Once they showed their results the scientific community moved enthusiastically.

Likewise, remember when the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs was novel?  Now it's mainstream.

There were also scientists in the past who argued against scientific consensus and claimed smoking was safe, asbestos was safe, that leaded petrol was safe.

It's interesting in those cases that the majority of scientists claimed they were unsafe which would have been inconvenient for a large industry.  And then there were a few voices claiming it was all crap, the product in question was perfectly safe and questioning the science. Those often turned out to have been funded by those industries.  Ultimately they lost but they did delay public action for a considerable time.

How many do you want?

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/

[BeElBeeBub]

You do know there were scientists in the past who were ridiculed as their thoughts did not align with the majority who were later vindicated.

Can you name some?

One that comes to mind is the pair who discovered Helicobacter pylori caused ulcers and revolutionised ulcer treatment.  It's notable in that case that it wasn't really a case of scientists suppressing the discovery, just it hadn't been discovered. Once they showed their results the scientific community moved enthusiastically.

Likewise, remember when the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs was novel?  Now it's mainstream.

There were also scientists in the past who argued against scientific consensus and claimed smoking was safe, asbestos was safe, that leaded petrol was safe. 

It's interesting in those cases that the majority of scientists claimed they were unsafe which would have been inconvenient for a large industry.  And then there were a few voices claiming it was all crap, the product in question was perfectly safe and questioning the science. Those often turned out to have been funded by those industries.  Ultimately they lost but they did delay public action for a considerable time.

[BeElBeeBub]

Each one of my so called contrarians explain the science against AGW.

I've asked Beel to show me the science for AGW and he's failed, would you as a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue be able to give me this information?

The case for AGW is the mass of data and models collected by tens of thousands of scientists around the world over decades.

I'll try and list your objections (I may miss some)

November 2023 was cold - It was 0.1C colder than average but the winter as whole was significantly warmer than average

The heat capacity of CO2 is too small - the heat capacity of CO2 is not what causes global warming, it's the absorption profile in the long IR spectrum.

It would take 15,000 years for human emissions to raise the co2 levels by what has been observed.- nope, your calculation was catastrophically wrong.

CO2 has never caused warming, here's a graph showing it lagging warming into he past - and here's a graph showing co2 proceeding warming (plus one of the studies cited explicitly endorses AGW)  you reply "that doesn't prove co2 cause warming" - fair enough, correlation does not mean causation. But we do have mountain of evidence, both theoretical, experimental and directly measured that shows increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere reduce the amount of energy the earth can radiate away.

We have evidence warming releases more CO2 and nature would never design a situation where there could be a positive feedback - nature doesn't "design" anything, that's not a thing and there are hundreds of examples of positive feedback in nature which is why scientists are worried we might accidentally trigger one 

It's no problem, the easy has been hotter and had more co2 in the past - yes but never in human existence.

Ice ages were crucial to mankind's evolution - very possibly but they also reduced the human population to near extinction levels

I'm sure i've.missed some.

[cromwell]

Saying what you want to be true and posting it without corroboration doesn't help your argument.

As you mention NASA, have a look at this:...

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

You do know there were scientists in the past who were ridiculed as their thoughts did not align with the majority who were later vindicated.

[Nick]

You link to five alleged contrarians — out of the claimed hundreds of NASA and other organisations' climatologists you say dispute the claims made and/or accepted by overwhelming majority of publishing climate scientists.

Which of the links carries a categorical denial of human influence on the climate...?

Each one of my so called contrarians explain the science against AGW.

I've asked Beel to show me the science for AGW and he's failed, would you as a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue be able to give me this information?

[patman post]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)
https://cgcs.mit.edu/people/lindzen-richard
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/climate/s-fred-singer-dead.html
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/

As you can see these are all scientific no marks, 🥱

Pat, you can continue on your trajectory of supremacy or actually debate. The choice is yours.

You link to five alleged contrarians — out of the claimed hundreds of NASA and other organisations' climatologists you say dispute the claims made and/or accepted by overwhelming majority of publishing climate scientists.

Which of the links carries a categorical denial of human influence on the climate...?

[Nick]

Saying what you want to be true and posting it without corroboration doesn't help your argument.

As you mention NASA, have a look at this:...

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)
https://cgcs.mit.edu/people/lindzen-richard
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/climate/s-fred-singer-dead.html
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/

As you can see these are all scientific no marks, 🥱 

Pat, you can continue on your trajectory of supremacy or actually debate. The choice is yours. 

[patman post]

The big difference is that there is scientific evidence that the Earth is not flat, and there is not one single PHD on the planet that thinks it is. There are 100's of PHD climatologists working for institutes like NASA, Harvard etc that say that AGW is based on the worst science in history. I have asked you 5 times to provide the scientific and mathematical evidence that AGW is a thing and you have totally ignored it. You're the one following the doctrine from a group believing the unbelievable.

Saying what you want to be true and posting it without corroboration doesn't help your argument.

As you mention NASA, have a look at this:...

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

[Nick]

Have you noticed a trend here @cromwell? We don't get any science, we just get called heretics and an attempt to ridicule. Sad really. 

[Nick]

I guess I could make the point that the faster my SUV travels along the motorway the nearer my right foot gets to the floor.

Should I then wonder if my breakfast coffee, my new shirt, the music I'm playing, the blue sky, or any of the many other factors I might identify, are causing the vehicle to speed...?

I think ridiculous has just reached a new low. 
Samuel Langhorn Clemens has a perfect saying about this, I'll let you guess which one.