Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[DC]

The last time I asked,months ago, the different answers and attempts to avoid answering were educational. This should be as well.

And before anyone asks, no, there never was a definition or any explanation of what would prove the undefined "AGW" to be wrong.

there was, why do you lie?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
The last time I asked,months ago, the different answers and attempts to avoid answering were educational.

Prove it - show the posts or admit you are lying.

 

[DC]

he already admited his lie on this one.....

Something I noticed while lurking on another forum was that the people claiming AGW, or global warming, or climate change, they would do anything except state what they meant by the terms.

The last time I asked,months ago, the different answers....

atleast you make no secret about the fact that you are indeed a liar.

 

[r-j]

anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhosue gasses do to human activity will cause warming as it increases the greenhouse effect. this global warming is causing climatic changes.
.

Does anyone else agree with that definition of AGW?

Last time I asked there was quite a bit of confusion from the usual suspects.

The climate science taught to all university students includes the standard and accepted AGW theories.

What are " the standard and accepted AGW theories"? Where are they explained? What predictions do they make? How can you know if the theories are correct or not?

These are basic questions.

if you have a link to your favorite skepticalscience.com that explains this, then provide it.

Otherwise, you are avoiding a crucial issue.

Posting an insult instead of a link will only lower your score.

 

[DC]

Does anyone else agree with that definition of AGW?

Last time I asked there was quite a bit of confusion from the usual suspects.

i can't speak for others, you will have to ask them. did you perhabs find other definitions that contradict the one i gave you?

and you can be offended as much you like by me pointing out that you are indeed a liar.

if you don't liek to be called a liar, maybe you should stop the lies?

 

[macdoc]

My definition and DC's are essentially the same except mine is spelled better

You are not going to sow dissent....

ANSWER THE QUESTION R-J !!!!

is Tillson wrong or are you?

 

[macdoc]

What are " the standard and accepted AGW theories"? Where are they explained? What predictions do they make? How can you know if the theories are correct or not?

You've been provided answers as to where they are...

HAVE YOU READ THEM???

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

answer that question......or will you lie about that as well.

Calling you a liar when it is true is not an insult it's an observation. No one here cares a wit about your "evaluation" of them. The person lacking credibility is you.
What we'd like to do is get a mod to dispense with your constant disruption and repetition. That IS trolling....

 

[ideogram]

I predict that in the next hundred responses ... Nobody will define, much less explain what they mean.

This prediction has already been proven false.

 

[aleCcowaN]

What do you mean when you use "AGW"? To save even more time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change also does not contain the term "anthropogenic global warming".

How do you define AGW? And what would disprove it?

Why do you ask if you answered it yourself?

 

[r-j]

You've been provided answers as to where they are...

HAVE YOU READ THEM???

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Just like the last time, the link you point to does not contain AGW, or even the word theory. No "theory of global warming", no "AGW theory", not even "anthropogenic", much less "anthropogenic global warming".

So I ask you what you mean by AGW, and you post a link that doesn't even contain the term. Now that is either trolling or extreme ignorance.

Once again, what do you mean when you use the term "AGW"?

 

[r-j]

if you want to replace the AGW theory

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody, to explain what they mean by "AGW theory". The links do not contain the term.

This prediction has already been proven false.

There has been no link to what is meant by "AGW", much less a scientific explanation of what is meant when you use the term.

At least DC tried to explain what he means when he says "AGW", though it is a tautology and fails in even a rudimentary sense to proceed in a scientific way.

 

[r-j]

This will do for me as well

anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhouse gases due to human activity have caused observable warming as it increases the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Global warming is causing climatic changes.

Disproof would consist of an overturn of the physics governing C02 absorption of LW radiation.

Does anyone else agree with that definition of "AGW"? And the claim that the only way of "disproving" AGW is to overturn physics?

Does anyone think that definition meets the requirements of being a scientific theory?

 

[ideogram]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody, to explain what they mean by "AGW theory". The links do not contain the term.

There has been no link to what is meant by "AGW", much less a scientific explanation of what is meant when you use the term.

At least DC tried to explain what he means when he says "AGW", though it is a tautology and fails in even a rudimentary sense to proceed in a scientific way.

The prediction was false. That's not the same thing as objecting to the answer.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well r-j, after 14 posts of yours I hope your last conceptual confusion was finally solved. You have still many topics pending here, like some of your last outbursts:

I mean even if you used the NH land only mean to answer, since it is a US question, the answer, .89 degrees C warmer, still doesn't tell you much about the actual climate.

(2012 mean minus the 1960 mean)

So you say, which is both unscientific, as well as making the question useless. Taking a global estimate of the land/sea anomaly and trying to extract anything useful out of it for any given area is as meaningless as it gets. It's like a farmer asking how much has rainfall changed for Kansas, and you give him the global precipitation anomaly figure for the last 50 years. It means less than nothing.

I saw the responses of course. The personal attacks from the usual suspects here is neither surprising nor bothersome. It's just what passes for science on the forum. It's meaningless.

What is meaningful is climate records from the NCDC, which show many useful and important things, for all the regions you mentioned. That is what you will never see here. Even when it would advance knowledge, be educational. Give the bored casuals something to discuss.

That's a good point. There should be a topic about climate change.

By those you came back to your old custom of erasing the previous discussion when they come against your preferred outcome -that is, always-. I still have the data -useless to me- from which I showed you you were completely wrong about the trends in your state of adoption and the Bible Belt as a whole. That is the information YOU said to be useful, but you didn't like the conclusions so you erased with your elbow what you wrote with your hand and threw a temper tantrum pontificating about what is useful information and what is not.

I hope you'll abandon that deleterious pattern of yours and join the discussion. I had my highest hopes that it would be you who'd pointed the errors in that governmental scientific page. More than a year went on and those horrible errors continue to be there. Nobody has said what the errors are nor emailed them to ask for corrections. It's a real shame.

 

[DC]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody, to explain what they mean by "AGW theory". The links do not contain the term.

There has been no link to what is meant by "AGW", much less a scientific explanation of what is meant when you use the term.

At least DC tried to explain what he means when he says "AGW", though it is a tautology and fails in even a rudimentary sense to proceed in a scientific way.

i told you exactly what i mean by it. i did not only try, i provided the definition you asked for.

it always meant the same as it means today. it never changed. its very very very simple. all you need is the definition of all 3 words and put them together.

Humans are causing the globe to warm up.
very very simple.

i don't know what game you try to play here, but it lets you look extremely dishonest and ignorant.

ETA: is your pont maybe that i should say, not rising SAT or even declining SAT does disprove AGW? if that is your point you are wrong, i already explained in this thread that even if the globe would be cooling, dependend on the cause of it, it still would not disprove AGW. the world is warmer than it would be without the increased GHG's do to human activity.

 

[r-j]

Like I said, every post with out a link or an explanation of what is meant by "AGW" just proves my point. Now the question is also about the DC/macdoc definition. Do you agree with it? And does it meet the definition of a scientific theory? Like the ones taught to every climate student.

Ridicule is about taking away the mystique and credibility of ridiculous things by exposing them for what they are. Ridiculous.

 

[ideogram]

I would like to say I admire anyone who is able to gracefully admit they are wrong.

 

[DC]

Like I said, every post with out a link or an explanation of what is meant by "AGW" just proves my point. Now the question is also about the DC/macdoc definition. Do you agree with it? And does it meet the definition of a scientific theory? Like the ones taught to every climate student.

i explained several times what i mean by AGW, what is your problem?
how do you define AGW then? what is your definition? tell us.

 

[lionking]

When all deniers have left is pedantry, they have lost the debate. Comprehensively.

 

[r-j]

i told you exactly what i mean by it. i did not only try, i provided the definition you asked for.

I replied that you did explain what you mean when you use "AGW". You must have missed the post.

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.

Does anyone agree with that? He claimed "I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your 'Theory of Global Warming'"

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

Does anyone agree with that? He claimed "AGW theory" doesn't exist. or "theory of global warming", or "global warming theory".

Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

We have three sources talking about "global warming theory", but still nobody has linked to a scientific explanation of even one of the theories.