How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political. Show us some evidence.

Is the IPCC a sceintific body or a political body?

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect. Show us some evidence.

Show you evidence of something that does not exist? Are you really that stupid?

The only portion of the greenhouse process that mandates radiative heat transfer is from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere. Conductive transfer from the surface or within the atmosphere would have no wavelength-dependent component and thus the presence or absence of GHGs would be irrelevant.

Sorry skidmark...but that isn't what climate science says...Figures that you wouldn't even have a clue as to what climate science says the greenhouse effect is. You are just that stupid.. Climate science says that it is the re radiation of energy from the atmosphere back to the surface which warms the surface and in turn causes more radiation to emit from the surface than would otherwise be emitted due to absorbing energy from the sun...

So far, I (and several others) have successfully refute your contentions. That makes you the stupid one.

So far you, and your waco buds have only managed to argue against the arguments that you made up...the wait continues for you to actually address what I have said...when might you learn to read well enough to comprehend what is actually being said and answer that?

ONE: air, even at one atm pressure, is a very poor conductor. TWO: conductive efficiency is pressure (ie, density) dependent and thus the higher we get, the less heat transfer occurs by conduction and the more by radiation. Convection, to a lesser degree, is also density dependent.

Hence the warming...if air were a fine conductor then the energy would move on very quickly....the more quickly energy is moved, the more efficient the cooling effect. Be glad that energy doesn't move through the troposphere via radiation.. earth would be a ball of ice.

I have no problem showing you technical definitions of the greenhouse effect.

All models all the time...Care to provide an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect?

You really seem to have a need to think you're feared. How incredibly pathetic.

What's to fear....other than the laughter that erupts over you having your ass handed to you.....lets hear the description of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere whose energy movement is dominated by conduction...

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm. Show us some evidence.

The fact that spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed or measured pretty much makes my case for me...You want a measurement of energy not spontaneously moving from cool to warm...fine...pick any measurement ever made

The second law states no such thing. Your contention here violates Planck, Stefan-Boltzman, the conservation of energy and special relativity. But that doesn't bother you because you're a troll.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The second law and the laws from which it was developed all deal with NET heat transfer.

Interesting that the statement of the law doesn't mention net....do you think they forgot to mention it? Do you think science isn't capable of making a statement that says what they mean? You want it to mean net...and will lie in an effort to convince people that it means net as if science weren't capable of speaking for itself...

No, you have not. You have tried, but those attempts have been plagued by errors and bad science. Planets are not heated by the gravitational compression of their atmospheres. Atmospheric gases moving down and being compressed by hydrostatic pressure and thus warming are exactly balanced by atmospheric gases moving upwards and cooling.

The only plague is your stupidity and misunderstanding...

I have said to you several times now, the natural factors show no correlation with ozone depletion changes. Your contention is akin to saying we cannot know that drinking alcohol increases traffic accidents because we have not eliminated the possibility that it is caused by exposure to carbonated mixers or stale peanuts.

Sure skidmark...you say lots of things...but when it comes to supporting the things you say, you are an abject failure... Lets see the papers which seriously examined the natural factors and dismissed them as irrelevant? You keep talking, but when it comes time to provide the evidence, that the natural factors were not important, you fail every time...in real science, the first order of business is to examine all natural factors and weed them out one by one till nothing but anthropogenic causes are left...no such effort was ever made regarding the ozone hole...the jump was straight to anthropogenic causes to support an alarmist narrative...no actual science was ever done with the intent of getting to the truth...pseudoscience was done to support a narrative.

It is not the consensus which is generally credited to the massive and perfect conspiracy but the fact that all the data support AGW. .

What data? Neither you, nor all of climate science can provide a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...Which data are you talking about? Are you calling the output of failed climate models data?

That is absolute nonsense.

And yet here are regional records from all across the globe that don't show anything like the warming shown in the highly manipulated, massaged, homogenized, infilled global record.

Look at this graph and point out the similarity between it and these regional records from across the globe... the warming only shows up in the fraudulent global record..it doesn't appear in regional records..

I have demonstrated more than once that is false.

Actually, you are the one who has been proven to be a liar...just this week you claimed that I had NEVER provided published work to support my claims..it took about 30 seconds to prove that you lied...

I have provided evidence to support every one of my claims. You have provided no evidence in most cases and in those few in which you did provide evidence, it failed to support your contention.

Not even close...you provide a web address in which you can find nothing to bring forward that won't get you laughed at..

 

[Crick]

You have an astounding capacity for blowing past the many, many exchanges in which YOU get your ass handed to you. Your disconnect from reality, whether real (in your mind) or manufactured (for trolling) is only being fed by interaction. Both of us will best be served if no one engages you.

Many people have advised me that I have been wasting my time arguing with you. They were right.

Though I know you will gloat for days, I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.

 

[SSDD]

You have an astounding capacity for blowing past the many, many exchanges in which YOU get your ass handed to you. Your disconnect from reality, whether real (in your mind) or manufactured (for trolling) is only being fed by interaction. Both of us will best be served if no one engages you.

Many people have advised me that I have been wasting my time arguing with you. They were right.

Though I know you will gloat for days, I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.

Rarely if ever happens...in your ignorance, I don't doubt that you often have no idea how badly you have been embarrassed...if you did, I doubt that you would even show up here...

 

[Confounding]

I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.

He was never open to the possibility that he might be wrong. He's set in his ways and has done all of the growing he'll ever do.

 

[SSDD]

I hope that you still have enough contact with the real world to understand what it means to have earned the loss of our consideration.

He was never open to the possibility that he might be wrong. That's why he's incapable of growing.

Of course I am...which is why I have been devouring the literature for 3 decades... You seem to think that I just woke up one day and decided that the AGW hypothesis was incorrect. Not the case at all. I put a fair amount of creedence in the hypothesis some time ago...but being a thinking person, I am not the sort to simply place blind trust in what someone says just because they call themselves a scientist. The more of the literature I read, the less creedence I put in it...

Here is the thing....in real science...that is science being done for the sake of learning the truth, a hypothesis is put forward, to explain a thing...tests and observations are done to test the hypothesis, and predictions are made...if the predictions come to pass, then more testing and observation are done and more predictions are made...and so long as the hypothesis is able to make accurate predictions, the testing continues. In actual science though, when a hypothesis experiences a predictive failure, then it becomes suspect...in some instances a single predictive failure is enough to falsify a hypothesis...send it to the scrap heap and prompt work on a new hypothesis. If a single predictive failure isn't enough to falsify it, then that failure is enough to warrant modification of the hypothesis since some part of it was clearly wrong...otherwise it would not have experienced the predictive failure...

The past several decades are literally littered with predictive failures of the AGW hypothesis..and not minor failures, serious failures...and yet, the hypothesis has not been modified at all. The climate sensitivity numbers keep going down...form as high as 6 to 8 degrees per doubling of CO2 down to less than a degree now for a doubling of CO2...the hypothesized mechanism has not changed at all though...they just keep adjusting the amount of change due to a doubling of CO2 down. That is not science, and it doesn't represent the scientific method. In real science, a hypothesis that experiences predictive failures is falsified and work begins on a new hypothesis that can more accurately predict what will happen...in pseudoscience, however, predictive failures don't mean much so long as the funding continues.

The repeated failure of the hypothesis to accurately predict what will happen next, coupled with it's complete inability to even predict what has happened in the recent past simply invalidates it as a viable claim...it is being propped up by politics and not by any actual evidence it produces to support the claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political. Show us some evidence.

Is the IPCC a sceintific body or a political body?

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect. Show us some evidence.

Show you evidence of something that does not exist? Are you really that stupid?

The only portion of the greenhouse process that mandates radiative heat transfer is from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere. Conductive transfer from the surface or within the atmosphere would have no wavelength-dependent component and thus the presence or absence of GHGs would be irrelevant.

Sorry skidmark...but that isn't what climate science says...Figures that you wouldn't even have a clue as to what climate science says the greenhouse effect is. You are just that stupid.. Climate science says that it is the re radiation of energy from the atmosphere back to the surface which warms the surface and in turn causes more radiation to emit from the surface than would otherwise be emitted due to absorbing energy from the sun...

So far, I (and several others) have successfully refute your contentions. That makes you the stupid one.

So far you, and your waco buds have only managed to argue against the arguments that you made up...the wait continues for you to actually address what I have said...when might you learn to read well enough to comprehend what is actually being said and answer that?

ONE: air, even at one atm pressure, is a very poor conductor. TWO: conductive efficiency is pressure (ie, density) dependent and thus the higher we get, the less heat transfer occurs by conduction and the more by radiation. Convection, to a lesser degree, is also density dependent.

Hence the warming...if air were a fine conductor then the energy would move on very quickly....the more quickly energy is moved, the more efficient the cooling effect. Be glad that energy doesn't move through the troposphere via radiation.. earth would be a ball of ice.

I have no problem showing you technical definitions of the greenhouse effect.

All models all the time...Care to provide an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect?

You really seem to have a need to think you're feared. How incredibly pathetic.

What's to fear....other than the laughter that erupts over you having your ass handed to you.....lets hear the description of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere whose energy movement is dominated by conduction...

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm. Show us some evidence.

The fact that spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed or measured pretty much makes my case for me...You want a measurement of energy not spontaneously moving from cool to warm...fine...pick any measurement ever made

The second law states no such thing. Your contention here violates Planck, Stefan-Boltzman, the conservation of energy and special relativity. But that doesn't bother you because you're a troll.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The second law and the laws from which it was developed all deal with NET heat transfer.

Interesting that the statement of the law doesn't mention net....do you think they forgot to mention it? Do you think science isn't capable of making a statement that says what they mean? You want it to mean net...and will lie in an effort to convince people that it means net as if science weren't capable of speaking for itself...

No, you have not. You have tried, but those attempts have been plagued by errors and bad science. Planets are not heated by the gravitational compression of their atmospheres. Atmospheric gases moving down and being compressed by hydrostatic pressure and thus warming are exactly balanced by atmospheric gases moving upwards and cooling.

The only plague is your stupidity and misunderstanding...

I have said to you several times now, the natural factors show no correlation with ozone depletion changes. Your contention is akin to saying we cannot know that drinking alcohol increases traffic accidents because we have not eliminated the possibility that it is caused by exposure to carbonated mixers or stale peanuts.

Sure skidmark...you say lots of things...but when it comes to supporting the things you say, you are an abject failure... Lets see the papers which seriously examined the natural factors and dismissed them as irrelevant? You keep talking, but when it comes time to provide the evidence, that the natural factors were not important, you fail every time...in real science, the first order of business is to examine all natural factors and weed them out one by one till nothing but anthropogenic causes are left...no such effort was ever made regarding the ozone hole...the jump was straight to anthropogenic causes to support an alarmist narrative...no actual science was ever done with the intent of getting to the truth...pseudoscience was done to support a narrative.

It is not the consensus which is generally credited to the massive and perfect conspiracy but the fact that all the data support AGW. .

What data? Neither you, nor all of climate science can provide a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...Which data are you talking about? Are you calling the output of failed climate models data?

That is absolute nonsense.

And yet here are regional records from all across the globe that don't show anything like the warming shown in the highly manipulated, massaged, homogenized, infilled global record.

Look at this graph and point out the similarity between it and these regional records from across the globe... the warming only shows up in the fraudulent global record..it doesn't appear in regional records..

I have demonstrated more than once that is false.

Actually, you are the one who has been proven to be a liar...just this week you claimed that I had NEVER provided published work to support my claims..it took about 30 seconds to prove that you lied...

I have provided evidence to support every one of my claims. You have provided no evidence in most cases and in those few in which you did provide evidence, it failed to support your contention.

Not even close...you provide a web address in which you can find nothing to bring forward that won't get you laughed at..

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.
Now you're saying it can, if work is involved. 20C matter simply will not radiate toward 38C matter,
but if work raises the 20C matter to 21C, it can now, "non-spontaneously" radiate.

Sounds like another version of your smart emitter claims.

 

[Crick]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

 

[Crick]

A refrigerator actually does just that. Cold stuff in my freezer radiates its energy away which is absorbed by the walls of the fridge, concentrated by the condensor and radiated away to the outside world. I was just not seeing the system boundaries. Getting old.

 

[SSDD]

A refrigerator actually does just that. Cold stuff in my freezer radiates its energy away which is absorbed by the walls of the fridge, concentrated by the condensor and radiated away to the outside world. I was just not seeing the system boundaries. Getting old.

Figures that you wouldn't know how a refrigerator works either...you have to be one of the stupidest people on the board...here...let me see if I can make it simple enough for you to understand...

The refrigerant gas is compressed to a high pressure and that results in a temperature increase....even though you don't think it is possible, it happens and has to happen if you want your milk to stay cold... That gas then passes through some heat exchangers, usually on the back of your refrigerator where it loses most of the heat caused by compressing it...then the gas passes through the condenser which converts the past to a liquid by reducing the temperature but maintaining pressure. The condenser then releases the liquid via an expansion valve. This results in a rapid decrease in pressure which lets the refrigerant expand and evaporate. This process further reduces the temperature...This very cold gas then passes through the evaporator...and because this gas is far colder than the inside of the refrigerator or freezer, energy moves from the warmer interior of your refrigerator to the much colder evaporator The warmed gas then goes to the compressor and the whole process begins again..and again and again.....

The walls of your refrigerator are only absorbing energy if they are cooler than their surroundings...

I have said it before and I will say it again....engineer my shiny metal ass...

 

[Crick]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

His original claim was,
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".
Every idiotic claim he's made since then just piles more idiocy onto the original idiotic claim.

 

[Crick]

Ok

 

[SSDD]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.

No toddler...that isn't what I said...I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...there is a difference and you have my sympathy that you are unable to understand it even though it has been explained to you ad nauseam.

Sad that you must resort to claiming that I said something that I didn't in an effort to try and make a point.

 

[SSDD]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

A quick search reveals that the search engine can find no instance where I ever used the word epicycles...you are a top shelf liar skidmark...top shelf.

 

[SSDD]

His original claim was,
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".

Don't guess you can provide a quote of me ever saying such a thing...Energy doesn't radiate from cool to warm...you can blow all the cold air against a warm surface that you like...all that happens is that energy conducts away from the warm surface to the air and warms it..

The only idiotic claims are the ones you make up and claim that I have said...I have to wonder if you really have such poor compression skills and don't even realize that you are changing what I said completely.... Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Crick]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

His original claim was,
"There is no back radiation, because cool air simply won't radiate toward the warmer surface....2nd Law".
Every idiotic claim he's made since then just piles more idiocy onto the original idiotic claim.

Didn't he also claim that the two body version of Stefan-Boltzmann could not be applied to a gas because it had no hard boundary surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.

No toddler...that isn't what I said...I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...there is a difference and you have my sympathy that you are unable to understand it even though it has been explained to you ad nauseam.

Sad that you must resort to claiming that I said something that I didn't in an effort to try and make a point.

I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...

Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
One of your earliest epicycles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whenever I read the work required line, I think of a refrigerator of course, which can certainly take thermal energy from the cold interior and dump it outside at ambient. I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot. What device can you put between two objects that would accomplish such a thing?

I'm not certain how you would use work to make net radiative flow go from cold to hot.

You couldn't, but I'm just highlighting another problem with his epicycles.

I have to ask. What does that mean: "his epicycles"? I know what an epicycle is. I just don't know what his are.

A quick search reveals that the search engine can find no instance where I ever used the word epicycles...you are a top shelf liar skidmark...top shelf.

No one said you used it.

I used it to mock your ever more complex idiocy.

 

[SSDD]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

But you previosly claimed cooler matter simply does not radiate toward warmer matter.

No toddler...that isn't what I said...I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...there is a difference and you have my sympathy that you are unable to understand it even though it has been explained to you ad nauseam.

Sad that you must resort to claiming that I said something that I didn't in an effort to try and make a point.

I said that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cold to warm...

Baloney. You've previously said cooler matter simply doesn't emit toward warmer matter.
One of your earliest epicycles.

You made the claim...lets see the quote...