How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[jc456]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

All of which still fails to contain:

• Predictability
  
• Quantifiability
• Fasifiablility
• A static control
• Any baseline proposal of what the "ideal" temperature should be

And the warmer Bozos still claim that they're proponents of science.

Speaking of quantifiability....did you know that to date, there is not one single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically, measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not one single published paper.

And every day one of the warmer wackos tells us that the science is settled.

Yup, those twits do not understand what science is. All science is is a set of falsifiable theories. It is never 'settled', as it does not make use of proofs. It is not a consensus, peer review, a university course, a professor, an elite voting bloc, nor a casino (among other things these twits want to make science into).

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. We have no idea what the 'global temperature' is, since we do not have NEARLY enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis, and the thermometers we DO have are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer.

These twits haven't even defined the terminology in an acceptable manner. 'Climate Change' is a circularly-defined buzzword; it is meaningless; it is a void argument.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law.

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?

Sure, it’s the same thing I’ve been saying!

 

[Crick]

Can't wait to hear this one

 

[gfm7175]

You didn't look at shit.

I have no idea what he looked at. I have looked at science, logic, and mathematics however, so I'll answer these questions for him and you.

Are you claiming that historical temperature data are not "observed, measured evidence"?

We don't have any accurate 'global temperature' data... Want to know WHY that is? Let's look to Statistical Mathematics for the answer... Before we even begin, it must be noted that our current thermometers (weather stations) are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer. This introduces location and time biases. However, for sake of discussion, I will assume that they DO meet those statistical requirements (they don't, though).

First, we need to note that the surface area of Earth is approx 197 million sq miles.

Second, we need to note just how many thermometers are being used. Remember, our thermometers do NOT meet the requirements of Statistical Mathematics, but for arguments sake, I am saying that they do. I believe NASA claims that they make use of around 7,500 thermometers, so let's use that number. Given 7,500 thermometers, that means that uniformly spaced thermometers would amount to one thermometer per approx. 26,266 sq miles. This covers an area approx. the size of West Virginia.

Third, we need to now declare our variance/range values that we are making use of. With regard to temperatures, they have been recorded to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and by as much as 49deg F per TWO MINUTES (showing the extreme importance of precise location and time). Temperatures have been recorded from as low as -128deg F to as high as 134deg F, a possible range of 262deg F.

Now, to summarize, since temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE, do you honestly think that one thermometer can accurately measure an area the size of WEST VIRGINIA? This makes for a margin of error of approx. +-100deg F, which is most of the possible temperature range.

In order to get that margin of error down to even +-10deg F, one would need approx. 200 MILLION thermometers.

Satellite 'data' doesn't work, either... Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. The problem with trying to convert the light measurement into a temperature via the stefan boltzmann law is that the emissivity constant of Earth is unknown. We don't know how much light is a result of the emission of Earth nor how much is the result of a reflection of something else (sunlight, starlight, etc...) In other words, in order to measure temperature this way, we would need to ALREADY KNOW the temperature of the Earth... a chicken and egg issue...

Simply put, we don't have accurate 'data' (free from location/time biases)...

How about CO2 levels? Are you claiming they aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?

This runs into similar issues that I already described above. CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed across the atmosphere, so it can't be accurately measured as 'global CO2 content' from a few select locations. Also, Mauna Loa data has been known to be cooked. A fairly recent volcano eruption should have produced a huge spike in their data. There was no spike in their data... WTF???? Simply put, just like with temperature readings, we would need many CO2 measurement stations uniformly spread across the globe and simultaneously read by the same observer to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis of what the 'global CO2 content' is. We don't have accurate 'data' (free from location/time biases)...

How about increased sea levels? Are you claiming those aren't "observed, measured, evidence"?

Again, similar issues. An added issue in this case though is the fact that there is no valid "reference point" for this type of measurement. Land isn't in one steady location... it also moves...

You are nothing but a lying TROLL.

Redefinition Fallacy. [lying >> holding differing beliefs]
Insult Fallacy. [calling someone names is not a valid argument]

 

[gfm7175]

You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU have no interest in learning about science, since you need to deny it in order to accept your Global Warming religious dogma.

You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.

Not an issue if AOC is correct... We're all toast in 12 years according to her religious dogma...

The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct.

There is no such thing as 'the science'. Science does not make use of proofs. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. The IPCC is not science; they are a political organization.

Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree.

Argument From RandU Fallacy. [using made up numbers as if they were data]
Science is NOT consensus, nor is it peer-review. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

They are not stupid. They are not socialists. They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies".

Yes, many of them are, actually.

They are doing science

One doesn't "do" science. It is not a method or a procedure of any sort. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future.

Science is not a time machine, nor a religion, nor a prophecy. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

They've got children too.

Irrelevant.

Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe.

Inversion Fallacy.

Follow the real evidence.

True Scotsman Fallacy. [appeal to purity]

Science does not make use of 'supporting evidence'. It only makes use of conflicting evidence (which can falsify theories). No amount of blessing, purifying, sanctifying, nor any religious incantations can strengthen any theory of science. Theories of science simply continue to survive null hypothesis testing (in other words, they have yet to be falsified). If they fail even ONE null hypothesis test, then the theory is completely and utterly destroyed, rendering it no longer a theory of science. The theory that smoking causes cancer is one such theory.

 

[gfm7175]

You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate. You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.

The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree. They are not stupid. They are not socialists. They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies". They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future. They've got children too. Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe. Follow the real evidence.

Son, I have been on this planet much longer than any college puke who just came out of the liberal indoctrination stations. I have seen climate change from really cold temps to really hot temps, depending on what part of the world I was on during those events. You know what is remarkable? Dumbasses like you who think that when it gets hot, oh my god, it must be global warming, but when it freezes outside, it is only weather...

Yup, since they outright deny logic, science, and mathematics, they can make it whatever they want it to be, according to their religious dogma. "Climate Change" is nothing more than a circularly-defined buzzword religion.

 

[gfm7175]

Yup, those twits do not understand what science is. All science is is a set of falsifiable theories. It is never 'settled', as it does not make use of proofs. It is not a consensus, peer review, a university course, a professor, an elite voting bloc, nor a casino (among other things these twits want to make science into).

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. We have no idea what the 'global temperature' is, since we do not have NEARLY enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis, and the thermometers we DO have are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer.

These twits haven't even defined the terminology in an acceptable manner. 'Climate Change' is a circularly-defined buzzword; it is meaningless; it is a void argument.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law.

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?

Sure thing...

There are two main arguments that AGW proponents make: The Magick Blanket Argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument.

The Magick Blanket Argument argues that "blankets keep us warm, therefore CO2 keeps us warm". This arguments makes three main false equivalencies... It tries to equate "heat" [defined as the flow of thermal energy] with "thermal energy" [itself], it tries to equate a thermal energy source (us) with a non-thermal energy source (such as rocks), and [if compared to greenhouses], tries to equate a closed convective system with an open convective system. This argument violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law because it attempts to decrease radiance (due to CO2 supposedly "trapping heat") while simultaneously increasing temperature. If heat WERE actually being trapped (and radiance WERE actually being reduced), then temperature would actually DECREASE, not increase, via Stefan Boltzmann...

The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument argues that a photon of IR light is emitted from the surface, gets absorbed by <insert magick gas here>, then gets re-emitted back toward the surface, where it is absorbed, emitted again, etc. etc... Essentially, the photon never leaves the Earth, all the while, the sun keeps adding more photons to begin bouncing around like that. This makes the surface warmer and warmer and the upper air cooler since photons don't reach it. This denies the 1st Law of Thermodynamics because it is attempting to create energy out of nothing (it takes additional energy to increase the temperature of the Earth). Where is that additional energy coming from?? It denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because it attempts to decrease entropy (by concentrating heat at the surface and away from the upper air). In other words, it is attempting to make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold). It is creating a perpetual motion machine that would operate without any energy input. It also denies the Stefan Boltzmann Law because, like the blanket argument, it is attempting to decrease radiance while increasing temperature.


What actually happens is the sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the air... The air can't in turn heat the surface again.

 

[gfm7175]

except you can't prove back radiation exists.

You can't even define back radiation.

you are exactly right. cause it doesn't exist.

DURR...….2nd Law.

flow goes from warm to cold. every one of your cartoons says so.

flow goes from warm to cold.

Radiation goes from everywhere to everywhere.

only when it is warm to cold. but don't let that fact slap you in the face.

He obviously denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, like the other Church of Global Warming members do, in favor of their circularly-defined buzzword religion. They don't let logic, science, nor mathematics get in the way of their religious dogma...

 

[gfm7175]

Are you threatening violence against another poster?

No, he wasn't. It is a common expression meaning to not let something "get in one's way".

The second law does NOT say that radiation cannot flow from cold to warm.

Actually, it does. Radiation is a form of thermal energy transfer, like conduction and convection are. The 2nd Law states that entropy in any closed system cannot decrease (it can only increase or stay the same). Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).

SSDD says that and he is the only one who does so.

Wrong. Many other people say so as well, including myself. But, it doesn't matter what any of us say, since the theory is its own support.

You say it because he says it.

Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality!! I thought you just got done saying that SSDD is the only one who says that. NOW, you are claiming that jc456 says that as well... Which one is it?

But, as you have been told more than once, you are following the WRONG fellow.

No, they are actually correct about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

Multiple physical laws more fundamental than the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that all matter radiates thermal energy all the time in all directions.

There is no "more fundamental", Crick... A law of science IS a law of science, so long as it hasn't been falsified.
Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold; it does NOT flow from cold to hot.

The only reason you're not seemingly aware of Planck's Law is that SSDD doesn't spout some abortion of its intent so he can try to refute greenhouse warming.

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

 

[Billy_Bob]

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, those twits do not understand what science is. All science is is a set of falsifiable theories. It is never 'settled', as it does not make use of proofs. It is not a consensus, peer review, a university course, a professor, an elite voting bloc, nor a casino (among other things these twits want to make science into).

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. We have no idea what the 'global temperature' is, since we do not have NEARLY enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis, and the thermometers we DO have are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer.

These twits haven't even defined the terminology in an acceptable manner. 'Climate Change' is a circularly-defined buzzword; it is meaningless; it is a void argument.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. The 'greenhouse gas model' denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law.

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?

Sure thing...

There are two main arguments that AGW proponents make: The Magick Blanket Argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument.

The Magick Blanket Argument argues that "blankets keep us warm, therefore CO2 keeps us warm". This arguments makes three main false equivalencies... It tries to equate "heat" [defined as the flow of thermal energy] with "thermal energy" [itself], it tries to equate a thermal energy source (us) with a non-thermal energy source (such as rocks), and [if compared to greenhouses], tries to equate a closed convective system with an open convective system. This argument violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law because it attempts to decrease radiance (due to CO2 supposedly "trapping heat") while simultaneously increasing temperature. If heat WERE actually being trapped (and radiance WERE actually being reduced), then temperature would actually DECREASE, not increase, via Stefan Boltzmann...

The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument argues that a photon of IR light is emitted from the surface, gets absorbed by <insert magick gas here>, then gets re-emitted back toward the surface, where it is absorbed, emitted again, etc. etc... Essentially, the photon never leaves the Earth, all the while, the sun keeps adding more photons to begin bouncing around like that. This makes the surface warmer and warmer and the upper air cooler since photons don't reach it. This denies the 1st Law of Thermodynamics because it is attempting to create energy out of nothing (it takes additional energy to increase the temperature of the Earth). Where is that additional energy coming from?? It denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because it attempts to decrease entropy (by concentrating heat at the surface and away from the upper air). In other words, it is attempting to make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold). It is creating a perpetual motion machine that would operate without any energy input. It also denies the Stefan Boltzmann Law because, like the blanket argument, it is attempting to decrease radiance while increasing temperature.


What actually happens is the sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the air... The air can't in turn heat the surface again.

This argument violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law because it attempts to decrease radiance

Not sure what you mean here.

(due to CO2 supposedly "trapping heat")

Does CO2 absorb IR from the surface?

The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument argues that a photon of IR light is emitted from the surface, gets absorbed by <insert magick gas here>, then gets re-emitted back toward the surface,

Well, the "magick photons" can be emitted in any direction, right?

Essentially, the photon never leaves the Earth,

I've never heard anyone claim that. Have you?

This makes the surface warmer and warmer and the upper air cooler since photons don't reach it.

Why would the upper air get cooler? Unless it emits into space?

What actually happens is the sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the air...

The air is heated by conduction only? Or also by radiation?

 

[Crick]

You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate. You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.

The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree. They are not stupid. They are not socialists. They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies". They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future. They've got children too. Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe. Follow the real evidence.

Son, I have been on this planet much longer than any college puke who just came out of the liberal indoctrination stations. I have seen climate change from really cold temps to really hot temps, depending on what part of the world I was on during those events. You know what is remarkable? Dumbasses like you who think that when it gets hot, oh my god, it must be global warming, but when it freezes outside, it is only weather...

I do not doubt you've been on this planet longer than most college graduates but you don't seem to have done much with the time to improve your knowledge base or reasoning skills.

Moving from one climate to another is not seeing climate change, it is experiencing different climates.

A warming climate results in higher highs and higher lows. It results in more hot days and less cold days. It will NOT result in NO cold days or NO snow or NO ice till its quite a ways along. 1.5C warming is not enough to do any of the things you seem to believe I am claiming to have happened. What I think CO2 has done to us is this:

Do you have some reason to believe it hasn't?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you are exactly right. cause it doesn't exist.

DURR...….2nd Law.

flow goes from warm to cold. every one of your cartoons says so.

flow goes from warm to cold.

Radiation goes from everywhere to everywhere.

only when it is warm to cold. but don't let that fact slap you in the face.

He obviously denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, like the other Church of Global Warming members do, in favor of their circularly-defined buzzword religion. They don't let logic, science, nor mathematics get in the way of their religious dogma...

He obviously denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,

Never, not even once!!

like the other Church of Global Warming members

Those guys are the worst! Any excuse to give the government more power/money.

They don't let logic, science, nor mathematics get in the way of their religious dogma...

Hey, you be nice to SSDD and jc456, until you get to know them, newbie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you threatening violence against another poster?

No, he wasn't. It is a common expression meaning to not let something "get in one's way".

The second law does NOT say that radiation cannot flow from cold to warm.

Actually, it does. Radiation is a form of thermal energy transfer, like conduction and convection are. The 2nd Law states that entropy in any closed system cannot decrease (it can only increase or stay the same). Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).

SSDD says that and he is the only one who does so.

Wrong. Many other people say so as well, including myself. But, it doesn't matter what any of us say, since the theory is its own support.

You say it because he says it.

Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality!! I thought you just got done saying that SSDD is the only one who says that. NOW, you are claiming that jc456 says that as well... Which one is it?

But, as you have been told more than once, you are following the WRONG fellow.

No, they are actually correct about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

Multiple physical laws more fundamental than the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that all matter radiates thermal energy all the time in all directions.

There is no "more fundamental", Crick... A law of science IS a law of science, so long as it hasn't been falsified.
Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold; it does NOT flow from cold to hot.

The only reason you're not seemingly aware of Planck's Law is that SSDD doesn't spout some abortion of its intent so he can try to refute greenhouse warming.

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).

Excellent point. What about photons?

Can a 20C object send IR photons, for instance, toward a 37C object?

 

[gfm7175]

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

Yes, I am finding that. These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is. The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion. An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...

 

[Wuwei]

Having heat flow from cold to warm is deceasing entropy [localizing ("trapping") heat]. Heat can only flow from warm to cold (which increases entropy).

Excellent point. What about photons?

Can a 20C object send IR photons, for instance, toward a 37C object?

Looks like we have here another ill-tempered SSDD type sock puppet. I wonder if his brain is frozen like most of the others of his ilk.


.

 

[otto105]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

I prefer not to discuss with ignorance.

 

[mamooth]

Second, we need to note just how many thermometers are being used. Remember, our thermometers do NOT meet the requirements of Statistical Mathematics,

Please tell everyone what those requirements are. If you're not just trying to BS your way through a topic you don't understand, that should be no problem for you.

Third, we need to now declare our variance/range values that we are making use of. With regard to temperatures, they have been recorded to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and by as much as 49deg F per TWO MINUTES (showing the extreme importance of precise location and time). Temperatures have been recorded from as low as -128deg F to as high as 134deg F, a possible range of 262deg F.

Using anomalies solves that problem. If you weren't hilariously ignorant of the basics, you would have known that.

In order to get that margin of error down to even +-10deg F, one would need approx. 200 MILLION thermometers.

GIGO. You stink at this, but you know too little to understand that.

Satellite 'data' doesn't work, either...

Which is why most deniers rely on it entirely. More specifically, they rely entirely on the UAH satellite data set, which is known to have a wild cooling bias.

This runs into similar issues that I already described above. CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed across the atmosphere,

It's very well mixed in the observation spots. Who feeds you this stuff?

Also, Mauna Loa data has been known to be cooked

Oh, you're a conspiracy nutter. Why didn't you just say so up front, so we could have laughed at you then? it would have saved time.

 

[mamooth]

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments').

And since your beliefs are not falsifiable, they are obviously religious in nature.

In stark contrast, our beliefs could be falsified by many types of hard data. Thus, they qualify as hard science.

If you disagree, tell us what your theory of climate is, and then tell us what data could falsify it. If you state that you're not required to provide a theory, that will instantly qualify you as a wild-eyed religious zealot.

 

[Crick]

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

Yes, I am finding that. These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is. The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion. An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...

Wow, where to start.

No one is claiming that a cold object will make a warm object warmer. What we are claiming in response to the insane intepretations of one poster SSDD, is that all matter radiates in all directions at all times. The intensity and spectrum of that radiation is determined by the temperature of the radiating matter. It is NOT affected by the temperature of anything around it.

Billy Bob, apparently out of perceived friendship, has been trying to defend SSDD's position which claims that photons from cold matter WILL NOT RADIATE towards warmer matter. That is, he believes that either all matter or all photons are somehow aware of the temperature of distant matter that they might hit and control is somehow exerted that prevents photons from taking off towards warmer matter. This would have to include very distant matter, where relativity would become a large factor (it is actually a factor at all distances but that discussion can wait). It would also have to include moving matter. For example a photon could be emitted from a block of ice in front of you that, if unchecked, would travel through the window in your back door slider where its course would be slightly altered sending it out into space where, in ten thousand years, afte traversing the distorting gravity fields of three different black holes it will strike a small rocky object orbiting close to a distant star at very high velocity in a direction orthogonal to its path, at a particular spot being heated by a small kernel of radioactive material to a temperature one ten-thousandth of one Centigrade degree above the temperature of the emitting ice cube back in your kitchen ten thousand years ago. But, according to SSDD and Billy Bob, that photon WOULD be checked, because the ice cube or the photon would somehow know all of this in advance and would somehow stop or be stopped from wasting its time making the trip. So, this is the internet. Be careful who you talk to.

We, the people here who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and mainstream science in general, agree that valid scientific theories are falsifiable. AGW could be falsified.

Scientific theories are supported by supporting evidence and may be falsified by evidence that falsifies some fundamental element of a theory.

A consensus among scientists expert in a field under question does have value and does define what is and is not considered accepted science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences so consensus is all you've got. The reason we all believe Newton and then Einstein accurately described gravity is because a consensus of scientists accepted their work.

 

[gfm7175]

Please tell everyone what those requirements are. If you're not just trying to BS your way through a topic you don't understand, that should be no problem for you.

I TOLD you what they were IN THAT VERY SAME COMMENT. I went through the whole process step by step.

Using anomalies solves that problem. If you weren't hilariously ignorant of the basics, you would have known that.

Splendid... show me how that works...

I went through the whole process and showed you why we can't measure a global temperature (per Statistical Mathematics)...

GIGO. You stink at this, but you know too little to understand that.

Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...

Which is why most deniers rely on it entirely. More specifically, they rely entirely on the UAH satellite data set, which is known to have a wild cooling bias.

I don't care what other 'deniers' do... Satellites are incapable of measuring global temperature. They don't measure absolute temperature; they measure light. Light cannot be converted into temperature, since the emissivity of Earth is unknown. We need to ALREADY KNOW what we are trying to solve for...

It's very well mixed in the observation spots. Who feeds you this stuff?

Statistical Mathematics "feeds me this stuff"... You seem to deny statistical mathematics, though...

Oh, you're a conspiracy nutter. Why didn't you just say so up front, so we could have laughed at you then? it would have saved time.

Mauna Loa cooking data does not make me a "conspiracy nutter"... It isn't even a conspiracy... A fairly recent volcano there should have made CO2 data skyrocket, but there was no spike in the data. That means that they are not releasing raw data (it's been cooked).