How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Wuwei]

Yes, I did. This whole discussion is meaningless if you can't even define the terminology that you are basing your whole argumentation on... It IS your job to "spoon feed" me. YOU are asserting that something called "climate change" exists... YOU need to define what that terminology means. You shouldn't even have to steal it from somebody else; YOU should be able to form your OWN arguments. Stealing the arguments of others is intellectual laziness... Telling someone to "google it" is intellectual laziness.

Please provide me with the definition of "climate change" that you are making use of whenever you use that terminology. Remember, definitions CAN NOT be circular...

To add to what Crick said, some people are taking words or phrases that have a strict scientific meaning and substituting their own colloquial meanings. That has lead to all kinds of self contradictions. If you don't want to abide by definitions in the science literature, there is no common ground for any kind of dialog. Using a science definition most definitely is not intellectual laziness. However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed that aspect of climate change.

You didn't give any examples of anything... You didn't show any work...

I showed an example of a very useful procedure used in Sample Theory to test the accuracy of sampled data. Why do you think it is not useful. What do you mean by "work".



.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus is not a scientific word

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, I did. This whole discussion is meaningless if you can't even define the terminology that you are basing your whole argumentation on... It IS your job to "spoon feed" me. YOU are asserting that something called "climate change" exists... YOU need to define what that terminology means. You shouldn't even have to steal it from somebody else; YOU should be able to form your OWN arguments. Stealing the arguments of others is intellectual laziness... Telling someone to "google it" is intellectual laziness.

Please provide me with the definition of "climate change" that you are making use of whenever you use that terminology. Remember, definitions CAN NOT be circular...

To add to what Crick said, some people are taking words or phrases that have a strict scientific meaning and substituting their own colloquial meanings. That has lead to all kinds of self contradictions. If you don't want to abide by definitions in the science literature, there is no common ground for any kind of dialog. Using a science definition most definitely is not intellectual laziness. However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed that aspect of climate change.

You didn't give any examples of anything... You didn't show any work...

I showed an example of a very useful procedure used in Sample Theory to test the accuracy of sampled data. Why do you think it is not useful. What do you mean by "work".



.
.

I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, I did. This whole discussion is meaningless if you can't even define the terminology that you are basing your whole argumentation on... It IS your job to "spoon feed" me. YOU are asserting that something called "climate change" exists... YOU need to define what that terminology means. You shouldn't even have to steal it from somebody else; YOU should be able to form your OWN arguments. Stealing the arguments of others is intellectual laziness... Telling someone to "google it" is intellectual laziness.

Please provide me with the definition of "climate change" that you are making use of whenever you use that terminology. Remember, definitions CAN NOT be circular...

To add to what Crick said, some people are taking words or phrases that have a strict scientific meaning and substituting their own colloquial meanings. That has lead to all kinds of self contradictions. If you don't want to abide by definitions in the science literature, there is no common ground for any kind of dialog. Using a science definition most definitely is not intellectual laziness. However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed that aspect of climate change.

You didn't give any examples of anything... You didn't show any work...

I showed an example of a very useful procedure used in Sample Theory to test the accuracy of sampled data. Why do you think it is not useful. What do you mean by "work".



.
.

I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

Math would be ideal

 

[gfm7175]

GFM, you really seem to be weaseling here. In English, a definition is a description of a word's common usage. It is perfectly correct to use a dictionary or other reference.

Dictionaries don't define words, Crick. People do. Dictionary definitions might be logically sound, but they also might not be...

The purpose of a dictionary is to standardize spelling and pronunciations. Dictionaries are not "authoritative" over any word meaning.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter?
I don't suppose you have any backup for that claim?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.

It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape)

If a photon can be emitted in any random direction, eventually it will escape. Right?

You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, etc. etc. etc... CO2 cannot heat the surface. The surface is hotter (it has more energy). Something with less energy cannot heat something with more energy in an isolated system.

in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

The Stefan Boltzmann Law shows how the energy emitted by an object is in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. It doesn't say cooler can't radiate toward warmer.

Yes, it does. It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased, temperature is also decreased. They are on opposite sides of the equation... The other two numbers on the temperature side of the equation are constants.

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.

Who said they can? Do IR photons from the surface instantly flash away into deep space?
Or are they absorbed by GHG molecules?

YOU are saying that they can... YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.

Where does it mention photons?

You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface

Nothing in the 2nd Law prohibits that.

CO2 cannot heat the surface.

Who said it could?

The surface is hotter (it has more energy).

Excellent! That means it radiates more. So even when it absorbs photons from the cooler atmosphere, it is still emitting more (more energetic, more in number) than the atmosphere. So of course that net means it cools.

Yes, it does.

You're lying. Or ignorant.

It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased,

When matter radiates, it cools. You still haven't shown that radiation is directed, limited or dimmed according to surrounding matter.

YOU are saying that they can..

Where?

YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...

Any photon absorbed by any matter heats it. That's kinda what absorbed photons do.
But if the surface emits 30 and absorbs 20, that's still net cooler.

 

[Wuwei]

I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

The math would need superscripts, subscripts, Greek symbols, and a half a page of equations involving a large data base. It's not possible to show that on this limited text messaging system. It involves understanding calculus. I already told you the procedure in an earlier post. If you don't understand that procedure and cannot construct the math from that, you certainly wouldn't be able to understand the math when you see it.

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

I already told you in post #401.


.

 

[jc456]

I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

The math would need superscripts, subscripts, Greek symbols, and a half a page of equations involving a large data base. It's not possible to show that on this limited text messaging system. It involves understanding calculus. I already told you the procedure in an earlier post. If you don't understand that procedure and cannot construct the math from that, you certainly wouldn't be able to understand the math when you see it.

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

I already told you in post #401.


.

so you yourself can't define climate change with your own words. That was the dude's ask. so in #401, you didn't give him that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

The math would need superscripts, subscripts, Greek symbols, and a half a page of equations involving a large data base. It's not possible to show that on this limited text messaging system. It involves understanding calculus. I already told you the procedure in an earlier post. If you don't understand that procedure and cannot construct the math from that, you certainly wouldn't be able to understand the math when you see it.

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

I already told you in post #401.


.

...and after that, you still have to add in the heat trapped 2,000 m deep in the ocean to make the numbers work

 

[Crick]

Ever wonder why people ignore you Frank?

 

[gfm7175]

I mean like when one shows their work in mathematics... show the calculations you made...

The math would need superscripts, subscripts, Greek symbols, and a half a page of equations involving a large data base. It's not possible to show that on this limited text messaging system. It involves understanding calculus. I already told you the procedure in an earlier post. If you don't understand that procedure and cannot construct the math from that, you certainly wouldn't be able to understand the math when you see it.

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

I already told you in post #401.


.

"Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...

And no, you didn't answer me in your post #401... I asked you to provide me with a definition for "climate change", as you are continuously making use of the term. You have yet to provide any definition for it...

Remember, definitions CANNOT be circular...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[SSDD]

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.

What you mean is you prefer not to discuss in ignorance...If you believe any such observed, measured data exists, by all means, I would love to see it. It is hilarious how quickly you wack jobs are to start calling names and pointing to consensus rather than simply present the data I am asking for and shut me down? Ever consider why you can't do that? It is because the evidence that I claim does not exist, does not, in fact exist.

 

[SSDD]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

How do we know we're not?

~S~

Failure to produce even a single piece of evidence after 30+ years that supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is anything other than natural variability is a pretty good indication...would't you say?

 

[Crick]

Also, you have yet to define climate change... what do you mean by "climate change"?? I've only ever seen circular definitions offered up, even the "scientific" ones...

[/QUOTE]

I gave you a definition for anthropogenic global warming that was not circular, yet you continued to claim that it was. This is why I have been suggesting you are simply trying to avoid debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter?
I don't suppose you have any backup for that claim?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.

It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape)

If a photon can be emitted in any random direction, eventually it will escape. Right?

You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, etc. etc. etc... CO2 cannot heat the surface. The surface is hotter (it has more energy). Something with less energy cannot heat something with more energy in an isolated system.

in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

The Stefan Boltzmann Law shows how the energy emitted by an object is in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. It doesn't say cooler can't radiate toward warmer.

Yes, it does. It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased, temperature is also decreased. They are on opposite sides of the equation... The other two numbers on the temperature side of the equation are constants.

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.

Who said they can? Do IR photons from the surface instantly flash away into deep space?
Or are they absorbed by GHG molecules?

YOU are saying that they can... YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The theory supports itself.

Where does it mention photons?

You're arguing that a photon will come from the sun, heat the surface, get emitted by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface, get RE-EMITTED by the surface, get absorbed by CO2, get emitted by CO2, REHEAT the surface

Nothing in the 2nd Law prohibits that.

CO2 cannot heat the surface.

Who said it could?

The surface is hotter (it has more energy).

Excellent! That means it radiates more. So even when it absorbs photons from the cooler atmosphere, it is still emitting more (more energetic, more in number) than the atmosphere. So of course that net means it cools.

Yes, it does.

You're lying. Or ignorant.

It says that radiance is directly proportional to temperature... If radiance is decreased,

When matter radiates, it cools. You still haven't shown that radiation is directed, limited or dimmed according to surrounding matter.

YOU are saying that they can..

Where?

YOU are saying that a photon emitted by CO2 can heat the surface...

Any photon absorbed by any matter heats it. That's kinda what absorbed photons do.
But if the surface emits 30 and absorbs 20, that's still net cooler.

Robin? Are you ok?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ever wonder why people ignore you Frank?

Stop trolling, Crick

 

[Wuwei]

"Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...

Strawman I never said the math was complicated, it's just to messy. You expect me to put a bunch of math with special symbols on this text editor?

I asked you to provide me with a definition for "climate change", as you are continuously making use of the term. You have yet to provide any definition for it...

Your post on this thread was that millions of thermometers were needed for accuracy. You were not concerned about climate change in general, you were concerned only with temperature. I am abiding by your definition of climate change.

Here is that part of post #401 that you missed.

However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed that aspect of climate change.

.

 

[SSDD]

"Too complicated" mantra and "you don't understand" mantra were both dismissed on sight...

Strawman I never said the math was complicated, it's just to messy. You expect me to put a bunch of math with special symbols on this text editor?

I asked you to provide me with a definition for "climate change", as you are continuously making use of the term. You have yet to provide any definition for it...

Your post on this thread was that millions of thermometers were needed for accuracy. You were not concerned about climate change in general, you were concerned only with temperature. I am abiding by your definition of climate change.

Here is that part of post #401 that you missed.

However, since you are limiting the subject to earth surface temperature, my response only addressed that aspect of climate change.

And even if there were a billion thermometers, of what value, exactly do you think an average temperature would be on a planet whose max and min temperatures span 200 degrees on any given day?

 

[Wuwei]

To see how the earth's average temperature changes from one year to the next.

 

[jc456]

for what purpose? The variance within that information would be so subjective it would therefore relegate the data useless.