In Support of the A in AGW

[IanC]

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?

I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.

Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory

Hahahaha perhaps I should have done a cursory search.

You are absolutely right and I was wrong. Please accept my apology

So long as you are going to actually do some cursory research...perhaps you could take a minute to confirm the fact that there isn't a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....then ask yourself why the models fail so miserably if they are, in fact, based on sound physics....

I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true.

Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been measured?

Does the increase in CO2 correspond to the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt?

That is the first leg of AGW. If you agree, we can go on, if you disagree then state where and why.

 

[IanC]

How is that different than what I said? It is useful in a general way, but not for any reasonable sized slabs of the atmosphere. What goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at the top are not similar in quantity or quality.

I agree. The physics principles at the top and bottom of the atmosphere involve an equal partition of energies although the energies involved are different.

Yes solar is BBR but we are not talking about near Sol interactions. We are talking about collimated energy from a hot source in comparison to Earth temperatures. Can Earth's BBR be useful to do work in space? Yes, but it is highly inefficient on Earth.

As I said before, (mechanical) work plays a very small part (if at all) in the solar incoming radiation. The solar radiation heats the earth. How do you define work?

I don't agree with you that the earth's BBR does any work in space efficient or not. How do you define work in the earth's output BBR?

I'm not a physics teacher, so I won't try to give a lecture on work and entropy. There is a massive amount of work being done on the Earth by solar input. Ocean and atmospheric currents for example.

It is differences between heat or energy levels that allow work to be done, at the expense of more entropy. Solar radiation has little effect near the Sun but a tremendous effect on the much cooler earth. Likewise earthshine has little effect near the earth but could be harnessed to do work in very cold outer space.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm not a physics teacher, so I won't try to give a lecture on work and entropy. There is a massive amount of work being done on the Earth by solar input. Ocean and atmospheric currents for example.

It is differences between heat or energy levels that allow work to be done, at the expense of more entropy. Solar radiation has little effect near the Sun but a tremendous effect on the much cooler earth. Likewise earthshine has little effect near the earth but could be harnessed to do work in very cold outer space.

OK that answers my question on what you mean - mechanical work... and also what you mean by waste heat as you mentioned earlier. To me that is an odd way of looking at the interaction of the sun with the earth. The idea of radiation doing work would make more sense with a photocell running a motor. But when it comes to nature, the work is quite indirect and really can't be seen as a separated entity. For example the sun would not be able to do much work in the ocean if there were no GHG's and the surface were frozen solid. So I think of it as being a complex interplay where neither source of radiation alone has too much meaning when it comes to mechanical work.

 

[SSDD]

I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true.

Of course its true..

Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been measured?

Why yes it has...but there isn't a shred of observed measured quantified evidence that rising CO2 causes warming....think in circles much?

Does the increase in CO2 correspond to the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt?

Of course it doesn't...

That is the first leg of AGW. If you agree, we can go on, if you disagree then state where and why.

I don't. because it simply isn't true...AGW doesn't have a single leg to stand on...

 

[IanC]

I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true.

Of course its true..

Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been measured?

Why yes it has...but there isn't a shred of observed measured quantified evidence that rising CO2 causes warming....think in circles much?

Does the increase in CO2 correspond to the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt?

Of course it doesn't...

That is the first leg of AGW. If you agree, we can go on, if you disagree then state where and why.

I don't. because it simply isn't true...AGW doesn't have a single leg to stand on...

So you deny that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has anything to do with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Well, that pretty much stops the conversation right there. Personally I'm surprised that you didn't categorically deny that CO2 had increased as well. Hahahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true.

Of course its true..

Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been measured?

Why yes it has...but there isn't a shred of observed measured quantified evidence that rising CO2 causes warming....think in circles much?

Does the increase in CO2 correspond to the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt?

Of course it doesn't...

That is the first leg of AGW. If you agree, we can go on, if you disagree then state where and why.

I don't. because it simply isn't true...AGW doesn't have a single leg to stand on...

So you deny that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has anything to do with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Well, that pretty much stops the conversation right there. Personally I'm surprised that you didn't categorically deny that CO2 had increased as well. Hahahaha

The derp is strong in that one.

 

[Olde Europe]

and now, science by consensus.

You really do not have the first clue as to how science evolves? No clue that unless there is an overwhelming consensus on a finding or theory, nothing in science is regarded as "established science"?

But that's actually helpful to sort your contributions into the "crank" category wherein it rightfully belongs, for now we have observed and undeniable evidence for that judgment.

 

[SSDD]

So you deny that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has anything to do with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Wow...you are getting to be as dishonest as crick.....what's up with that? Sure burning fossil fuels has added some CO2 to the atmosphere...but there isn't a bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that more CO2 equals more warming...much less that our bit of CO2 causes more warming.

Well, that pretty much stops the conversation right there. Personally I'm surprised that you didn't categorically deny that CO2 had increased as well. Hahahaha

Nah...it's your dishonesty that stops the conversation...I said explicitly that there was no observed, measured, quantified evidence that rising CO2 causes warming....what sort of crazy do you have going on in your brain that translates that to a denial that CO2 is rising?....you sure get defensive when your beliefs are questioned....don't you?

 

[SSDD]

and now, science by consensus.

You really do not have the first clue as to how science evolves? No clue that unless there is an overwhelming consensus on a finding or theory, nothing in science is regarded as "established science"?

It is clear that it is you who has no clue as to how science is supposed to evolve...do you have any idea how many long established bits of consensus...science is settled....long held beliefs have crashed and burned in the past decade? The stress theory of ulcers for one....the overwhelming consensus position that quasicrystals can't exist...the belief that cholesterol causes heart disease...the consensus on the ingestion of fats is crumbling as is the consensus on the part salt takes in heart disease....the fact is, that in science, the consensus is wrong much of the time and in new branches of science like climate science, the consensus is wrong damned near all the time....Take a few minutes to learn something about the value of consensus...especially when the consensus is supported by money and politics...

In actual science, a hypothesis is proposed and immediately experiments are designed to prove it false...how much of that is going on in climate science?...or any field of science today?... Today science is about trying to find evidence to prop up a hypothesis and often contrary evidence is discarded or ignored....

But that's actually helpful to sort your contributions into the "crank" category wherein it rightfully belongs, for now we have observed and undeniable evidence for that judgment.

[/quote]

It is interesting to see the true cranks such as yourself who believe that consensus is the path of true science accusing those who want science to behave as it is supposed to behave if not influenced by politics, money, and the pressure to publish cranks...

It is obvious that you are the one who has no clue...

Well...one of us doesn't have a clue....and that would be the one who believes that consensus is anything other than a political mechanism...here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is...you will note that consensus....or anything like consensus isn't mentioned...and if you can be honest with yourself even in the least, you will see that little of the actual scientific method is practiced in climate science..

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[5][6] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[8]Experiments can take place in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[9] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.

 

[Olde Europe]

here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is...you will note that consensus....or anything like consensus isn't mentioned..

Ah, so we were talking about the evolution of science (and no, science does not claim to be in possession of the truth at any part of any inquiry), and you give me a summary of the scientific method, plainly explaining that you have no clue as to the distinction. Other than that, you're reduced to crank conspiracy theories ("influenced by politics, money, and the pressure to publish cranks"), which is correct concerning the denialists' financing by Koch et. al., yet not regarding real scientific research.

I find it actually disconcerting to see so much brain power, eloquence, time and effort put in, with but one result, that is, you discrediting and debasing yourself.

 

[Wuwei]

.here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is.

Quite a bit of hypocrisy in a "lecture" coming from a simpleton who doesn't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, or the laws of radiation thermodynamics.

 

[IanC]

SSDD - now you are changing your story again.

You asked for any shred of evidence of the A in AGW. When I said that as a first step we had to agree that CO2 had increased and was linked in part with the burning of fossil fuels, you said 'of course not'.

Now you say you agree? Then just say it. CO2 has increased and fossil fuel use is part of the reason for the increase.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD - now you are changing your story again.

You asked for any shred of evidence of the A in AGW. When I said that as a first step we had to agree that CO2 had increased and was linked in part with the burning of fossil fuels, you said 'of course not'.

Now you say you agree? Then just say it. CO2 has increased and fossil fuel use is part of the reason for the increase.

No Ian...I have no need to change my story...Of course CO2 has increased somewhat due to fossil fuels...but there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that increasing CO2 will cause the temperature to increase....you are simply assuming, based on failed models that increasing the atmospheric CO2 will result in increased atmospheric temperature....the failure of the hot spot to materialize should be the first clue to you that the hypothesis is flawed....second should be the steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 while temperatures remain static...assumption does not equal observed, measured, quantified evidence no matter how much you apparently wish it did.

 

[SSDD]

.here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is.

Quite a bit of hypocrisy in a "lecture" coming from a simpleton who doesn't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, or the laws of radiation thermodynamics.

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is.

Quite a bit of hypocrisy in a "lecture" coming from a simpleton who doesn't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, or the laws of radiation thermodynamics.

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Smart photons say...DERP!

 

[SSDD]

here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is...you will note that consensus....or anything like consensus isn't mentioned..

Ah, so we were talking about the evolution of science (and no, science does not claim to be in possession of the truth at any part of any inquiry), and you give me a summary of the scientific method, plainly explaining that you have no clue as to the distinction. Other than that, you're reduced to crank conspiracy theories ("influenced by politics, money, and the pressure to publish cranks"), which is correct concerning the denialists' financing by Koch et. al., yet not regarding real scientific research.

I find it actually disconcerting to see so much brain power, eloquence, time and effort put in, with but one result, that is, you discrediting and debasing yourself.

You claimed that science was done by consensus...and that consensus was required for a thing to be called "established" science as if the term established science means anything at all without observed, measured, quantified data to back it up...

And it is no conspiracy theory that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the A in AGW as evidenced by the inability of anyone to provide such data...every bit of data that has been produced has supported something...but not the A in AGW...but hey...feel free to prove me wrong by showing me some actual observed, measured, quantified data gathered from out in the real world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...or continue to talk while not providing any such data and further prove my point...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

 

[IanC]

SSDD has begrudgingly conceded that CO2 has been measured to have increased, with at least partial attribution due to fossil fuel use.

A good start.

Next leg. Have global temps warmed during the instrumental period since the 1880's? I don't want to digress into the politics of which method is the right one. They are all wrong but it makes surprisingly little difference which one you use. Every method shows warming, and an absolute average of about 15C, give or take a couple of degrees.

Can we agree to some warming, without worrying about the attribution yet?

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

every other scientist

You really believe that? Really? 'EVERY'? You discussed with every scientist and can in fact make that statement? wow. Dude you must really be someone. forgive me while I have a little chuckle.....a giggle and then a knee slapping gut laugh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

every other scientist

You really believe that? Really? 'EVERY'? You discussed with every scientist and can in fact make that statement? wow. Dude you must really be someone. forgive me while I have a little chuckle.....a giggle and then a knee slapping gut laugh.

You know of another scientist who believes in SSDD's "smart photons"?