No Evidence

[SSDD]

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Evidence? You have shown time and again that you don't understand evidence because you don't believe nor understand the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, you don't believe modern physics, you don't even understand the terminology used in physics that you continually misuse. You openly disparage much of the fundamental science in university text books on physics. You have even called the mathematical models of physics "fairy dust". Yet you continually talk "science" to justify your invented science.

You have to have the capacity to understand evidence before you ask for evidence.

Fantasy modeling of systems that they have yet to model correctly in any form is funny as hell to call "evidence" Science is FACT based on observed, mensurable, and reproducible events.

Talk to any practicing thermodynamics engineer who is creating systems for use in the real world and they will laugh in your face about CAGW...

Talk to me when you get a model that doesn't have to be retrained every year or two because it can not model the systems observed behaviors.

Read my post again. I have never mentioned CAGW anywhere in this forum. I was talking about basic physics that SSDD disbelieves. Do you believe what he believes?

Do you think EM radiation from a cold body is impeded from hitting a warmer body?
Do you believe that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other?
Do you think the mathematical models of quantum mechanics should be likened to fairy dust?
Do you think radioactivity is not spontaneous decay?
Do you think thermal energy from the cosmic microwave background never hit an uncooled receiving dish on earth.
The list goes on.

Right...you are off topic..buzz of to the other threads where I am kicking your ass....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you think EM radiation from a cold body is impeded from hitting a warmer body?

While not proven by empirical evidence, I do think that EM is propagated in all directions from matter. As I have stated in my posts, the main item which determines how that energy is dealt with is the matter itself and its state.

CO2, once energy positive, can not absorb further energy until it releases what it is holding. CO2 has a very low residency time and releases energy almost instantaneously and will therefore not warm even when heavily bombarded with energy in the 10-25um spectrum. Water vapor is not being affected like the AGW hypothesis states and is actually acting as a negative influence on our atmosphere, which is why there is no "hot spot". They got it wrong.

The point being, the CO2 molecule is incapable of warming even in the presence of heavy energy which can affect it. The answer to your question is both Yes and No. It is dependent on the matter it is reacting with.

Black bodies act differently than grey bodies. While black bodies can absorb energy in any band, if they are warmer than the energy being sent its way, it creates a dampening effect and cooling until equilibrium of the opposing masses and then a slower decay rate due to total mass size.

I have differing views on energy flow than SSDD but the outcome is the same. WE agree to disagree. And due to this I have had some very good conversations with him.

In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation. I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.

Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...

 

[SSDD]

In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation. I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.

Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed...and it drives them nuts that I won't simply accept the models and shut the f&ck up. Accepting unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models is what put science in the sticky wicket it finds itself in now. Post modernism on the whole is an abject failure. Till such time as observation proves me wrong, I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified. Stick with that and even if you are eventually proven wrong, you won't be that wrong...go off half cocked believing in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and you can find yourself so wrong that there really isn't a scale upon which to measure how far wrong you were.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation. I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.

Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed...and it drives them nuts that I won't simply accept the models and shut the f&ck up. Accepting unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models is what put science in the sticky wicket it finds itself in now. Post modernism on the whole is an abject failure. Till such time as observation proves me wrong, I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified. Stick with that and even if you are eventually proven wrong, you won't be that wrong...go off half cocked believing in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and you can find yourself so wrong that there really isn't a scale upon which to measure how far wrong you were.

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed.

We've never seen photons from the Sun's surface moving toward the hotter corona?
We've never seen photons from the Earth's surface moving toward the hotter thermosphere?

You smoking weed again?

I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified.

Any observation of objects at equilibrium not radiating?

 

[SSDD]

In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation. I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.

Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed...and it drives them nuts that I won't simply accept the models and shut the f&ck up. Accepting unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models is what put science in the sticky wicket it finds itself in now. Post modernism on the whole is an abject failure. Till such time as observation proves me wrong, I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified. Stick with that and even if you are eventually proven wrong, you won't be that wrong...go off half cocked believing in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and you can find yourself so wrong that there really isn't a scale upon which to measure how far wrong you were.

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed.

We've never seen photons from the Sun's surface moving toward the hotter corona?
We've never seen photons from the Earth's surface moving toward the hotter thermosphere?

You smoking weed again?

I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified.

Any observation of objects at equilibrium not radiating?

It is hypothesized that alfven waves are providing the work necessary to move energy to the corona

and the thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat. Take a thermometer up there and it will read approximately 0C...in fact the molecules are so far apart that even sound isn't conducted....


You just keep swinging and missing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation. I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.

Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed...and it drives them nuts that I won't simply accept the models and shut the f&ck up. Accepting unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models is what put science in the sticky wicket it finds itself in now. Post modernism on the whole is an abject failure. Till such time as observation proves me wrong, I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified. Stick with that and even if you are eventually proven wrong, you won't be that wrong...go off half cocked believing in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and you can find yourself so wrong that there really isn't a scale upon which to measure how far wrong you were.

They know full well that the exchange has never been observed.

We've never seen photons from the Sun's surface moving toward the hotter corona?
We've never seen photons from the Earth's surface moving toward the hotter thermosphere?

You smoking weed again?

I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified.

Any observation of objects at equilibrium not radiating?

It is hypothesized that alfven waves are providing the work necessary to move energy to the corona

and the thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat. Take a thermometer up there and it will read approximately 0C...in fact the molecules are so far apart that even sound isn't conducted....


You just keep swinging and missing.

It is hypothesized that alfven waves are providing the work necessary to move energy to the corona

Nobody cares how the corona heats.

We care how the Sun's surface violates your claim, "Energy can never move from cooler to hotter matter".

thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat.

The fact that you're confusing conduction with radiation is further proof of your ignorance.

 

[Crepitus]

Evidence:

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

There's tons more, like glacial melt data, borehole analysis, sea level rise, and so on but honestly I don't know why I'm.even bother to post this one, you're only going to ignore or dismiss it because it violates your quasi-religious conviction that it can't be real.

So are you claiming that glaciers never melted before...or that sea level never rose before, and so on? No one is denying that glaciers have melted some or that sea level is rising a bit...but the amount of glacier melting and sea level rise we have seen are well within the boundaries of natural variability...and borehole analysis of ice cores tell us that at the present, it is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction made from one of the bore holes you mentioned. Do explain how you believe this borehole analysis demonstrates evidence that the present climate is doing anything at all that is unusual...except perhaps for the fact that it is a good bit cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Lol, I told you so.

 

[SSDD]

Lol, I told you so.

Not sure what you think that graph says...It is evidence that we are well within the boundaries of natural variability....

 

[Wuwei]

This thread is about the lack of evidence for man made climate change...I am happily kicking your ass on other threads regarding physics. Keep to the topic or buzz off.

Nope you are lying through your ass in other threads. Yes, this thread is about evidence. I assume you want scientific evidence. Well, your problem is that you don't believe in science so this whole thread is your usual hypocritical farce.

 

[Wuwei]

Right...you are off topic..buzz of to the other threads where I am kicking your ass....

As I said this is quite on topic.

 

[Wuwei]

and the thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat. Take a thermometer up there and it will read approximately 0C...in fact the molecules are so far apart that even sound isn't conducted....

You really think a thermometer that close to the sun will measure 0C?That's the freezing point of water. It is very interesting that you think ice cubes will survive comfortably there. At least that is one way of getting around your object can't radiate to hotter things thinking fallacy.

 

[Slade3200]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

Wouldn’t you consider a rapid acceleration of climate change as measured evidence of something significant? At least worthy of concern and analysis?

Define "rapid" s0n....that's the whole point. Its makey-uppey science....exactly SSDD's point. It is NOT measurable.

Too, "concern" and "significant" are makey-uppey semantics one always sees associated with climate change. Just like "increased"....."warmer"...."expanding" etc......loose association gobblygook. No operational definitions.....hmmmm!. Science wanting to live comfortably in the world of abstracts. Hmmmm. Highly convenient...works well when your entire play is based upon computer models that are consistently spectacularly wrong!

Nobody knows dick about why our climate is in constant flux...and more to the point, even if they did, well, they get a big gold star. Because only an incredibly naive dumbass cant connect the dots that there isnt dick that can be done to reverse it. Most of the public recognizes that....they might have "concerns" like the many concerns they have in life. They realize that throwing trillions to address a "concern" is ghey when there are a billion far more pressing concerns in life.

Get some real responsibilities in life....that way, you dont worry about st00pid stuff!

All I’m saying is this stuff shouldn’t be swept under the rug. This is our planet and ecosystem that we live in. We should be treating it with respect and not trashing it. We should be aware of how our activities effect our ecosystem whether it be small or large.

I agree...there are a great many ecological problems we are facing...real problems with real solutions but none of them are being addressed because the climate change scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers...they literally want trillions of dollars for climate research to waste on a non problem...how much actual work could be done towards cleaning up our planet with that much money?

Where are the trillions of dollars going that you think is such a waste?

 

[SSDD]

Where are the trillions of dollars going that you think is such a waste?

Exactly...where are they going? It should be clear to even those of you who believe fervently in man made climate change by now that there simply is no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and no observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and not a single published paper which measures, and quantifies the hypothetical warming caused by our release of so called greenhouse gasses and then attributes that warming to so called greenhouse gasses.

No actual observed evidence in spite of 120 years to gather it and obscene amounts of money being spent on the topic.

Can you name any single benefit that has derived from all that money? Anything that has made life, better, more comfortable, more enjoyable, more productive, etc.? Anything?

The question is where is it going and what good is it doing?

That amount of money, and they money they are asking for in the future, if targeted specifically, could go a long way towards actually cleaning up our environment, improving use of land and resources, feeding people who are hungry, providing the means to transform the third world into industrialized nations.

What good exactly is coming out of flushing it down the climate change toilet?

 

[SSDD]

This thread is about the lack of evidence for man made climate change...I am happily kicking your ass on other threads regarding physics. Keep to the topic or buzz off.

Nope you are lying through your ass in other threads. Yes, this thread is about evidence. I assume you want scientific evidence. Well, your problem is that you don't believe in science so this whole thread is your usual hypocritical farce.

You seem to be having trouble with the concept of observed, measured evidence. The climate is an observable, measurable entity. The claims of climate science relate to observable, measurable phenomena...I am asking for observed, measured evidence. You are trying to substitute unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models for observed, measured evidence and then call them actual observed, measured evidence.

This thread is about actual, real, observed, measured evidence which supports the hypothesis..either you can provide it or not....blathering on about whether or not I place much stock in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models is a meaningless point. If you want to talk about such models, start a thread....you will have the entire body of climate science to talk about since there is nothing within that body that amounts to observed, measured evidence that supports the hypothesis.

I can't say where it is going....but I can say that wherever it is going, it isn't doing any good for anyone beyond those who are spending it.

 

[SSDD]

Right...you are off topic..buzz of to the other threads where I am kicking your ass....

As I said this is quite on topic.

Actually, it isn't...whether or not I have much confidence in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models has little to do with the absence of observed, measured evidence to support the hypotheses associated with climate change.

But then you seem to have great difficulty grasping basic concepts like that.

 

[SSDD]

[

You really think a thermometer that close to the sun will measure 0C?That's the freezing point of water. It is very interesting that you think ice cubes will survive comfortably there. At least that is one way of getting around your object can't radiate to hotter things thinking fallacy.

Pay attention...he was talking about the thermosphere of the earth. Do you ever pay attention to anything or put any thought into what you are going to say before you say it?

According to NASA, If you were to hang out in the thermosphere, though, you would be very cold because there aren’t enough gas molecules to transfer the heat to you. If there aren't enough molecules there to transfer heat to me, then there wouldn't be enough molecules there to transfer heat to an ice cube and that being the case, an ice cube would survive comfortably there. For someone who fancies himself a physics wiz...you sure do fail to grasp some very basic concepts.

But we digress...this thread is about observed, measured evidence which supports the greenhouse gas hypothesis an the man made global warming hypothesis... Got any?

 

[SSDD]

Nobody cares how the corona heats.

We care how the Sun's surface violates your claim, "Energy can never move from cooler to hotter matter".

Another swing and another miss. This is pretty basic stuff, why are you having so much trouble with it. As I have said many many many times, energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means? Its right there in the second law...energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm with some form of WORK having been done to make it happen. Alfven waves are work. Work is moving the energy from the surface to the corona. Sorry you can't get it.

The fact that you're confusing conduction with radiation is further proof of your ignorance.

And yet another swing and yet another miss. If the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct energy...or even conduct sound... if it is almost a hard vacuum, exactly what is there to prevent radiation from moving right on through. It is like spraying water at a chicken wire fence. The amount that doesn't radiate through is inconsequential.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody cares how the corona heats.

We care how the Sun's surface violates your claim, "Energy can never move from cooler to hotter matter".

Another swing and another miss. This is pretty basic stuff, why are you having so much trouble with it. As I have said many many many times, energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means? Its right there in the second law...energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm with some form of WORK having been done to make it happen. Alfven waves are work. Work is moving the energy from the surface to the corona. Sorry you can't get it.

The fact that you're confusing conduction with radiation is further proof of your ignorance.

And yet another swing and yet another miss. If the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct energy...or even conduct sound... if it is almost a hard vacuum, exactly what is there to prevent radiation from moving right on through. It is like spraying water at a chicken wire fence. The amount that doesn't radiate through is inconsequential.

Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means?

You're the one who said when matter absorbs outside energy, it doesn't emit spontaneously.
So explain how it emits.

energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm with some form of WORK having been done to make it happen.

What work is done on the Sun's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter corona?
What work is done on the Earth's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter thermosphere?

Alfven waves are work. Work is moving the energy from the surface to the corona.

Alfven waves aren't the Sun's surface emitting.

If the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct energy...or even conduct sound... if it is almost a hard vacuum, exactly what is there to prevent radiation from moving right on through.

And now we're back to smart photons, picking their way through hotter matter.
Is the Earth's entire atmosphere a hard vacuum?
Is that why CMB can reach the Earth's surface?
Only those photons that can avoid every atom and molecule in the atmosphere,
were emitted billions of years ago, destined to only hit a cooled receiver?

 

[Slade3200]

Where are the trillions of dollars going that you think is such a waste?

Exactly...where are they going? It should be clear to even those of you who believe fervently in man made climate change by now that there simply is no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and no observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and not a single published paper which measures, and quantifies the hypothetical warming caused by our release of so called greenhouse gasses and then attributes that warming to so called greenhouse gasses.

No actual observed evidence in spite of 120 years to gather it and obscene amounts of money being spent on the topic.

Can you name any single benefit that has derived from all that money? Anything that has made life, better, more comfortable, more enjoyable, more productive, etc.? Anything?

The question is where is it going and what good is it doing?

That amount of money, and they money they are asking for in the future, if targeted specifically, could go a long way towards actually cleaning up our environment, improving use of land and resources, feeding people who are hungry, providing the means to transform the third world into industrialized nations.

What good exactly is coming out of flushing it down the climate change toilet?

I haven’t researched the subject in depth sonim asking you. Have you looked into where exactly the trillion dollars have gone? Specifically. If you are going to call it a waste then shouldn’t you know what it was getting wasted on?

 

[SSDD]

Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means?

You're the one who said when matter absorbs outside energy, it doesn't emit spontaneously.
So explain how it emits.

I can see that you have lost what tenuous grasp you had on the thread of this conversation....Were we not talking about energy moving from the surface of the sun to the corona? What energy are you claiming that the sun is absorbing than emitting?

What work is done on the Sun's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter corona?

As I have said...alven waves are the latest hypothesis.. sorry you are having such a hard time reading.

What work is done on the Earth's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter thermosphere?

The thermosphere is mostly empty....as I said...it is like spraying water through a chicken wire fence...what is there in the thermosphere that you think would block off all radiation, or even a significant portion of radiation from a cooler object? Radiation moves through empty space just fine...and the thermosphere is almost entirely empty space.

Alfven waves aren't the Sun's surface emitting.

But they are thought to be the work that moves the energy from the surface to the corona...you seem to be the only one who thinks that the sun is just spontaneously emitting energy from its cooler surface to the warmer corona...or the only one who can't grasp the concept of work moving energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona. In either case, you apparently don't have a clue.

And now we're back to smart photons, picking their way through hotter matter.

"Picking" their way? Really? Exactly what sort of picking is required to move through a space that is mostly empty vacuum...again...you don't seem to have a clue.

Is the Earth's entire atmosphere a hard vacuum?

Were you not talking about the thermosphere? Now that that notion has lost, you want to try something else? Typical.

Is that why CMB can reach the Earth's surface?

CMB didn't reach the earth's surface....a resonant radio frequency did..they measured it with a radio telescope remember...not a microwave dish, or an infrared telescope...but that topic is so far over your head that you have already made it perfectly clear that you never will get it.

Only those photons that can avoid every atom and molecule in the atmosphere,

Don't have any idea what you are bleating about.,

were emitted billions of years ago, destined to only hit a cooled receiver?

I didn't make up the notion of photons....or the rules by which they theoretically exist...but I gave an accurate description of what they do within the rules that theoretical science made up...don't like them...talk to theoretical science...they are the ones who said that time is a meaningless concept to photons..and that distance is a meaningless concept to photons, and that photons exist everywhere along their path simultaneously....don't like the ramifications? Sorry....not my fault...if you are going to accept photons as real, then you are obliged to accept the properties those who made them up say they have.