Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Crick]

theory is the evidence of a hypothesis friend.
gawd I get tired of proving what an idiot you are. but here, you challenged I'll submit:

from Wikipedia: Theory - Wikipedia

"Underdetermination
Main article: Underdetermination
A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if a rival, inconsistent theory is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."

This does not support the statement you made.

 

[jc456]

supporting evidence from where? you just posted cold does not move to warm, so how does the surface get warmer if the air above is colder? And don't give me back radiation. that's hogwash and a hypothesis unproven.

how do you know this happens if there is no evidence?

Your questions were answered very lucidly many many times by IanC, Crick, and others. Perhaps you don't have the education to understand their answers.

or, perhaps they weren't answered.

 

[jc456]

theory is the evidence of a hypothesis friend.
gawd I get tired of proving what an idiot you are. but here, you challenged I'll submit:

from Wikipedia: Theory - Wikipedia

"Underdetermination
Main article: Underdetermination
A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if a rival, inconsistent theory is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."

This does not support the statement you made.

how?

 

[Crick]

A hypothesis is turned into a theory by sufficient evidence. A theory is not, itself, that evidence.

 

[jc456]

A hypothesis is turned into a theory by sufficient evidence. A theory is not, itself, that evidence.

well in my line of work we create a hypothesis first and prove it and declare it our theory based on testing.

I do root cause analysis, and we experiment in labs frequently. We present a hypothesis after analysis of the logs collected off of our systems. Then we present our theory based off the tests. Not sure how you do it. but it is how we do it here at my company.

 

[Crick]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

 

[jc456]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

test results. How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Treqoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.

 

[IanC]

Let's apply Occam's razor to our choices here.

Option 1: All matter radiates in all directions all the time. No net heat flows from cold to warm without work because warm matter radiates more than cold and the net flow is from warm to cold. No magic required.
Option 2: All matter is somehow aware of the temperature of all other matter in the universe and can throttle and aim its own emissions to avoid radiating at warmer matter no matter the distance and no matter the motion of the parties involved. Even if a rock is 15 billion light years away, a rock here on Earth can calculate where that rock will be 15 billion years from now and adjust its radiation to avoid improper emissions in that very, very, very specific direction. No mechanism has ever been even suggested for this ability and none seems conceivable.

What does ol' William tell us about these two choices? He tells us that SSDD is an ignoramus and a fool.

Yup. Exactly as I have said many times.

Two objects at the same temperature do not stop radiating at each other. There is no 'heat' flow because the radiation from each simply balances out.

All objects radiate according to their temp all the time. Under earth-like conditions, any object at any temperature can be a heat source, heat sink, or balanced, depending on the local conditions. A room temp roast is a heat source if you put it in the fridge, a heat sink in the oven, or balanced sitting on the counter. But it radiates the same amount until it is cooled or heated by its surroundings. This is an important concept. Warming and cooling are relative terms. There is nothing 'special' about an object or environment that is warmer or cooler, it is just the amount of relative radiation.

And the idea that the generalized macroscopic concept of 'temperature' can control the internal atomic scale creation of radiation is simply absurd.

 

[IanC]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

test results. How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Treqoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.

the fucking idiot can't even spell it right.

 

[jc456]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

test results. How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Treqoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.

the fucking idiot can't even spell it right.

i hadn't noticed. LOL

 

[IanC]

A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."

Thank you. Thermodynamics as of today has a plethora of supporting evidence, therefore it is not a hypothesis.

supporting evidence from where? you just posted cold does not move to warm, so how does the surface get warmer if the air above is colder? And don't give me back radiation. that's hogwash and a hypothesis unproven.

What a fucking bonehead. No matter how many times it is explained to him, he just cannot understand it. The stupidity is just tragic.

 

[Crick]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

test results. How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Treqoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "prove".

I have not heard of Kepner Treqoe. I will look him up. ... That should have been Kepner TreGoe. He sells a business problem solving method.

What what-ifs do you believe don't make sense?

 

[jc456]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

test results. How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Tregoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "prove".

I have not heard of Kepner Tregoe. I will look him up. ... That should have been Kepner TreGoe. He sells a business problem solving method.

What what-ifs do you believe don't make sense?

if ice melts it must be CO2. if temps go up it must be CO2 driving it. Well in my world of KT, you prove out if CO2 will melt ice or cause temperature increases. Now, listen up, I've asked for five plus years for that test. I'm still whistle-n dixie here cause you never ever posted one.

Dude you still didn't state how you prove out a hypothesis? Oh that's right in your world no proof is necessary. But in the real world it is.

 

[Crick]

if ice melts it must be CO2.

I have never said that. I know of no one who has except deniers claiming that mainstream science makes such statements. Like you.

if temps go up it must be CO2 driving it.

I have never said that. I know of no one who has except deniers claiming that mainstream science makes such statements. Like you.

Well in my world of KT, you prove out if CO2 will melt ice or cause temperature increases. Now, listen up, I've asked for five plus years for that test. I'm still whistle-n dixie here cause you never ever posted one.

I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.

Dude you still didn't state how you prove out a hypothesis?

I never claimed that anyone did so. I specifically told you, repeatedly, that neither hypotheses nor theories in the natural sciences are provable. On the other hand, YOU claimed that you proved hypotheses on a regular basis at work. I asked you how you did so but you have not answered.

Oh that's right in your world no proof is necessary. But in the real world it is.

Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

What the fuck are you smoking? Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

You must believe in the common core version of science... its whatever we tell you it is.. no evidence required..

 

[ding]

I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.

Can you show me this irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.

Pony up big boy...

Lets see your irrefutable evidence.. Your math showing exactly what mans contribution to warming has been and how you ruled out all other potential causes... Be sure you include how you found the sensitivity of all atmospheric substances and how you derived their influence.

I'll wait..

 

[jc456]

if ice melts it must be CO2.

I have never said that. I know of no one who has except deniers claiming that mainstream science makes such statements. Like you.

if temps go up it must be CO2 driving it.

I have never said that. I know of no one who has except deniers claiming that mainstream science makes such statements. Like you.

Well in my world of KT, you prove out if CO2 will melt ice or cause temperature increases. Now, listen up, I've asked for five plus years for that test. I'm still whistle-n dixie here cause you never ever posted one.

I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.

Dude you still didn't state how you prove out a hypothesis?

I never claimed that anyone did so. I specifically told you, repeatedly, that neither hypotheses nor theories in the natural sciences are provable. On the other hand, YOU claimed that you proved hypotheses on a regular basis at work. I asked you how you did so but you have not answered.

Oh that's right in your world no proof is necessary. But in the real world it is.

Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

I never fking answered? You liar. I explained how and the methodology! Dude you have no humility wow

 

[Crick]

You asked me if I had ever heard of Keystone and Treguna Mayfoppia. That is hardly an explanation as to how your hypothesis was proven.

 

[Wuwei]

Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

That is a common misconception among laymen.You can use the word "proof" in theorems that relate various aspects of science. For example, if we assume the speed of light is constant for all inertial systems, then we can mathematically prove E = mc^2.

You should understand that mathematical proof in physics models does not prove anything observed in the real world. The observations lead to a model.