Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider they look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?

Where don't they go?

 

[jc456]

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider they look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?

Where don't they go?

you said they didn't hover. so where do they go? you inferred movement.

Are you also inferring that the jet stream doesn't move the gases?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?

Where don't they go?

you said they didn't hover. so where do they go? you inferred movement.

Are you also inferring that the jet stream doesn't move the gases?

you said they didn't hover.

I did? When?

 

[jc456]

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?

Where don't they go?

you said they didn't hover. so where do they go? you inferred movement.

Are you also inferring that the jet stream doesn't move the gases?

you said they didn't hover.

I did? When?

so they do hover?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?

Where don't they go?

you said they didn't hover. so where do they go? you inferred movement.

Are you also inferring that the jet stream doesn't move the gases?

you said they didn't hover.

I did? When?

so they do hover?

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

 

[mamooth]

So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?

Do cool downdrafts originate in outer space, outside of earth's climate system?

No.

Hence, that has nothing to do with your torch example. Updrafts and downdrafts move heat around, but they don't add or remove heat.

 

[polarbear]

So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?

Do cool downdrafts originate in outer space, outside of earth's climate system?

No.

Hence, that has nothing to do with your torch example. Updrafts and downdrafts move heat around, but they don't add or remove heat.

What an absurd reply. Cold downdrafts cool the surface and everything else in the vicinity.
The heat the air lost to cool it down was dissipated at altitudes exceeding 3000 meters and up to 12 000 meters above ground level. But according to you there is no difference when that happens because the atmosphere at 12 000 meters is still "part of the climate system" inferring that none of that affected the temperature in the altitude range that we monitor for temperature....which by the way is supposed to be 1.5 meters above the ground for the weather stations that gather the data.
Aside from just getting rid of a huge amount of heat and conveying it to altitudes where the partial vapor pressure of 400 ppm molar CO2 is next to nothing when expressed in weight per volume or moles per volume there is a significant wind chill factor acting on the ground below.

 

[jc456]

So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?

Do cool downdrafts originate in outer space, outside of earth's climate system?

No.

Hence, that has nothing to do with your torch example. Updrafts and downdrafts move heat around, but they don't add or remove heat.

it's funny that you think heat comes back down to the surface. Updrafts remove heat from the surface. you can just post up that diagram that shows heat coming toward the surface on a downdraft.

 

[polarbear]

So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?

Do cool downdrafts originate in outer space, outside of earth's climate system?

No.

Hence, that has nothing to do with your torch example. Updrafts and downdrafts move heat around, but they don't add or remove heat.

it's funny that you think heat comes back down to the surface. Updrafts remove heat from the surface. you can just post up that diagram that shows heat coming toward the surface on a downdraft.

Ice cubes are used to cool a drink:

But when they are round then it`s heat "coming back down"

 

[RollingThunder]

This moronic thread's OP was completely debunked on page one in post #10.....killed dead.....just a zombie lurching along since then......which makes the denier cultists feel right at home.

Post #10 had two experiments demonstrating CO2 backradiation performed by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the few scientists who is actually somewhat skeptical about some aspects of AGW....but he is not crazy enough to deny basic science like the denier cult dingbats on this forum.

The denialists got crazy after post #10 about IR thermometers, fraudulently of course, and just ignored Dr. Spencer's second experiment, probably because they don't have sufficient attention span to read that far. I thought, at this point, it would probably be kind of amusing to watch them try to deal with the straightforward simplicity of this experiment. The debunked bullcrap OP is long since dead anyway, and their anti-science mental masturbation has long since gone completely off topic.

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010
(Skipping the first part)

Evidence from The Box

I have been seeing the same effect in “The Box”, which is my attempt to use the greenhouse effect to warm and cool a thin aluminum plate coated with high-emissivity paint, that is heavily insulated from its surroundings in order to isolate just the radiative transfers of energy between the sky and the plate. This can be considered a clumsy, inefficient version of the IR thermometer. But now, *I* am making actual temperature measurements.

The following plot (click on it for the full-size version) shows data from the last 2 days, up through this morning’s events. The plate gets colder at night than the ambient temperature because it “sees” the cold sky, and is insulated from heat flow from the surrounding air and ground.


In the lower right, I have also circled where thin middle-level clouds came over, emitting more IR radiation downward than the clear sky, and causing a warming of the plate. Since the plate is mostly isolated from heat exchanges with the surrounding air and warm ground, it responds faster than the ambient air temperature to the intensity of “back radiation” downwelling from the sky.

When I woke this morning before sunrise, around 5:30, I saw these mid-level clouds (I used to be a certified aviation weather observer), I measured about 50 deg. F from the handheld IR thermometer.

This supports what people already experience…cloudy nights are, on average, warmer than clear nights. The main reason is that clouds emit more IR downward, change the (im)balance between upwelling and downwelling IR, and if you change the balance between energy flows in and out of an object, its temperature will change. Conservation of Energy, they call it.

(WARNING: a technical detail about the above measurements and their importance to greenhouse theory follows.)

What this Means for the Miskolczi “Aa=Ed” Controversy

Except for relatively rare special cases, the total amount of IR energy downwelling from the sky (Ed) will ALWAYS remain less than the amount upwelling from below and absorbed by the sky (Aa). As long as (1) the atmosphere has some transparency to IR radiation (which it does), and (2) the atmosphere is colder than the surface (which it is), then Ed will be less than Aa…even though they are usually close to one another, since temperatures are always adjusting to minimize IR flux divergences and convergences.

But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...you can see the evidence of this by the continual reduction of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers...it is well on its way to zero..

 

[RollingThunder]

But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...you can see the evidence of this by the continual reduction of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers...it is well on its way to zero..

Just more of SSoooDDumb's usual anti-science denier cult insanity and lies.....based on nothing....no support, no evidence....while in the real world, there is absolutely no doubt scientifically about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. There have been no "reductions of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers" except in denier cult mythology. In the real world....

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity - NOAA - Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
(excerpts)
Projections of the severity of anthropogenic climate change are strongly dependent on our estimates of climate sensitivity, traditionally defined as the average warming at the Earth’s surface due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels. This importance arises not simply because the mean temperature change directly causes all of the impacts of major concern, but because many other effects of climate change are predicted to increase in severity with larger warming.

The equilibrium sensitivity — the temperature change realized after allowing the climate system to equilibrate with a higher value of CO2, after the deep oceans have had time to equilibrate -- is of direct relevance to the changes we are likely to see in the 21st century.

Equilibrium sensitivities in global climate models typically range from 2 to more than 4C.

 

[SSDD]

Just more of SSoooDDumb's usual anti-science denier cult insanity and lies.....based on nothing....no support, no evidence....while in the real world, there is absolutely no doubt scientifically about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. There have been no "reductions of the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 in the published papers" except in denier cult mythology. In the real world....

You just keep on demonstrating that your belief, and that of climate science, for that matter is a matter of dogma and faith...not science.. There isn't the first bit of actual measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...it is all mathematical models...and yet, you claim that there is absolutely no doubt that the greenhouse effect as described by climate science is as it is described by climate science even though, the margin of error is larger than the actual claimed sensitivity.

As you can see...as I said, the estimates of climate sensitivity are well on their way to zero. Back in the 90's to the early 2000's , the estimate of sensitivity was 3 to 6 degrees...between 2005 and 2010, that estimate dropped to 2 to 3 degrees and since 2010, that estimate as stated in the published literature has been dropping and now the average is about a degree and a half, and falling.

Hell thunder, any idiot should be able to figure out that CO2 isn't all that...the ice age that the earth is presently clawing its way out of began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm....and you are wringing your hands predicting disaster over 400?...laughable thunder...absolutely laughable.

 

[Crick]

Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers? The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so. Care to explain?

Wait... wait... let me guess. Anyone doing mathematics in the process of a scientific investigation is a useless model.

 

[polarbear]

Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers? The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so. Care to explain?

Wait... wait... let me guess. Anyone doing mathematics in the process of a scientific investigation is a useless model.

So what? Of course the atmosphere had a warming effect before we had computers and fossil fuel CO2.
And why would you have to "do mathematics" (now) to investigate further if as they say "the science is settled"
You guessed wrong, because all the models (so far) are wrong.
From your favorite "science" guru:
The albedo effect and global warming
The Unsettled Science of Albedo
The project reported a counter-intuitive finding. The Earth’s albedo was rising, even as the planet was warming. This seems contradictory, as Anthony Watts was quick to note when he voiced his sceptical argument in 2007. If higher albedo was having a cooling effect, how could global warming be taking place?
Conclusions
Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science.
That goes to show how ignorant of physics these "climate scientists" are.
They state that 1120 W/m^2 sunlight hitting the ground which they said until now has an albedo of 0.3 leaves enough reflected energy to give us the daylight we have which is anywhere from 10 000 to 25 000 lux indirect sunlight.
With a 0.3 albedo that is at a minimum about 24 watts per m^2 short of what it takes to illuminate 1 m^2 to that brightness.
And that is also at a minimum almost 10x the amount of global warming we get blamed for.

 

[Crick]

I was responding to Same Shit's claim that all support for greenhouse earming was based on flawed mathematical models. If you'd like to address that, feel free, but your last comment does not do so.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[polarbear]

I was responding to Same Shit's claim that all support for greenhouse earming was based on flawed mathematical models. If you'd like to address that, feel free, but your last comment does not do so.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What?.. you don`t think that these models were flawed, now that it is clear that the albedo the models have used were wrong? And finally the admission that the "science" regarding the increasing albedo is not settled makes no difference to you ?

 

[RollingThunder]

Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers? The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so. Care to explain?

Wait... wait... let me guess. Anyone doing mathematics in the process of a scientific investigation is a useless model.

So what? Of course the atmosphere had a warming effect before we had computers and fossil fuel CO2.

For hundreds of millions of years the Greenhouse Effect was indeed keeping the planet warmer than it would have been without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.....but the effect was generally to moderate and stabilize temperatures in a homeostatic balance. Currently the over 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has destabilized temperatures and is having a vastly increased "warming effect", heading towards temperatures not seen on Earth for many millions of years, when the planet was a very different place, with much, much higher sea levels.

And why would you have to "do mathematics" (now) to investigate further if as they say "the science is settled"

Too bad you are so stupid! The phrase "the science is settled" that has been used in relation to anthropogenic global warming refers to the fact that the basic physics and processes that are causing the current abrupt and rapid global warming are well understood and are no longer in question. It doesn't mean that every aspect and part of what is happening has already been fully investigated and known. It does mean that scientists are quite certain that human activities have caused this 46% increase in CO2 levels, and that it is these highly elevated CO2 levels that are causing the rapid increase in global temperatures.

You guessed wrong, because all the models (so far) are wrong.

Too bad you're so insane, poop4brains! The climate models have proved to be fairly accurate and the predictions resulting from those models seem to be, if anything, somewhat too conservative....things are happening even faster than the models predicted.

Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming
Dr John Abraham, professor of thermal sciences
27 July 2016

From your favorite "science" guru:
The albedo effect and global warming
The Unsettled Science of Albedo
The project reported a counter-intuitive finding. The Earth’s albedo was rising, even as the planet was warming. This seems contradictory, as Anthony Watts was quick to note when he voiced his sceptical argument in 2007. If higher albedo was having a cooling effect, how could global warming be taking place?
Conclusions
Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science.

Too bad you are such a braindead LIAR, POOP4brains!

Citing something and then cherry-picking quotes to distort the meaning is fraudulent debate. Here is the whole quote, which doesn't mean what you are moronically and deceitfully trying to claim:

"Measuring Albedo
The albedo of a surface is measured on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is a idealised black surface with no reflection, and 1 represents a white surface that has perfect reflection.

Taking measurements of something with so many variables and influences is clearly going to be a challenge. Satellite data is constrained by the orbit of the satellite. Clouds can be hard to distinguish from white surfaces.

Indirect measurement may also be problematic. The Earthshine project investigated a phenomenon where light reflected by Earth illuminates the dark side of the moon. By measuring the brightness, the amount of albedo - reflectivity - could be estimated.

The project reported a counter-intuitive finding. The Earth’s albedo was rising, even as the planet was warming. This seems contradictory, as Anthony Watts was quick to note when he voiced his sceptical argument in 2007. If higher albedo was having a cooling effect, how could global warming be taking place?

Tricky Business
Science constantly seeks to improve itself. The first Earthshine paper (Palle 2004) claimed to have discovered a very significant cooling effect through a big increase in global albedo.

The results were problematic. They flatly contradicted the NASA CERES satellite observations, and the discrepancy became the subject of investigation. In 2004, a new telescope was installed at the Big Bear observatory, where the project was located. It became evident that the original analysis was inaccurate. Once corrected, the Earthshine project and the satellite measurements were more consistent.

Global versus Local
There are contradictory assessments of current trends in global albedo, possibly because the changes and effects are small. Research is being conducted into the role of clouds, both as forcings and feedbacks, and the role of albedo in cloud formation.

Recent research indicates that global albedo is fairly constant, and having no material effect on global temperatures. Local effects may be more pronounced. Loss of albedo in the Arctic could heat the water sufficiently to release methane stored in ice crystals called clathrates. (Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2).

Loss of albedo in the Arctic will accelerate warming across adjacent permafrost, releasing methane. Melting permafrost may reduce its albedo, another positive feedback that will accelerate warming. Ocean warming from reduced Arctic albedo will also accelerate melting at the edges of the Greenland ice cap, speeding up sea level rise.

Conclusions
Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science.

We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change - positive or negative - it may make."

That goes to show how ignorant of physics these "climate scientists" are.

Nope! Your post once again shows how ignorant of physics and science you actually are, poop4brains......as well as completely afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

They state that 1120 W/m^2 sunlight hitting the ground which they said until now has an albedo of 0.3 leaves enough reflected energy to give us the daylight we have which is anywhere from 10 000 to 25 000 lux indirect sunlight.

Sooooo stupid! "Indirect sunlight" has almost nothing to do with albedo, or the amount of reflected light from the Earth's surface.

"Daylight", which you claim "is anywhere from 10 000 to 25 000 lux indirect sunlight" is basically a combination of (mostly) direct sunlight and the diffuse sky radiation caused by sunlight getting scattered by striking particulates in the atmosphere or interacting with gas molecules.

Diffuse sky radiation is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been scattered from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called skylight, diffuse skylight, or sky radiation and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky. Of the total light removed from the direct solar beam by scattering in the atmosphere (approximately 25% of the incident radiation when the sun is high in the sky, depending on the amount of dust and haze in the atmosphere), about two-thirds ultimately reaches the earth as diffuse sky radiation. When the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky, with 1361 W/m2[1] above the atmosphere, direct sunlight is about 1050 W/m2, and total insolation about 1120 W/m2.[2] This implies that under these conditions the diffuse radiation is only about 70 W/m2 out of the original 1361 W/m2.

The dominant radiative scattering processes in the atmosphere (Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering) are elastic in nature, by which light can be deviated from its path without being absorbed and with no change in wavelength.

The sunlit sky is blue because air scatters short-wavelength light more than longer wavelengths. Since blue light is at the short-wavelength end of the visible spectrum, it is more strongly scattered in the atmosphere than long-wavelength red light. The result is that when looking toward parts of the sky other than the sun, human eye perceives them to be blue.[3] The color perceived is similar to that obtained by a monochromatic blue of a wavelength of 474–476 nm mixed with white light, i.e., an unsaturated blue light.[4]

Near sunrise and sunset, most of the sunlight arrives nearly tangentially to the Earth's surface; thus, the light's path through the atmosphere is so long that much of the blue and even green light is scattered out along the way, leaving the sun rays and the clouds it illuminates red. Therefore, when looking at the sunset and sunrise, we see the colour red more than the other colors.

 

[SSDD]

Was it all mathematical models before the development of modern computers? The greenhouse effect predates the PC by about a century or so. Care to explain?

You don't think there were mathematical models prior to the computer? What a doofus.

By the way...professor Woods discredited the greenhouse claim shortly after it was published... And you have a hypothesis promoted by Arrhenius, while the hypothesis that I support was posited by Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot...and their hypothesis, by the way, predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, and is the basis for the US standard atmosphere in use by NASA...your hypothesis only predicts the temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[SSDD]

For hundreds of millions of years the Greenhouse Effect was indeed keeping the planet warmer than it would have been without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...

Care to show me some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting that claim? Of course you can't... because none exists...it is the product of a mathematical model..nothing more...There are no actual measurements of a greenhouse effect...and don't bother showing me all your evidence of a changing climate again...evidence of climate change is not evidence of the cause...you only make assumptions on the cause due to some internal need you have...not because of any observed, measured, quantified evidence.