How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[gfm7175]

And since your beliefs are not falsifiable, they are obviously religious in nature.

In stark contrast, our beliefs could be falsified by many types of hard data. Thus, they qualify as hard science.

No idea what you're even going on about here...

If you disagree, tell us what your theory of climate is, and then tell us what data could falsify it. If you state that you're not required to provide a theory, that will instantly qualify you as a wild-eyed religious zealot.

Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy. I don't have to provide you anything.

There is no such thing as a 'global climate'... Climate is typically defined as "weather in an area over a long period of time"... It is not quantifiable.

 

[gfm7175]

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

Yes, I am finding that. These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is. The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion. An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...

Wow, where to start.

No one is claiming that a cold object will make a warm object warmer. What we are claiming in response to the insane intepretations of one poster SSDD, is that all matter radiates in all directions at all times. The intensity and spectrum of that radiation is determined by the temperature of the radiating matter. It is NOT affected by the temperature of anything around it.

Billy Bob, apparently out of perceived friendship, has been trying to defend SSDD's position which claims that photons from cold matter WILL NOT RADIATE towards warmer matter. That is, he believes that either all matter or all photons are somehow aware of the temperature of distant matter that they might hit and control is somehow exerted that prevents photons from taking off towards warmer matter. This would have to include very distant matter, where relativity would become a large factor (it is actually a factor at all distances but that discussion can wait). It would also have to include moving matter. For example a photon could be emitted from a block of ice in front of you that, if unchecked, would travel through the window in your back door slider where its course would be slightly altered sending it out into space where, in ten thousand years, afte traversing the distorting gravity fields of three different black holes it will strike a small rocky object orbiting close to a distant star at very high velocity in a direction orthogonal to its path, at a particular spot being heated by a small kernel of radioactive material to a temperature one ten-thousandth of one Centigrade degree above the temperature of the emitting ice cube back in your kitchen ten thousand years ago. But, according to SSDD and Billy Bob, that photon WOULD be checked, because the ice cube or the photon would somehow know all of this in advance and would somehow stop or be stopped from wasting its time making the trip. So, this is the internet. Be careful who you talk to.

We, the people here who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and mainstream science in general, agree that valid scientific theories are falsifiable. AGW could be falsified.

Scientific theories are supported by supporting evidence and may be falsified by evidence that falsifies some fundamental element of a theory.

A consensus among scientists expert in a field under question does have value and does define what is and is not considered accepted science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences so consensus is all you've got. The reason we all believe Newton and then Einstein accurately described gravity is because a consensus of scientists accepted their work.

Heat does not flow uphill, Crick... It only flows from hot to cold. The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence, Crick. It only makes use of conflicting evidence. That's explained by the "white swan" example... No matter how many white swans you see, that doesn't further legitimize, sanctify, bless, nor make holy the theory that "all swans are white". No amount of 'methods' nor 'consensus' nor 'peer review' nor 'holy incantations' can make it so... It simply means that the theory hasn't been falsified as of yet. Once someone sees a black swan, for example, the theory is falsified. Conflicting evidence is what falsified it.

Science does not make use of consensus, Crick... A consensus by an elite voting bloc of "scientists" does not bless any theory and elevate it to some special level worthy of worship. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is, Crick... Consensus is used in religion and politics; it is NOT used in science. Science is NOT religion, nor is it politics.

 

[Wuwei]

Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...

I am curious. What is it in statistical mechanics that demands 200 million thermometers as a requirement for a ±10 degree margin? You have very specific numbers. I would like to see where these numbers come from using statistical mechanics.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

Yes, I am finding that. These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is. The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion. An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...

Wow, where to start.

No one is claiming that a cold object will make a warm object warmer. What we are claiming in response to the insane intepretations of one poster SSDD, is that all matter radiates in all directions at all times. The intensity and spectrum of that radiation is determined by the temperature of the radiating matter. It is NOT affected by the temperature of anything around it.

Billy Bob, apparently out of perceived friendship, has been trying to defend SSDD's position which claims that photons from cold matter WILL NOT RADIATE towards warmer matter. That is, he believes that either all matter or all photons are somehow aware of the temperature of distant matter that they might hit and control is somehow exerted that prevents photons from taking off towards warmer matter. This would have to include very distant matter, where relativity would become a large factor (it is actually a factor at all distances but that discussion can wait). It would also have to include moving matter. For example a photon could be emitted from a block of ice in front of you that, if unchecked, would travel through the window in your back door slider where its course would be slightly altered sending it out into space where, in ten thousand years, afte traversing the distorting gravity fields of three different black holes it will strike a small rocky object orbiting close to a distant star at very high velocity in a direction orthogonal to its path, at a particular spot being heated by a small kernel of radioactive material to a temperature one ten-thousandth of one Centigrade degree above the temperature of the emitting ice cube back in your kitchen ten thousand years ago. But, according to SSDD and Billy Bob, that photon WOULD be checked, because the ice cube or the photon would somehow know all of this in advance and would somehow stop or be stopped from wasting its time making the trip. So, this is the internet. Be careful who you talk to.

We, the people here who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and mainstream science in general, agree that valid scientific theories are falsifiable. AGW could be falsified.

Scientific theories are supported by supporting evidence and may be falsified by evidence that falsifies some fundamental element of a theory.

A consensus among scientists expert in a field under question does have value and does define what is and is not considered accepted science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences so consensus is all you've got. The reason we all believe Newton and then Einstein accurately described gravity is because a consensus of scientists accepted their work.

Heat does not flow uphill, Crick... It only flows from hot to cold. The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence, Crick. It only makes use of conflicting evidence. That's explained by the "white swan" example... No matter how many white swans you see, that doesn't further legitimize, sanctify, bless, nor make holy the theory that "all swans are white". No amount of 'methods' nor 'consensus' nor 'peer review' nor 'holy incantations' can make it so... It simply means that the theory hasn't been falsified as of yet. Once someone sees a black swan, for example, the theory is falsified. Conflicting evidence is what falsified it.

Science does not make use of consensus, Crick... A consensus by an elite voting bloc of "scientists" does not bless any theory and elevate it to some special level worthy of worship. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is, Crick... Consensus is used in religion and politics; it is NOT used in science. Science is NOT religion, nor is it politics.

The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

What about photons?
Are IR photons from the atmosphere allowed to move toward the surface?

 

[gfm7175]

Planck's Law states that lower frequency light is lower energy. That means that the atmosphere (lower energy) cannot heat the surface (higher energy).

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

Yes, I am finding that. These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is. The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion. An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...

Wow, where to start.

No one is claiming that a cold object will make a warm object warmer. What we are claiming in response to the insane intepretations of one poster SSDD, is that all matter radiates in all directions at all times. The intensity and spectrum of that radiation is determined by the temperature of the radiating matter. It is NOT affected by the temperature of anything around it.

Billy Bob, apparently out of perceived friendship, has been trying to defend SSDD's position which claims that photons from cold matter WILL NOT RADIATE towards warmer matter. That is, he believes that either all matter or all photons are somehow aware of the temperature of distant matter that they might hit and control is somehow exerted that prevents photons from taking off towards warmer matter. This would have to include very distant matter, where relativity would become a large factor (it is actually a factor at all distances but that discussion can wait). It would also have to include moving matter. For example a photon could be emitted from a block of ice in front of you that, if unchecked, would travel through the window in your back door slider where its course would be slightly altered sending it out into space where, in ten thousand years, afte traversing the distorting gravity fields of three different black holes it will strike a small rocky object orbiting close to a distant star at very high velocity in a direction orthogonal to its path, at a particular spot being heated by a small kernel of radioactive material to a temperature one ten-thousandth of one Centigrade degree above the temperature of the emitting ice cube back in your kitchen ten thousand years ago. But, according to SSDD and Billy Bob, that photon WOULD be checked, because the ice cube or the photon would somehow know all of this in advance and would somehow stop or be stopped from wasting its time making the trip. So, this is the internet. Be careful who you talk to.

We, the people here who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and mainstream science in general, agree that valid scientific theories are falsifiable. AGW could be falsified.

Scientific theories are supported by supporting evidence and may be falsified by evidence that falsifies some fundamental element of a theory.

A consensus among scientists expert in a field under question does have value and does define what is and is not considered accepted science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences so consensus is all you've got. The reason we all believe Newton and then Einstein accurately described gravity is because a consensus of scientists accepted their work.

Heat does not flow uphill, Crick... It only flows from hot to cold. The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence, Crick. It only makes use of conflicting evidence. That's explained by the "white swan" example... No matter how many white swans you see, that doesn't further legitimize, sanctify, bless, nor make holy the theory that "all swans are white". No amount of 'methods' nor 'consensus' nor 'peer review' nor 'holy incantations' can make it so... It simply means that the theory hasn't been falsified as of yet. Once someone sees a black swan, for example, the theory is falsified. Conflicting evidence is what falsified it.

Science does not make use of consensus, Crick... A consensus by an elite voting bloc of "scientists" does not bless any theory and elevate it to some special level worthy of worship. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is, Crick... Consensus is used in religion and politics; it is NOT used in science. Science is NOT religion, nor is it politics.

The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

What about photons?
Are IR photons from the atmosphere allowed to move toward the surface?

Nope. That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape) while increasing temperature, in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface... The sun heats the surface, NOT CO2 molecules...

 

[gfm7175]

Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...

I am curious. What is it in statistical mechanics that demands 200 million thermometers as a requirement for a ±10 degree margin? You have very specific numbers. I would like to see where these numbers come from using statistical mechanics.
.

The surface area of Earth is about 197 million sq miles... Placing 7,500 thermometers (per NASA) across the Earth (uniformly spaced) would amount to one thermometer for an area slightly larger than the size of West Virginia (~26,000 sq miles). Can all of West Virginia be accurately measured using only one thermometer placed in the center of it, given that temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE?? That's your problem right there... 200 million thermometers would at least allow you to have the thermometers covering an area of approx 1 sq mile, which (given the declared variance) would result in a margin of error of +-10 deg F...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thank you!

I've been trying, with no success, to explain how lower energy photons have no ability to warm a warmer object. Very few here have the competences or skill to understand the very basic principals of energy.

You will find the group here loves science by circular logic.

Yes, I am finding that. These types of people try to make science into religion. It is not.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (theories meaning 'explanatory arguments'). That's all science is. The theories of Thermodynamics, for example, are theories of science. They have yet to be falsified. IF they DO become falsified one day, then they will no longer be theories of science. Those theories would then be completely and utterly destroyed.

Religion, on the other hand, is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in and of itself, but it DOES become fallacious the moment one attempts to prove it. That is otherwise known as 'fundamentalism' or 'being a fundamentalist' of a particular religion. An example of a religion is Christianity. The 'initial circular argument' of Christianity is that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity stem from this initial circular argument.

These types of people don't know how to differentiate the two... They don't know that it is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence, NOT Science. [Science, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence]. They don't know that it is RELIGION (and politics) which make use of consensus, NOT science...

Wow, where to start.

No one is claiming that a cold object will make a warm object warmer. What we are claiming in response to the insane intepretations of one poster SSDD, is that all matter radiates in all directions at all times. The intensity and spectrum of that radiation is determined by the temperature of the radiating matter. It is NOT affected by the temperature of anything around it.

Billy Bob, apparently out of perceived friendship, has been trying to defend SSDD's position which claims that photons from cold matter WILL NOT RADIATE towards warmer matter. That is, he believes that either all matter or all photons are somehow aware of the temperature of distant matter that they might hit and control is somehow exerted that prevents photons from taking off towards warmer matter. This would have to include very distant matter, where relativity would become a large factor (it is actually a factor at all distances but that discussion can wait). It would also have to include moving matter. For example a photon could be emitted from a block of ice in front of you that, if unchecked, would travel through the window in your back door slider where its course would be slightly altered sending it out into space where, in ten thousand years, afte traversing the distorting gravity fields of three different black holes it will strike a small rocky object orbiting close to a distant star at very high velocity in a direction orthogonal to its path, at a particular spot being heated by a small kernel of radioactive material to a temperature one ten-thousandth of one Centigrade degree above the temperature of the emitting ice cube back in your kitchen ten thousand years ago. But, according to SSDD and Billy Bob, that photon WOULD be checked, because the ice cube or the photon would somehow know all of this in advance and would somehow stop or be stopped from wasting its time making the trip. So, this is the internet. Be careful who you talk to.

We, the people here who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and mainstream science in general, agree that valid scientific theories are falsifiable. AGW could be falsified.

Scientific theories are supported by supporting evidence and may be falsified by evidence that falsifies some fundamental element of a theory.

A consensus among scientists expert in a field under question does have value and does define what is and is not considered accepted science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences so consensus is all you've got. The reason we all believe Newton and then Einstein accurately described gravity is because a consensus of scientists accepted their work.

Heat does not flow uphill, Crick... It only flows from hot to cold. The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence, Crick. It only makes use of conflicting evidence. That's explained by the "white swan" example... No matter how many white swans you see, that doesn't further legitimize, sanctify, bless, nor make holy the theory that "all swans are white". No amount of 'methods' nor 'consensus' nor 'peer review' nor 'holy incantations' can make it so... It simply means that the theory hasn't been falsified as of yet. Once someone sees a black swan, for example, the theory is falsified. Conflicting evidence is what falsified it.

Science does not make use of consensus, Crick... A consensus by an elite voting bloc of "scientists" does not bless any theory and elevate it to some special level worthy of worship. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is, Crick... Consensus is used in religion and politics; it is NOT used in science. Science is NOT religion, nor is it politics.

The colder atmosphere can NOT heat the warmer surface. Heat does not flow that way. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

What about photons?
Are IR photons from the atmosphere allowed to move toward the surface?

Nope. That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... It is also attempting to decrease radiance (by not letting the photon escape) while increasing temperature, in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface... The sun heats the surface, NOT CO2 molecules...

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

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

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

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

in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

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

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.

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

 

[gfm7175]

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

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

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

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

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

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

in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

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

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

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.

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

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

 

[Wuwei]

Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...

I am curious. What is it in statistical mechanics that demands 200 million thermometers as a requirement for a ±10 degree margin? You have very specific numbers. I would like to see where these numbers come from using statistical mechanics.
.

The surface area of Earth is about 197 million sq miles... Placing 7,500 thermometers (per NASA) across the Earth (uniformly spaced) would amount to one thermometer for an area slightly larger than the size of West Virginia (~26,000 sq miles). Can all of West Virginia be accurately measured using only one thermometer placed in the center of it, given that temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE?? That's your problem right there... 200 million thermometers would at least allow you to have the thermometers covering an area of approx 1 sq mile, which (given the declared variance) would result in a margin of error of +-10 deg F...

You don't seem to know what the Central Limit Theorem is.

Here is the deal with the limited distribution of measurements, you are right, we cannot measure the exact average temperature of the air. Even if we had complete coverage of thermometers, they only measure the surface temperature with a few short term altitude exceptions like in radiosondes, etc. So winds, updrafts, etc will give a large variance in readings anyway.

The use of thermometers in global climate change is just that - change. We can with a reasonable accuracy measure change from one year to the next with thousands of daily readings over the whole planet. Someone here mentioned temperature "anomalies". You probably didn't understand what that meant. That is perhaps a poor name, but it is measuring change from a reference value.

Long term change is measured by a regression analysis. For a linear analysis we can measure a slope, but not the zero intercept because of the dearth, inaccuracy and placement of thermometers. However the zero intercept is not important when the long term interest is more in slope rather than absolutely known value of daily temperature.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

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

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

Colder CO2 molecules can NOT heat the warmer surface.

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

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

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

Where does it mention photons?

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

Nothing in the 2nd Law prohibits that.

CO2 cannot heat the surface.

Who said it could?

The surface is hotter (it has more energy).

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

Yes, it does.

You're lying. Or ignorant.

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

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

YOU are saying that they can..

Where?

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

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

 

[gfm7175]

You don't seem to know what the Central Limit Theorem is.

Here is the deal with the limited distribution of measurements, you are right, we cannot measure the exact average temperature of the air. Even if we had complete coverage of thermometers, they only measure the surface temperature with a few short term altitude exceptions like in radiosondes, etc. So winds, updrafts, etc will give a large variance in readings anyway.

Yup, that's essentially the problem. We can't accurately measure a global temperature for a plethora of reasons.

The use of thermometers in global climate change is just that - change.

"Global climate change" is a meaningless term. It has only ever been circularly defined. What IS "global climate change"... There is no such thing as a "global climate"... The Earth does not have a climate. Climate is typically defined as "weather in an area over a long period of time". How can 'in an area' be "global", especially when there is always all kinds of weather variation across the globe at any given point in time? Is the Earth's climate hot and dry? Is it cold and wet? Is it humid? Climate can only be discussed on a very localized scale; it can't be discussed on a global scale.

We can with a reasonable accuracy measure change from one year to the next with thousands of daily readings over the whole planet.

No, we can't. While we can measure temperature at specific locations where there are weather stations, we can't use those measurements towards determining a 'global temperature' (due to the unaddressed location and time biases). Also, variances are far too great (20deg F per MILE, 49 deg F per TWO MINUTES). To have any semblance of accuracy, temperatures must be simultaneously read by the same observer to avoid time bias, and the thermometers must be uniformly spaced to avoid location bias.

We can measure temperature and temperature changes/patterns at specific locations, but NOT for the Earth as a whole. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.

Someone here mentioned temperature "anomalies". You probably didn't understand what that meant. That is perhaps a poor name, but it is measuring change from a reference value.

What "reference value" are you using? How did you determine that value?

 

[Wuwei]

"Global climate change" is a meaningless term. It has only ever been circularly defined. What IS "global climate change"

Why don't you Google: What IS "global climate change"

We can measure temperature and temperature changes/patterns at specific locations, but NOT for the Earth as a whole. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.

As far as the statistical mathematics needed, more specifically it is Sample Theory that should be used. We have to make do with what is available, not what is ideal. There are statistical tests to measure how the sample size and distribution of samples affects final results. The full sample can be divided into subsamples that cover the sample space and compared against each other. For example use half the samples evenly distributed, and recompute the linear regression of temperature vs time (over the valid number of years). Then use the other half and do the same thing. This can be repeated with different partial distributions and compared to get a confidence level of the average global temperature.

What "reference value" are you using? How did you determine that value?

There are various ways to do that. In the end it really doesn't matter. When you are interested in the slope, changing the vertical offset will not change the slope. In climate change, it is the slope that is of interest.







.

 

[gfm7175]

"Global climate change" is a meaningless term. It has only ever been circularly defined. What IS "global climate change"

Why don't you Google: What IS "global climate change"

We can measure temperature and temperature changes/patterns at specific locations, but NOT for the Earth as a whole. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.

As far as the statistical mathematics needed, more specifically it is Sample Theory that should be used. We have to make do with what is available, not what is ideal. There are statistical tests to measure how the sample size and distribution of samples affects final results. The full sample can be divided into subsamples that cover the sample space and compared against each other. For example use half the samples evenly distributed, and recompute the linear regression of temperature vs time (over the valid number of years). Then use the other half and do the same thing. This can be repeated with different partial distributions and compared to get a confidence level of the average global temperature.

What "reference value" are you using? How did you determine that value?

There are various ways to do that. In the end it really doesn't matter. When you are interested in the slope, changing the vertical offset will not change the slope. In climate change, it is the slope that is of interest.

.

Stopped reading after "google it"... "Google it" is NOT an argument...

You keep talking about "climate change", yet you haven't defined that terminology yet... What is the definition that you are operating under?

Also noticed "we have to make due with what is available..."... That's not good enough in terms of accuracy... If you want any sort of an accurate global temperature, you NEED to have thermometers uniformly spaced, you NEED to have them simultaneously read by the same observer, and given the 20deg F per MILE variance, you NEED to have about 200 million of them to yield a result that would have even a halfway reasonable margin of error...

 

[sparky]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

How do we know we're not?

~S~

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Insult Fallacy. Like I said, given the declared possible temperature variances, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers to get the margin of error down to +- 10deg F... 7,500 thermometers is MUCH less than 200 million, and the 7,500 we do have aren't even uniformly spaced nor read simultaneously by the same observer...

I am curious. What is it in statistical mechanics that demands 200 million thermometers as a requirement for a ±10 degree margin? You have very specific numbers. I would like to see where these numbers come from using statistical mechanics.
.

The surface area of Earth is about 197 million sq miles... Placing 7,500 thermometers (per NASA) across the Earth (uniformly spaced) would amount to one thermometer for an area slightly larger than the size of West Virginia (~26,000 sq miles). Can all of West Virginia be accurately measured using only one thermometer placed in the center of it, given that temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE?? That's your problem right there... 200 million thermometers would at least allow you to have the thermometers covering an area of approx 1 sq mile, which (given the declared variance) would result in a margin of error of +-10 deg F...

You don't seem to know what the Central Limit Theorem is.

Here is the deal with the limited distribution of measurements, you are right, we cannot measure the exact average temperature of the air. Even if we had complete coverage of thermometers, they only measure the surface temperature with a few short term altitude exceptions like in radiosondes, etc. So winds, updrafts, etc will give a large variance in readings anyway.

The use of thermometers in global climate change is just that - change. We can with a reasonable accuracy measure change from one year to the next with thousands of daily readings over the whole planet. Someone here mentioned temperature "anomalies". You probably didn't understand what that meant. That is perhaps a poor name, but it is measuring change from a reference value.

Long term change is measured by a regression analysis. For a linear analysis we can measure a slope, but not the zero intercept because of the dearth, inaccuracy and placement of thermometers. However the zero intercept is not important when the long term interest is more in slope rather than absolutely known value of daily temperature.


.

....and when that doesn't work, you can always add in the heat trapped - like a rat - 2,000 meters deep in the oceans!

 

[sparky]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

How do we know we're not?

~S~

ah, it's all a joke now.....i see...~S~

 

[abu afak]

How do we know we're not?
~S~

ah, it's all a joke now.....i see...~S~

You have ZERO to say in this and most other sections you One-Line Clown.
Get lost asshole.

`

 

[Wuwei]

Stopped reading after "google it"... "Google it" is NOT an argument...

You keep talking about "climate change", yet you haven't defined that terminology yet... What is the definition that you are operating under?

Also noticed "we have to make due with what is available..."... That's not good enough in terms of accuracy... If you want any sort of an accurate global temperature, you NEED to have thermometers uniformly spaced, you NEED to have them simultaneously read by the same observer, and given the 20deg F per MILE variance, you NEED to have about 200 million of them to yield a result that would have even a halfway reasonable margin of error...

You asked what is climate change. I wasn't trying to be factious in saying Google it. There are lots of places with explanations. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

You seem to be a bit of a novice in statistics.. I tried to give you some facets of how Sample Theory might be applied. If you don't like it nor understand it, so be it.


.

 

[gfm7175]

You asked what is climate change. I wasn't trying to be factious in saying Google it. There are lots of places with explanations. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

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

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

You seem to be a bit of a novice in statistics.. I tried to give you some facets of how Sample Theory might be applied. If you don't like it nor understand it, so be it.

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

 

[Crick]

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