Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate. It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred. You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.
We might start with some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 causes X change....we might start by some actual repeatable laboratory experimentation...we might start with something other than an unsupported assumption.
Laughable. That is not at all what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says.
Of course it is... This is what the second law says according to the physics department at Georgia State University...if you have a problem with the wording...take it up with them.
It is not possible for
heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any
work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low
temperature object to a higher temperature object.
So, all you need to know about the A in AGW is increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to our fossil fuel addiction.
So what...where is the observed, measured, quantified evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect on the climate....at this point it is an assumption....nothing more and the models based on that assumption are failing miserably.
All the rest is established physics, most notably the greenhouse effect, which alters the earth's atmosphere's heat trapping properties, and thus the earth's energy balance.
Really?...then why, I wonder does the greenhouse hypothesis not even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....hell...it even failed at predicting the temperature of the moon... Quantify the greenhouse effect without a fudge factor...quantify how much a specific increase in CO2 will increase the temperature....go ahead...mr "i understand science"...lets see your figures.
That is because of increased back radiation, which means the earth loses less energy to space than it did during pre-industrial times. But you would not know and also not understand that - you probably guessed by now - because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.
And yet, back radiation can not be measured at ambient temperature even though it is supposed to be double the amount of energy coming in from the sun even though there is no problem measuring the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature.
On a last note, your unjustifiably over-confident bluster doesn't compensate for your ignorance. Just so you know.
I am asking for information that any competent field of science could produce in abundance, in a flash...you continue to not produce....I am afraid that it is you who is expressing profound ignorance in stating your beliefs.
