In SCIENCE, we use a thing called "measurement" to prove things. Understand? I don't think you know anything about hard sciences. You use the idea of probabilities in systems of science that are "soft". Like psychology. See, if you're trying to figure out if someone is crazy, you can't "measure" it. See, you can't stick a needle in someone's head and pull out some of the gew inside and say, "Look, this person has 15mL of serial killer." But if you take a HARD science like physics. I can "MEASURE" gravity. If I'm driving down the street, there isn't a "probability" of my speed, there is measure of my speed. Prove it. Tell me all about the research you put into this. Have you taken university heat transfer class? I had to take all sort of these classes, since I'm an engineer, and this idea that CO2 can "retain" heat makes me laugh. Tell me all the research you put into this. lol. You do realize that venus is close to the sun. What are you going to tell me next? Pluto is cold because it has no CO2 in the atmosphere. lol. I don't feel like reading through the rest of your crap, the point still falls here. You have to prove this point true, before you can talk about anything else.
Yes, They do. because to refute human caused climate change they would have to refute the claims that Co2 absorbs long wave radiation easier than shortwave radiation and they would have to refute the claim that humans have increased atmospheric Co2 since industrialisation. Two claims they, Like you, Can't refute. It's also worth being suspicious of any list that claims to be of "scientists". If you look at the "qualifications of signers" page you will see that a lot of the "scientists" qualifications aren't related to the field of environmental science. Most have medical, engineering or agricultural degrees. which make their opinion on climate no more authoritative than mine. It's simply no good to claim "dem der be edumacated folks" and use that as an appeal to authority, because they aren't even an authority (unless you want to know how to build a building, grow a carrot or pull and ingrowing toenail).
ahahhahahaha ahahahahahahahahhaha hahahahahahahahahha A new theory. Everyone. This is what I'm talking about. How the hell is there a consensus on science when there isn't even a consensus on theory? stox, you do realize that long wave radiation is absorbed entirely by the atmosphere no matter how much CO2 is in it, right.
No we don't. We use measurements to gather data and we use the data as evidence. "proof" only exists in mathematics. Understand? What are you talking about? what are you talking about? Again. Proof only exists in mathematics. I have given you my evidence and reasons for concluding that humans cause climate change and you have failed to even attempt a refutation and instead decided to rant about measuring serial killers and driving a car. You don't think gasses can retain heat? Did you really just say that? How do you think heaters work? How do duvets work? gasses retain heat. They are insulators. Some gasses retain heat better than others, Co2 is particularly good at retaining heat when the heat is in the form of long-wave radiation. And you do realize that Mercury is even closer to the sun and it has a surface temperature which drops to -400F because it has no atmosphere? The atmosphere is immensely responsible for the temperature of a planet. Not a fan of reading are you.... it shows. Ignorant ranting and ill informed opinions are more your "cup o' tea".
No. I don't. If I measure gravity and 9.8m/s, what does math have to do with anything. If you want to prove global warming, you do a test on heat transfer through CO2. Simple, easy, and a MEASUREMENT. Why scientists MEASURE things. Why we measure things. How? You haven't given proof. You "speculated". I never said that. CO2 doesn't block heat like a "greenhouse gas". But that is going by the theory presented by Al Gore. Which you don't seem to follow. Yes I'm aware. Is it proof? No. When you get back to posting proof, I'll be waiting. I noticed you didn't quote my "prove it" quote.
You do realise that this is complete bullshit and something you have just fabricated, right? Different ,materials, atoms and molecules retain, absorb and radiate heat at different rates. Generally the heavier the element the better it retains heat, Or more specifically the heavier it's atomic weight the easier it is for it to store heat in the form of kinetic energy. Seriously, Are you ignorant in every facet of your argument? it's bad enough that i have to spell out my own argument in the vain hope that you will understand it, But when i have to spell out your own argument back to you just so you may finally understand that you are utterly wrong and know nothing about climate change, it's kinda sad.
Global Warming exist, but what is causing it? People blame humans, but lately there are news about science saying that we are a little part of the cause of global warming. I think its just something that nature do, it comes and it goes.
I don't feel like having a big long discussion, which seems to be more of a difference in definitions of things instead of the issue. Al Gore says that the sun shines on the Earth. These rays of sun go into the ocean and heat it up. Hot air comes off the ocean surface and rises into the air. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "trap" the heat inside. I'm not sure why we need "mathematical" formulas for proof when measurement is proof. But if you want to we can just concede y(x) = k * C * T (assuming it is linear) Y = temperature of man made heat K = will universal constant C = Carbon Dioxide T = Normal temperature. You can derive the mathematical formula from the measurements. I don't care what you do. Stox claims that heating is caused by long wave radiation being absorbed by greenhouse gases. Al Gore claims there is a consensus on the science, even though we have two different theories on what is happening, which means there are two different sciences. Me, unlike Stox, had to actually take a lot of wave courses in university. His theory can be debunked with one word; ionosphere. All long wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. It's been a fact for the entire existence of the Earth. It is impossible for a long waves to escape the atmosphere, like a short waves can. As you can tell stox hasn't put more than 15 seconds worth of thought into it. So now that this has been debunked, I'm sure stox will have another "theory" on what is happening, with another set of "science" to go with it. Which just shows that stox has no intention of knowing the truth, he just wants it to be true. I don't really care what you think constitutes proof; measurements or formulas. I think measurements are good enough and if you have a formula, you must have measurements. When I ask for proof, I'm not looking for "it's true." That really isn't proof. Proof would be the study that did an experiment on heat transfer through CO2. Right? I think we can all agree on that. Without that studies to back it up, it's all speculation. I don't expect you to answer this directly because, unlike you, I've actually looked. The IPCC reports have nothing and so do you.
Because 9.8 m/s isn't proof of anything. it's data that can be used as evidence of something. it's been done. read up on specific heat capacities. Because proof is a mathematical concept. it's a word used in mathematics. No other science is capable of "proof". I haven't given proof because proof can't exist in this field of science. What i have done is present data and drawn conclusions from the data which you have failed pitifully to refute. This is how it works. I don't know what al gore said. he may have been wrong, He isn't an environmental scientist. Proof can't exist in this field of science. are you resting entirely on your astonishing capacity to be dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward now then? You said that the reason Venus was hotter than earth was NOT because of it's enormous atmospheric Co2 content, But because it's closer to the sun. A claim that fell flat on it's face when i showed you that Mercury is even closer to the sun than Venus and it's temperature is -400F Does that not suggest in an absolutely compelling way that distance to the sun has little influence on a planets temperature and atmospheric content has a huge influence? - I must press for an answer to this. In this field of science people make measurements and gather data, Then they form a theory to explain the measurements and data and any relationship found in the data, Then someone else refutes it. the only thing missing from this exchange is your refutation, It seems to have been replaced with ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. I'm wondering how long it will take you to grasp the fact that "proof" is a mathematical concept.
I can't argue with people that hold up the anti-knowledge ideology. All other heat transfer can be measured and "proven", yet this can't be. Hmmmm. Okay, whatever. It's unprovable, but you proven it true, even though it can't be proven and you believe it true, even though there is no proof. Okay, got ya.
It can be measured. But that measurement can only produce data to be used as evidence. NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING I haven't proven it. I have produced a compelling case using factual data which you have failed to refute, And any attempt at a refutation was exposed as dishonest and based on untrue claims. This is how it works.
stOx, I'm not sure if you've ever written a scientific peer-reviewed article, though I suspect you haven't. Let me explain something to you: You're wrong*. Have a nice day. *I don't have to prove anything because proof is purely mathematical and despite physics being applied mathematics, it and nothing can (apparently) be proven. EDIT: Thank you, ThraXed for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. In fact, you from detracting from a perfectly rational argument with nothing more than "roflolzorcopteromgbbqnowai"
Fine, show me the "evidence". You correlated data. Your theory on long wave radiation is a joke. Debunked by simple physics that has been used by simple AM radio stations since their birth. Do you understand that it's hard to disprove the existence of the non-existent?? You're putting me in the same position of disproving God. You haven't proved he existed, but I'm left with the burden of disproving your "correlated" logic. Thank you. At least someone gets this guys tactic is the "agnostic", anti-knowledge point of view.
It is a logical fallacy. I see it used around here all of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Supper im willing to answer your questions and respond to your points, But first i must ask you to reply to the part i bolded in my post before last. I'm not asking him to "prove" a negative. I'm asking him to refute what i am saying, refute my reasoning and to refute my statistical data. If he is unwilling or unable to do so he should stop posting.
I'm not sure if your statistical data is in question. What is in question is the conclusion you draw from that data. For example, I have a dataset, 5 out of every 100 people buy red sweaters. My conclusion is, people like blue sweaters. Hence the logical fallacy, of trying to disprove something which is not provable by the data available.